Member of The Indo-European Database

TRILINGUAL DICTIONARY OF PRUSSIAN (Prussian, German, English)

PRUSSIAN  RECONSTRUCTIONS

No worthless cultures, no worthless peoples

These lines are written in the Baltic region of Europe. Our famous European culture has a lot of authors and the whole palette possesses thousands of hues each being indispensable to understand the sum. Most of the Europeans are Indo-European-speaking. The Indo-European-speaking Balts are Lithuanians and Latvians with their old traditions reflecting rests of the latest European heathenism and their languages resembling reconstructions of Indo-European mother-tongue. Old Prussians were an akin nation with the same Gods but their language was even more archaical.
In the 13th c. they became victim of the aggression of the German Order which had a task to Christianize them. With their heroical 90 years resistance against the crusade from entire West Europe the Old Prussians enfeebled the German Order and saved neighboring Baltic nations from total Germanizing. But as a result a German state in this part of Europe was created and 400 years of Prussian ethnocide followed. Nevertheless the Prussian language and the Prussian culture did not disappear without traces. 802 words recorded at the end of the 13th c., more than a hundred of words in German chronicles, translations into Prussian of Christian prayers, translation of M.Luther's "Enchiridion", as well as a lot of family and locality names, backed up by related Lithuanian, Latvian, akin Slavic, Germanic and other Indo-European idioms, ensure Prussian its memory on the linguistic map of Europe. Old Prussian traditions and folklore laid down the foundation to integrate traditions and folklore of later inhabitants of their land who were descendants of the Old Prussians as well as of various colonists from various parts of Europe: Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Dutchmen, Frenchmen etc. The Reformation granted them possibility to preserve their languages and to make their culture part of the integral culture of the Kingdom of Prussia (1701-1918). In 1945 this new ethnic unit, having German literary language as a common language, became a scape-goat for the crimes of the Hitlerism due the ancient Baltic name "Prussia" which had been historically spread to the land of Brandenburg with Berlin, capital of the Kingdom of Prussia, as well as to some other parts of Germany. Many thousands were murdered by Soviet barbarians or died of starvation, the others were deported to Germany where they underwent the process of final cultural Germanization. In the Northern part of Baltic Prussia, which fell under the Russian government, even geographical names became victims of violence: this valuable European heritage has been replaced by foolish artificial Soviet names. Thus in the Center of Europe a kind of unknown Holocaust devastated the land of the Old Prussians in peaceful post-war days. Now this spot of European earth in a strange way is cut off from Russia but dangerously militarized at the same time. Only this shows that such situation is abnormal and cannot remain for ever. This is understood in Russia, too, where various projects are constructed for a more normal future for this region.

The third generation born in the land of Baltic Prussia has its own right to live and not to be deported from their tragical homeland. Financial capital from all parts of the modern world will make this land even more internationalized. Nevertheless any people cannot exist without their own face.

In Baltic Prussia this face may be formed only on the basis of the land and its history by common efforts of modern and previous inhabitants, of all neighboring peoples which thus may be united by call of the ancient earth.

Besides that, there are still groups of people who identify themselves with the Baltic Prussians. In order to co-ordinate their contacts such unions as Brotherhood PRUSA (this is authentic non-latinized form of the name Prussia) in the Polish part of Prussia, in Lithuania and in Latvia, a PRUSA-group in Germany, a TOLKEMITA-union of the German descendants of Old Prussians in Germany have been created and are active for more than 10 years.

The revival of Prussian

All this gives a sense to revive Old Prussian as a symbolic language of the press uniting the region of Kaliningrad (Russian Prussia), Varmia and Mazurland (Polish Prussia) on the one hand, and as a spoken language of enthusiasts who would ground a New-Prussian ecological settlement on the historical land of Old Prussians on the other hand. It goes without saying that such ideas conform to the process of uniting Europe in which cannot be forgotten any small ethnic group having ever contributed to the creation of European culture, especially while the need for political stability demands comfort and security for every European ethnical unit. Future Europe should not be a space of dominating strong nations but a space of co-operating cultural, economical, scientific, technical, ethnical centers of which one may be a city, one may be an organization or even a separate person, etc. How different nations of Europe participating in the crusade against the Old Prussians have contributed to the ethnocide of the latter, so should they contribute to the revival of at least of a model fragment of what the Prussians might have been in modern Europe.

Practical revival of the Prussian language is carried out in the Brotherhood PRUSA by DrPhil Letas Palmaitis, by Dr Pr. Arellis, Mikkels Klussis a.o. on academic basis of the research work of such outstanding modern prussologists as Vytautas Mažiulis (Vilnius) and Vladimir Toporov (Moscow). The revival of Prussian attracts attention of various persons also in Germany (Dr Wolfram Euler, Guenter Kraft-Skalwynas), in the U.S.A. (Joe Pashka in Arizona) etc. because not only practical aims are logical but the recreative process itself is attractive and interesting. Last not least, the revival of Prussian is also of euristical worth for the linguists, first and foremost, as providing means of practical verification for theoretical reconstructions.

The revival of Prussian has also antagonists among linguists saying this to be an occupation of dilettantes and not an academic work (Reiner Eckert in Germany). Such people are enough ensured even not to make their acquaintance with this "dilettantism" and to pronounce a verdict of last resort "in principle". Nevertheless, not only the comparative linguistics is considered to be academic, but either is the interlinguistics which deals with problems of artificial languages. The revival of Prussian embraces the both. Whether some work is academic or amateurish, depends only on methods chosen and on how consequent they are used. Everybody can judge from this Homepage whether the revival of Prussian is an academic, or an amateurish occupation.

On really testified basis many words have been revived in accordance with strictly academic requirements. Thus V.Mažiulis has proposed more than 200 reconstructions while having analyzed semantics of Baltic and Prussian historical derivation. Besides this, he is author of the law, according to which a root testified in Lithuanian, Latvian and in Slavic languages must have existed also in Prussian. Of course, the number of regular derivatives from testified roots with contemporary suffixes is unlimited. A semantical reconstruction of the development of the word's meaning presents one more source of the revival.

As an important step of the revival a revised dictionary of historical Old Prussian follows on this Homepage.

The Prussian Dictionary

1. Fonts. To read and to understand Prussian, as well as to reproduce testified spellings, one must use fonts having signs for the long letters "a", "e", "i", "o", "u". Mostly widespread are fonts simply allowing to use acircumflex, ecircumflex, icircumflex, ocircumflex and ucircumflex instead which are usually on places 226, 194, 234, 202, 238, 206, 244, 212, 251, 219 in the Western coding (Latin 1) as e.g. in the main version of TIMES. Besides, there is a "crowned" Czech "sh" on 154, 138 there which is necessary for any kind of transliteration or transcription. Although the sign of the "roofed" circumflex sometimes has its own specialized meaning in Old Prussian spellings, the said system has been chosen here to make the Dictionary accessible to everybody.

2. Arrangement. All Prussian words are arranged parallelly as in their testified form according to prussological tradition, so in their generalized form. The latter is necessary in order to conform data of such different Prussian dialects as Pomezanian of the so-called Elbing Vocabulary (with the long "o" instead of the expectable long "a" as well as with the long "e") and Samlandian of the Prussian Catechisms (1544, 1544, 1561 with the long "a", with the long "e" mostly converted to the long "i" and with the diphthongization of the long "u" and of the original long "i"). This generalized form is neither a reconstruction (its target is also to demonstrate the type of the stem), nor a transcription (in the epoch of the reduced final vowel only one and not two length in one stem were possible), but it is very easy to go on from this form to a consequent reconstruction as well as to any transcription, either historical, or practical. In cases when there is no correspondence between words of the both columns, a proper place in the alphabet is referred to.

3. References and indications. All testified Prussian words are provided with references to their sources, all reconstructed words having references to authors of the reconstruction. All testified words are given in forms in which they are testified. Words are supplied with corresponding linguistical definitions mostly when this helps to avoid ambiguities, as e.g. in case of the infinitives and neutral participles ending in "-t". Nominative singular forms in "-s" of masculine substantives as well as regular infinitive forms in "-twei" are never indicated. All translations are grammatically oriented to corresponding forms in Prussian.

4. Copyright. All translations of Prussian words are prepared by Dr Letas Palmaitis who - with the single wish of readers' co-operation with him in his further work (letas.palmaitis@vm2.ktu.lt) - permits everybody to copy and to use it for academic or practical aims.

Everybody can also order a Prussian-Lithuanian, Prussian-Latvian, Prussian-Polish, Prussian-Russian as well as English-Prussian, German-Prussian, Polish-Prussian, Lithuanian-Prussian, Latvian-Prussian or Russian-Prussian version of this dictionary by the permission of Dr. Nick Kirsanov who is author of the computer program: kirsanov@ita.spb.su. The work of N.Kirsanov has been sponsored by the German union TOLKEMITA in January 1997. © N.Kirsanov.

Last updated: 25th May, 1998

  Letas Palmaitis takes the opportunity to express his gratitude to Dr DrHabil Prof Friedrich Scholz in Münster, to Dr Reinhard Goltz in Kiel, as well as to German Heinrich-Hertz- Stiftung, for their generous help in 1995.
 
 
 
 
  TRILINGUAL DICTIONARY OF PRUSSIAN (Prussian, German, English)

This Dictionary is based upon „The Etymological Dictionary of Prussian" by Vytautas Mažiulis (Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas. Mokslas, Vilnius, I 1988, II 1993, III 1996, IV 1997). Translation of meanings by Letas Palmaitis. The responsibility of MK assumed for generalizing and accenting the forms.
 

Authors of
THE RECONSTRUCTION
 

AB Adalbert Bezzenberger

JG Jurgis Gerullis

GN Georg Nesselmann

MK Mikkels Klussis

PA Prancis Arellis

RT Reinhold Trautmann

VM Vytautas Mažiulis

VT Vladimir Toporov

APN Trautmann R. Die altpreußischen Personennamen. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1925.
BPT Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai, II. Mokslas, Vilnius 1981, p. 62.
DIA (German dialects - O/ WPr Mundarten):

Frischbier F. Preussisches Wörterbuch, Bd. 1—2. Berlin 1882—3.
Nesselmann, Georg H.F., Thesaurus Linguae Prussicae. F.Dümmlers Verl.-Buchh., Berlin 1873.
Preussisches Wörterbuch begründet von Erhard Riemann. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz,
Bd. 1-5. Ulrich Tolksdorf, Reinhard Goltz: Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumünster, 1974-93 f.
Ziesemer W. Preußisches Wörterbuch, Bd. 1–2. Hildesheim—NYork 1975.

DK Historical documents
E (Elbinger Vokabular):

Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai. Mintis, Vilnius 1966, p. 59—75.

Gr (Vokabular von Simon Grunau):

Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai. Mintis, Vilnius 1966, p. 77—80.

GrF Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai, II. Mokslas, Vilnius 1981, p. 63.
JB   Werke von Johann Bretke     [Works by Johann Bretke (Bretkūnas)]
MBS Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai, II. Mokslas, Vilnius 1981, p. 63—64.
ON Gerullis G. Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin und Leipzig 1922.
OT Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai, II. Mokslas, Vilnius 1981, p. 64.
TN Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai, II. Mokslas, Vilnius 1981, p. 62.
I (K I):

Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai. Mintis, Vilnius 1966, p. 81—95.

II (K II):

Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai. Mintis: Vilnius 1966, p. 97—111.

(K III without indication):

Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai. Mintis: Vilnius 1966, p. 113—134.
 
 

 

The Prussian Dictionary 

  A  BC  D  EF  G  HIJ  K  L  M  N  OPQ  R  SŠ  T  UWZ  

RECONSTRUCTION vs. LITHUANIZATION

Prussian belongs to West-Baltic Branch of the Baltic group of Indo-European. Among other extinct West-Baltic languages Old Curonian (V. Mažiulis) and Yatwingian are to be mentioned. Living Baltic languages are only two: Lithuanian and Latvian, but they are East-Baltic. Dezintegration of Common Baltic began in ca. 5th c. B.C. and meant formation of a peripheral area of Pra-Baltic dialects. Future East-Baltic idioms remained in the central area. The peripheral area of Pra-Baltic dialects, in which West-Baltic originated, was also close to area in which Pra-Slavic took its initial shape (V.Mažiulis). Therefore the Prussian language not only resembles Lithuanian and Latvian, but differs from these two languages and often looks as if some Pra-Slavic reconstruction. Nevertheless, although being much more archaical than the East-Baltic languages, Prussian shares with them such typically Baltic features as e.g. non-differentiation of number in the 3rd person of the verb possessing no formant of the 3rd person at all, if not athematical. With no doubt, such features are Baltic archaism and not an innovation. This is still argued by those linguists who are afraid to overestimate the archaicness of Baltic in order not to be suspected transgressing principles of classical Indo-European linguistics. Part of them are Balts Lithuanians whose main field is research of Lithuanian and Latvian. Others are Slavists, who once have learned the single Lithuanian very well and are proud of this all their life. Therefore, such people try to find in Prussian what is characteristic of Lithuanian or Lithuanian dialects. What they are doing with Prussian is nothing else but Lithuanization of this West-Baltic language.

THE 1st PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Prussian vocalism reflects further development of the Common-Baltic vocalism with its back short /a/ on the place of "Indo-European" /o/, /a/ and with its stressed closed and unstressed open variants of the long /ō/ (J.Kazlauskas–V.Mažiulis). The latter became to be generalized on the stressed positions, too, in Prussian of the 13th c., and coincided with the back open /ā/ tending to be diphthongized under the stress parallelly to the diphthongized pronunciation of the stressed long /ē/ (Klusis, cf. spellings in E: the historically stressed allophone of the long /ō/ in the barytone glossis, the generalized unstressed allophone of the long /ō/ in the stressed position in woaltis, the same of the long /ā/ in noatis, parallel to geasnis and contrary to the unstressed stem in sosto, wosee).

THE 2nd PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Spellings of toponyms in German documents demonstrate the same situation in Samland of the 14th c. (Wosispile) (V.Mažiulis), therefore the "restitution" of the "Baltic" /ā/ in Samlandian catechisms of the 16th c. more likely points out to influence of another Baltic language (Sudovian in Samland) than to a diachronic change (L.Palmaitis).

THE 3rd PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Diachronic was obviously shortening of the unstressed length in the 14th/15th c.

THE 4th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. The development of /ā, ō/ > /ū/ after the labials and gutturals with the parallel process of /ē/ > /ī/ (in all positions except the stressed ending where the process was stopped due to the alternation -ē / -ēi, see further) initiated the process [ū] > [ou], [ī] > [ei] in the middle of the 16th c.

THE 5th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. The process /ē/ > /ī/ > (in the unstressed position which often was end of the word) > /i/ caused merger of the ē- and i-types of declension. This merger, as well as the merger of the i- and ja-types of declension, was propped by palatalization of consonants, the evidence of which may be seen in such variations of spelling, as acc. etwerpsennian III 45 / etwerpsennien III 71 < acc. *-(n)jan, corresponding to etwerpsennin III 65 of the mixed ja-/i-type of the 16th c. nom. (busennis - acc. gulsennin) and showing no kind of any ending *-ijan which W.Smoczynski tries to find here.
– No Baltic j of the ending acc. *-jan could be preserved in testified Prussian as it is obvious in such variations of spelling as (2x) accusative of the ja-stem Noseilis: naseilen I 7, naseilen I 9 corresponding to naseylien II 7, naseylien II 9. The Prussian l of the 16th c. was palatal nearing to German l (cf. the same in German Lithuanian dialects) what is clear in rendering the typical a-stem nom. pl. kaulei III 101 with the innovative accusative pl. of the "palatal" (mixed ja-/i-) declension kaulins (ibid.). This was the reason of the omitted i in naseilen [Nota bene: such facts show that the spelling in the catechisms was influenced by Polish tradition with its letter i signing palatalization of the previous consonant: it is enough to compare Pr. mien, tien, sien = Pol. mię, cię, się!] –
The same evidence of the palatalization, as etwerpsennian / etwerpsennien, are spellings of the acc. masc. schan I 5, III 10₃₄, 103₂₈ = schian III 99₉ = schien III 131₇, 133₂ and even fem. schan, schien, schen III 79₁₃, 81₁₆ (the spelling schan reflecting palatal character of this consonant < *sj).
 
THE 6th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Similar to schian, schien are spellings of the ending -an after the undoubtedly palatal j in such instances as twaian 29₁₇ etc. = twaien I 5₂₂, twayien II 5₁₂, 5₂₂. All this demonstrates one no less significant feature more: the distinction between Prussian short /a/ and short /e/ was neutralized after the palatals in the same way as in Lithuanian! The Prussian short /e/ was an open vowel.

 THE 7th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Prussian shared with Prussian Lithuanian and Samogithian the same feature as absorption of the weak second component of the diphthong by its first strong component (Samog. vākā < vāikāi, Pr. Lith. Kurschat < Kurschaitis), cf. in Prussian circumflex diphthongs seamis < *zēimīs, moasis < *māisas. A lot of parallel spellings as 3 praes. niswintina III 49 / niswintinai III 51cannot be explained if not assuming the alternations -āi/-ā, -ai/-a, -ēi/-ē, -ei/-e explained by Klusis already in 1989. Such alternations came into being first in secondary circumflexized diphthongs of the shortened -āja, -ēja stem-endings: *-āja > -āi > -ā, *-ēja > -ēi > -ē with occasional preservation of -āi, -ēi partly due to such systemic reasons as existence of forms with the preserved j in one syllable (bēi) or non-suffixal (ettrāi) forms, cf. enwackē, seggē, maitā, billā, billai, enwackēimai, enwackēmai, seggēmai, waitiāmai, waitiaintins. This alternation spread in analogous unstressed forms, too, while the thematic root-verbs already had the long (later shorted) unstressed ending *-ā in the 3rd person of the present (sic!) tense (see further). The form nom. sg. f. giwei III 75₂₁ is an example of the supercorrection of *giwē (oxytone as seen in Latvian dzīve) due to this alternation. This solves two famous problems: first - that of the impossibility of the later process *-ē > *-ī in the stressed ending where the parallelism with the *-ē/ -ēi < *-ēja was still alive (the process *ē > *i took place in monophthongs but not in diphthongs); secondly - it explains the “mysterious” athematic form 1st sg. asmai as if coinsiding with the 1st pl. asmai. The 1st sg. is a typical sample of *asmi thematized as Lith. asmu, Latv. asmu and testified as asmu < *asmā in III 67₂₃ which had coincided with the 1st pl. asmai in the unstressed position due to the alternation -āi/-ā, -ai/-a before the process *mā > *mū started.

THE 8th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Due to coincidence of the unstressed allophone of the Baltic long /ō/ with the Baltic back long /ā/ and later generalization of the unstressed allophone on unstressed positions in analogous grammatical forms in Prussian, the verbal ending of the 1st sg. *-ō > *-ā > -a (as crixtia tien III 129, V.Mažiulis) coincided with the 3rd person of the ā-stem verbs in the present as well as: with their 1st sg. -a < *-ā < *-āā < *-āō, with the analogous ā-stem forms of the thematic root-verbs in the past. This caused generalization of the ending -a first on the 1st person singular and the 3rd person of the root and the ā-stem verbs in the present and in the past tense (a phonetic process which had no morphological alternative), then – on the 2nd person singular with the subsequent generalizing of any form of the 3rd person to this and to the 1st person singular as well ([t]u gīwu < *-ā, quoi tu, as quoi) with the alternative to use ending -sei of the athematic verbs for the 2nd person singular: giwassi, postāsei
[not a FUTURE form because Prussian analytical future forms (“become” + the participle) had no origin neither in German (“become” + the infinitive), nor in Polish (“be” + the participle)].

 THE 9th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Back character of the short and shortened (in the diphthongs either) a in Prussian caused appearance of two allomorphs of the genitive ending in the plural: of the -un < the stressed *-ōn and of the *-an < the unstressed *-ōn (V.Mažiulis). The latter coinciding with the accusative ending in the singular, the so-called casus generalis came into being. To avoid misunderstanding caused by this coincidence, artroidal syntactical construction with the “article” stas spread, because the forms of the accusative singular (stan) and of the genitive plural (steisan, steisun) of this pronoun apparently differed from each other.

 THE 10th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Thus the Prussian “articles” were not mistakes of “German translators” but real phenomenon of the living speech. German propped up development of some purely Baltic processes in Prussian, although its influense also resulted in such barbarisms which were authentic in their turn and not “mistakes of translators”, as e.g. use of the particle prei (German zu) with the infinitive. Although there are enough mistakes in translations of the catechisms, their language reflects real language of Samlandian Prussians in the 16th c. (V.Mažiulis).

 THE 11th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. The four cases of the Prussian declension are not an innovation but an archaical feature uniting West Baltic with Germanic and Greek.
– Only nominative, genitive, dative and accusative forms have constant intercrossing functions in various Indo-European languages, while formants used for the instrumental or locative cases and traditionally declared to be Common Indo-European, have intercrossing functions: e.g. the IE *-ois may appear in the instrumental case in one languages and in the locative case in other ones, or *-ō/ (apohonically) -ē appears as -āt in Indo-Iranian ablative and as -it in Hittite instrumental. Such intercrossing elements were used for semi-paradigmatical adverbial forms, differently paradigmatized in different languages (V.Toporov, V.Mažiulis) –
A.Rosinas belongs to scholars who are trying to show that Prussian has lost the instrumental and the locative cases. In his thourough study of Baltic pronouns (Vilnius 1988) he defends an inveterated opinion as if the form maim 'me', which is twice used in the instrumental and once – in the dative meaning in the 3rd Catechism, is a Common-Baltic instrumental form *manimi equal to Lith. manimi, with the letter n substituted with the dash over the letter a. BUT: A. Of the 3 instances of maim one is without any dash which in most cases is a regular sign of the length/ tone in the 3rd Catechism. B. The instrumental meaning is expressed in Prussian only and consequently by using the dative form, similarly to its expression in German or in Greek. C. Of 3 instances of maim one is undoubtedly dative. D. Oblique cases of the 1st personal pronoun are testified only with the stem men- = Slavic men-, therefore the supposition of Rosinas as if the vocalism has been later changed in this form (but why not in the dative mennei?) is ungrounded.
Another typical attempt to Lithuanize Prussian is a reconstruction of the demonstrative stas as of a composite *sitas = Lith., Latv. šitas. A.Rosinas' systematic analysis is brilliant and irreproachable, nevertheless it has one minus: not all systematical reasons always result in consequences in the history of a language. In this concrete reconstruction by A.Rosinas one sees a premise and a conclusion but no proof, because all facts of testified Prussian show this language to be very poor in syncopes, especially when compared with Lithuanian (cf. e.g. Lith. kelnės < *kelinēs etc.). It looks fantastical that this pronoun should have been syncopated in Prussian but not syncopated in Lithuanian or at least in Latvian (with the same *sis as in Prussian!).

THE 12th PRINCIPLE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION. Forms of the neutral gender have not sufficiently developed in Baltic (L.Palmaitis). In Prussian their development stopped on the stage of singular forms. For the plural either masculine forms or the feminine singular form with the collective meaning were used.

   SAMPLES OF PRUSSIAN GRAMMAR

 In this section Prussian words are represented in the same generalized achronical spelling, as in the Dictionary; supposed forms are marked with the asterisk; for the attested spellings cf. the Dictionary

PERSONAL PRONOUNS (nom., gen., dat., acc.) –––

1st PERS. "I" as, māise, menei, men; 2nd PERS. "THOU" tū, twāise, tebei, ten; 1st PERS."WE" mes, nūsan, nūmans, mans; 2nd PERS. "YOU (PL.)" jūs, jūsan, jūmans, wans; REFLEXIVE –, swāise, sebei, sin / sen ––––––

3rd PERSON PRONOUNS (nom., gen., dat., acc.) –––

"HE" SG. tāns, tenese, tenesmā, tenan; PL. tenei, tenēisan, tenēimans, tenans; "SHE" SG. tenā, *teneses, tenei, tenan; PL. *tenās, tenēisan, tenēimans, tenans; "IT" SG. *tenan, tenese, tenesmā, tenan ––––––

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS (nom., gen., dat., acc.) –––

"THAT" MASC.SG. stas, stese, stesmā, stan; PL. stāi, stēisan, stēimans, stans; FEM.SG. stā, steses, stesei, stan; PL. stāi ("NEUTER" FORM!) / *stās, stēisan, stēimans, stans; "THIS" MASC.SG. šis, šise, šismā, šin; PL. šāi, šēisan, *šēimans, šins; FEM.SG. *šī, *šises, šisei, šan; PL. *šās, šēisan, *šēimans, šans ––––––

ADJECTIVES (nom., gen., dat., acc.) –––

THE a-/ā-STEM MASC.SG. lab(a)s, labas, wargasmā, laban; FEM.SG. tikrā, gāncās, prābūtiskai, laban; NEUTR.SG. laban, labas, *labasmā, laban; MASC.PL. swintai, swintan, wāramans, labans; FEM.PL. mīlās, *laban, *labāmans, labans; THE i-STEM MASC.SG. wisamazīngis, wisamazīngis, [emprīkisēnt]ismā, wisamazīngin; MASC.PL. [skelānt]jāi; NEUTR.SG. arwi ––––––

SUBSTANTIVES, OF WHICH THE a-, ja-, ija-STEMS ARE USUALLY MASCULINE OR NEUTER AND THE ā-, jā-, ē-STEMS ARE USUALLY FEMININE, (nom., gen, dat., acc.) –––

THE a-STEM MASC.SG. dēiw(a)s, dēiwas, grēkā, dēiwan; PL. wāikāi, grēkan, wāikamans, dēiwans;

THE a-STEM NEUTR.SG. swētan, swētas, *swētā, swētan; THE ja-STEM MASC.SG. būsenīs, taūwišas, ?, *gimsenjan; PL. *taūwišai, *būsenjan, *būsenjamans, *būsenjans; THE ja-STEM NEUTR.SG. garjan, *garjas, ?, garjan; THE ija-STEM SG. rikīs, rikijas, *rikijā, rikijan; PL. rikijai, *rikijan, *rikīmans, rikijans; THE ā-STEM SG. genā, ālgās, pakai, genan; PL. genāi ("NEUTER" FORM!) / madlās, mēnsan, genāmans, genans; THE jā-STEM SG. pastī, *mārtjās, *mārtjai, *mārtjan; PL. *mārtjās, *mārtjan, *mārtjāmans, *mārtjans; THE ē-STEM SG. gīwē,*gīwēs, zemei, *zemen; PL. *zemmēs,* zemen, *zemēmans, *zemens; THE i-STEM FEM.SG. ang(i)s, *akis, naūtei, naūtin; PL. akīs, *akin, *akimans, akins; THE u-STEM MASC.SG. sūn(u)s, sūnus, *sūnui, sūnun; PL. *sūnūs, *sūnūn, *sūnumans, *sūnuns; THE u-STEM NEUTR.SG. medu, *medus, *medun, *medumans, medu; PL. *medāi ? THE CONSONANT STEM MASC.SG. kērmens, kērmenes, ?, kērmenen; THE CONSONANT STEM NEUTR.SG. sēmen

 
VERB (athematic būtwei, the a-stem lazintwei, the a-/ē-stem īmtwei, the ā-/āja-stem erzinātwei),

INDICATIVE, THE PRESENT TENSE –––

1st SG. asmā, *lazinā, imā,*gīwā; 2nd SG. asei, *lazinā, *imā, gīwāsei / gīwā; 3rd PERS. ast, mākinā, imā, gīwā; 1st PL. asmai, *lazinimai < *lazinamai, imimai < *imamai, gīwāmai; 2nd PL. astē,*lazinatē, imātē, erzinātē ––––––

INDICATIVE, THE PAST TENSE –––

1st SG. *bēi, *lazinā, *imē, *erzināj(a); 2nd SG. *bēi, *lazinā, *imē, *erzināj(a); 3rd PERS. bēi, lazinā, imē, *erzināj(a); 1st PL. *bēimai, *lazināmai, *imēmai, *erzināj(a)mai; 2nd PL. *bēitē, *lazinātē, *imētē, *erzināj(a)tē –––––––

IMPERATIVE –––

2nd SG. *seīs! *lazinais! imais! *erzināis!; 2nd PL. seītē! *lazinaitē! imaitē! *erzināitē! –––––––

OPTATIVE –––

3rd PERS. seīsei, mākinsei, *īmsei, *erzināsei ––––––

SUBJUNCTIVE –––

1st SG. *būlai, *lazinlai, *īmlai, *erzinālai; 2nd SG. *būlai, *lazinlai, *īmlai, *erzinālai; 3rd PERS. būlai, pagatawinlai, īmlai, *erzinālai; 1st PL. *būlimai < *būlaimai, *lazinlimai, *īmlimai, *erzināj(a)limai; 2nd PL. *būlaitē, *lazinlaitē, *īmlaitē, *erzināj(a)l(a)itē ––––––

 
PRESENT PARTICIPLES ACTIVE (i-stem nom. sg. masc. / fem.) –––

sēns /*sēntī, dīlānts /*dīlāntī, *imānts /*imāntī, *erzinānts /*erzināntī ––––––

PAST PARTICIPLES ACTIVE (a-/jā-stem nom. sg. masc. / fem.) –––

būwuns /*būwusī, mākinuns /*-usī, *imuns /*imusī, *erzināwuns /*-usī ––––––

PERFECT PARTICIPLES (a-/ā-stem nom. sg. masc. / fem.) –––

*būts /*būtā, mākints /*-tā, *īmts / īmtā, pazināts /*pazinātā ––––––

 
INDICATIVE , THE PRESENT TENSE IN PASSIVE ––– pastāna krikstīts ––––––

INDICATIVE , THE PAST TENSE IN PASSIVE ––– pastāi prawilts ––––––

INDICATIVE, THE PRESENT PERFECT TENSE ––– as asmā segēwuns ––––––

INDICATIVE, THE PAST PERFECT TENSE ––– *as bēi segēwuns ––––––

THE FUTURE TENSE ––– wīrst pawērpuns