1 Jules F. Levin, The Slavic Element in the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.) 2 I, not Levin, coined the term "Slavo-Prussian protolanguage." 3 I make this point in my article, "Two Linguistic Myths: Blato-Slavic and Common Baltic," Lituanus, 27 (1981), 64-65. 4 For the sake of argument we allow ourselves here to interpret all evidence to mean that from Indo- European Slavic and Prussian emerged with long versus short i/i, u/u, e/e, a/a. These long versus short a/a equaled, respectively, long versus short a/a and long versus short o/o in other Indo- European languages. 5 For Example, the same root ending in -k followed by different suffixes, -s- in Slavic, -r- in Iranian, would both have x, but from different sources: *rek-s- would (and does) become rex- in Slavic while *rek-r-would become *raxr- in Iranian. 6 Harvey E. Mayer, "Baltic Membership in the West Satem Subgroup," Journal of Baltic Studies, 11 (1980), 357. 7 I prefer to view k', g', g'h, transitional stage from Proto-Indo-European k, g, gh, as having originated in dialects of later Common Indo-European rather than much later in the daughter languages since the common tendency to develop these palatals, despite later differences in reflexes, was so wide-spread in Indo-European. Also, no daughter language has kept old k', g', g'h. 8 Mayer, "Baltic Membership . . .," 357. 9 This assimilation essentially involved consonants. Thus, i was an allophone of y while u was an allophone of w with gravity, that it, peripheries of the oral cavity, as the common denominator of u and w. So diffuse s assimilated to compact i/y, u/w, r (velar), k. 10 Mayer, "Baltic Membership . . . ," 357. 11 Ruki law š plus originally long e becomes ša in Slavic. 12 The sequence š in Slavic can also be traced to s plus j as in Russian naš 'our'/nas 'us' where s is original and in bróšu 'I throw'/brósit' 'to throw' where s is a Slavic reflex of Indo-European palatal k'. 13 There are two arguments supporting my contention that the reflexes of the ruki law and the Indo- European palatals k', g', g'h fell together early in Prussian, Latvian, and Lithuanian while they did not in Slavic, Iranian, Indic, Armenian, and Albanian. I. After the dissolution of Common Indo-European, no Indo-European dialect has ever been recorded as having had and then lost entirely a special, exclusive ruki law feature, nor is any Indo- European language recorded with some dialects having a special, exclusive ruki law feature. Thus, uniform minus-special-ruki law results in the dialects of Prussian, Latvian, and Lithuanian and uniform plus-special-ruki law results in the dialects of Slavic, Iranian, Indic, and Armenian coupled with special reflexes of the Indo-European palatals k', g', g'h in Albanian support my theory of the early convergence of reflexes in Prussian, Latvian, and Lithuanian. See Mayer, "Can the Baltic Languages be Divided by the Reflexes of Indo-European k', g', g'h?" Journal of Baltic Studies, 16 (1985), 83-85. II. In Indo-European word-initial tk'-, dg'-, dg'h-, k't-, g'd-, g'hd-, did not seem to exist. But word- initial st- was common. So was word-initial ks-. Yet, mysteriously, word-initial st- was common. So was word-initial ks-. Yet, mysteriously, word-initial ks- or kš- does not exist in Prussian, Latvian, and Lithuanian. Pre-Prussian, Pre-Latvian, and Pre-Lithuanian dialects of Indo-European the merger of palatals k', g'(g'h) with ruki law reflexes was evidently in progress. Since there was to be no compact reflex š, ž etc. from k', g'(g'h) plus ž, d or any other stop in word-initial clusters, any same-sounding one seemed out of place there, be it even from the ruki law, since only diffuse s plus stop, like st-, seemed proper initially. One way to eliminate an initial ruki law compact reflex in this position permanently was to eliminate it environment through metathesis. Hence the replacement of Indo-European initial cluster ks-by sk- in Prussian, Latvian, and Lithuanian so that we get only items in Lithuanians like skaudù 'painful' to match Slavic xudo 'poor' and Sanskrit ksudráh 'small, few, low', ksodiyan (comparative) rather than *ksaudù, *kšaudù, or even *škaudù. Thus, the ruki law condition with k, most typical in word-non-initial position, was eliminated by metathesis very early in word-initial position and its reflex was also eliminated, that is, replaced by diffuse s-. Further, fluctuations between k and š (vaškas 'wax' from *wosk'os/ašis 'axis' from *ak'sis) and š and s (vaškas from *wosk'os/skaudù from *kšoudu) were parallel and contemporary since Pre- Lithuanian. The formula was: in clusters without palatals k remained constant while s fluctuated; in clusters with palatals s became š permanently while k' fluctuated. Thence, pilkšvas 'grayish'/skaudù from *kšoudu with š/s (both, at one time, from k'). (the Slavic formula was somewhat intermediate between the Lithuanian and Iranian ones. Like Lithuanian, Slavic with osi from *ak'sis emerged with a prevailing k' reflex in ruki law contexts, assuming that Lithuanian š here is the reflex of k, not ruki law s, which is also possible. But like Iranian, where ruki law reflexes predominate, it kept ruki law reflexes constant in clusters with k, that is, without palatals. Thus Slavic xud- from *kšoud- 'poor' like Avestan šoithrem with Sanskrit ksetram 'country' from *kšoitr- versus Lithuanian skaudù 'painful.') The permanence of k in its ruki law contexts helped mark it for morphological marking or "fortifying" purposes. The choice in changing k to either k or š was made initially in the Pre-Lithuanian dialect of Indo-European (when k' still existed) and was parallel to the assimilative change of s to š before a palatal k'. The merger of the k' reflex with that of ruki law š is seen most clearly in ašis. This alone places the merger's beginning in Indo-European. Thus, Lithuanian š has three sources: Indo-European k', ruki law s (progressive assimilation including k'), s followed by Indo-European palatal k' (regressive assimilation involving k'). The merger of ruki law š with š from palatal k' is as old as the change of k' to š or k as in ašis or vaškas. Then, š from k', k'š (ruki law), šk' Were all pronounced alike. 14 In Prussian and Latvian, which along with Lithuanian, are the only Indo-European languages with the demonstrable total merger of the reflexes of the ruki law and the Indo-European palatals k', g', g'h, and also the only Indo-European languages with morphological marking "fortifying" -k-, -g-, the reflexes of the ruki law and the Indo-European palatals k, g, gh could have first fallen together to š, ž as in Lithuanian, or to other sequences like s, z as in Indie, s, ž as in Polish, s', z' as in Russian, or th, dh. 15 Since "fortifying" -k-, -g- occur only in word-non-initial position, the commonest ruki law environment, I assume it developed first in ruki law contexts. Before consonants, in imitation of these processes, Lithuanian, Latvian, and maybe Prussian regularly metathesized the clusters šk/sk, žg/zg to kš/ks, gž/gz as in Lithuanian plaštakà 'flat of the hand, palm' (with no k); Latvian plaskains 'flat'/Lithuanian plókščias (from *plaš-k-tias) where -k- here, not by accident, resembles a "fortifying" one. Christian S. Stang in his Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprache (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1966), 110-111, in fact, suggests this metathesis as a possible source of "fortifying" -k-, -g- in general. I believe the opposite happened, that "fortifying" -k-, -g- motivated these metatheses which occurred as a sort of analogy in sympathy with insertions of velars at first in contexts similar to raksts 'writing'/rasts 'found' (Latvian). 16 Lazda without -g- also occurs in Latvian. All Examples in these lists are from Stang, 108-110. 17 Mayer, "Baltic Membership . . . ", 359. 18 I coined the term "West Satem" in my "Baltic Membership ..." article. 19 Early Common Slavic started with only two palatal sequences, j, that is, y (an allophone of i) and ruki law reflex š beyond possible s', z' from Indo-European k', g', (g'h) which depalatalized before the changes j+o to j + e, etc. (Note suto 'hundred', *zolto 'gold' with s from k and z from g'h). The ruki law reflex remained š everywhere before vowels as long as all palatal sequences appeared before back vowels. Once the combinations j plus o or u of any length/and in a previous article, "Kann das Baltische als Muster für das Slavische gelten?" Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 39 (1976), 32-42, I demonstrate that in Early Common Slavic short a, o had fallen together to short o before long a, o had failed together to long a/ started becoming j plus e or i of any length (assimilation class one, a progressive one like the older dialectal Indo-European ruki law, with vowels assimilating to the preceding palatal sequence), it was clear that the same would happen with ruki law š plus o and u of any length. This, along with the first palatalization of the velars (k, g plus front vowel to č, ž plus front vowel), was part of a general tendency to reduce distinctive feature oppositions in syllables and was apparently being matched simultaneously by a change with a similar aim, that of reducing consonant clusters, so that s plus j and s (or then, perhaps, still s') from Indo-European palatal k' plus j, and ruki law š plus j were all tending to simplify to š. To maintain a special ruki law feature at least somewhere while these changes were starting, or still in progress, the Slavs changed ruki law š to x in the only remaining favorable, phonetically neutral environment, that is before back vowels (assimilation class two, a regressive on, more typical of Slavic, this time, however, affecting a ruki law feature rather than effecting one, with the palatal sequence assimilating to vowels) while they remained back vowels. (Once back vowels were completely fronted after j so that only front vowels remained in that environment, the same was bound to happen after ruki law š if it were to remain a palatal sequence everywhere. The Slavs were, apparently, afraid of this change leading to the total loss of a special, distinct ruki law reflex.) The total fronting of long and short rising diphthongs jo, jo to je, je was eventually matched later in counterpart long and short falling diphthongs ai (from earlier ai, oi) and ai (from earlier ai, oi) resulting in monophthongs e and sometimes i. These e and i gave rise to the second palatalization of the velars including the new velar x from the ruki law where k, g, x plus e (from long ai. and short ai) or i (sometimes from short ai) became c, dz, š 20 Mayer, "Baltic Membership . . .," 361. 21 Lithuanian and Latvian have inherited five-vowel systems, not four-vowel ones, from Indo- European.