This section needs additional citations for verification. (May 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Throughout Southern Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Russia|
|ISO 639-2 / 5||sla|
Political map of Europe with countries where a Slavic language is a national language marked in shades of green. Wood green represents East Slavic languages, pale green represents West Slavic languages, and sea green represents South Slavic languages.
The Slavic languages, also known as the Slavonic languages, are Indo-European languages spoken primarily by the Slavic peoples or their descendants. They are thought to descend from a proto-language called Proto-Slavic, spoken during the Early Middle Ages, which in turn is thought to have descended from the earlier Proto-Balto-Slavic language, linking the Slavic languages to the Baltic languages in a Balto-Slavic group within the Indo-European family.
The Slavic languages are conventionally (that is, also on the basis of extralinguistic features) divided intro three subgroups: East, West, and South, which together constitute more than 20 languages. Of these, 10 have at least one million speakers and official status as the national languages of the countries in which they are predominantly spoken: Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian (of the East group), Polish, Czech and Slovak (of the West group) and Bulgarian and Macedonian (eastern dialects of the South group), and Serbo-Croatian and Slovene (western dialects of the South group). In addition, Aleksandr Dulichenko recognizes a number of Slavic microlanguages: both isolated ethnolects and peripheral dialects of more well-established Slavic languages.
The current geographic distribution of natively spoken Slavic languages includes Southern Europe, Central Europe, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and all of the territory of Russia, which includes northern and north-central Asia (though many minority languages of Russia are also still spoken). Furthermore, the diasporas of many Slavic peoples have established isolated minorities of speakers of their languages all over the world. The number of speakers of all Slavic languages together was estimated to be 315 million at the turn of the twenty-first century.
Since the interwar period scholars have conventionally divided Slavic languages, on the basis of geographical and genealogical principle, and with the use of the extralinguistic feature of script, into three main branches, that is, East, West and South. (From the vantage of linguistic features alone, there are only two branches of the Slavic languages, namely North and South. These three conventional branches feature some of the following subbranches:
- West Slavic
- South Slavic
Some linguists speculate that a North Slavic branch has existed as well. The Old Novgorod dialect may have reflected some idiosyncrasies of this group. Mutual intelligibility also plays a role in determining the West, East, and South branches. Speakers of languages within the same branch will in most cases be able to understand each other at least partially, but they are generally unable to across branches (which would be comparable to a native English speaker trying to understand any other Germanic language besides Scots).
The most obvious differences between the East, West and South Slavic branches are in the orthography of the standard languages: West Slavic languages (and Western South Slavic languages – Croatian and Slovene) are written in the Latin script, and have had more Western European influence due to their proximity and speakers being historically Roman Catholic, whereas the East Slavic and Eastern South Slavic languages are written in Cyrillic and, with Eastern Orthodox or Uniate faith, have had more Greek influence. East Slavic languages such as Russian have, however, during and after Peter the Great's Europeanization campaign, absorbed many words of Latin, French, German, and Italian origin.
The tripartite division of the Slavic languages does not take into account the spoken dialects of each language. Of these, certain so-called transitional dialects and hybrid dialects often bridge the gaps between different languages, showing similarities that do not stand out when comparing Slavic literary (i.e. standard) languages. For example, Slovak (West Slavic) and Ukrainian (East Slavic) are bridged by the Rusyn language/dialect of Eastern Slovakia and Western Ukraine. Similarly, the Croatian Kajkavian dialect is more similar to Slovene than to the standard Croatian language.
Although the Slavic languages diverged from a common proto-language later than any other group of the Indo-European language family, enough differences exist between the various Slavic dialects and languages to make communication between speakers of different Slavic languages difficult. Within the individual Slavic languages, dialects may vary to a lesser degree, as those of Russian, or to a much greater degree, like those of Slovene.
|Part of a series on|
Common roots and ancestry
Slavic languages descend from Proto-Slavic, their immediate parent language, ultimately deriving from Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor language of all Indo-European languages, via a Proto-Balto-Slavic stage. During the Proto-Balto-Slavic period a number of exclusive isoglosses in phonology, morphology, lexis, and syntax developed, which makes Slavic and Baltic the closest related of all the Indo-European branches. The secession of the Balto-Slavic dialect ancestral to Proto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological criteria to have occurred sometime in the period 1500–1000 BCE.
A minority of Baltists maintain the view that the Slavic group of languages differs so radically from the neighboring Baltic group (Lithuanian, Latvian, and the now-extinct Old Prussian), that they could not have shared a parent language after the breakup of the Proto-Indo-European continuum about five millennia ago. Substantial advances in Balto-Slavic accentology that occurred in the last three decades, however, make this view very hard to maintain nowadays, especially when one considers that there was most likely no "Proto-Baltic" language and that West Baltic and East Baltic differ from each other as much as each of them does from Proto-Slavic.
This section needs additional citations for verification. (May 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The imposition of Old Church Slavonic on Orthodox Slavs was often at the expense of the vernacular. Says WB Lockwood, a prominent Indo-European linguist, "It (O.C.S) remained in use to modern times but was more and more influenced by the living, evolving languages, so that one distinguishes Bulgarian, Serbian, and Russian varieties. The use of such media hampered the development of the local languages for literary purposes, and when they do appear the first attempts are usually in an artificially mixed style." (148)
Lockwood also notes that these languages have "enriched" themselves by drawing on Church Slavonic for the vocabulary of abstract concepts. The situation in the Catholic countries, where Latin was more important, was different. The Polish Renaissance poet Jan Kochanowski and the Croatian Baroque writers of the 16th century all wrote in their respective vernaculars (though Polish itself had drawn amply on Latin in the same way Russian would eventually draw on Church Slavonic).
Although Church Slavonic hampered vernacular literatures, it fostered Slavonic literary activity and abetted linguistic independence from external influences. Only the Croatian vernacular literary tradition nearly matches Church Slavonic in age. It began with the Vinodol Codex and continued through the Renaissance until the codifications of Croatian in 1830, though much of the literature between 1300 and 1500 was written in much the same mixture of the vernacular and Church Slavonic as prevailed in Russia and elsewhere.
The most important early monument of Croatian literacy is the Baška tablet from the late 11th century. It is a large stone tablet found in the small Church of St. Lucy, Jurandvor on the Croatian island of Krk, containing text written mostly in Čakavian dialect in angular Croatian Glagolitic script. The independence of Dubrovnik facilitated the continuity of the tradition.
More recent foreign influences follow the same general pattern in Slavic languages as elsewhere and are governed by the political relationships of the Slavs. In the 17th century, bourgeois Russian (delovoi jazyk) absorbed German words through direct contacts between Russians and communities of German settlers in Russia. In the era of Peter the Great, close contacts with France invited countless loan words and calques from French, many of which not only survived but also replaced older Slavonic loans. In the 19th century, Russian influenced most literary Slavic languages by one means or another.
The Proto-Slavic language existed until around AD 500. By the 7th century, it had broken apart into large dialectal zones.
There are no reliable hypotheses about the nature of the subsequent breakups of West and South Slavic. East Slavic is generally thought to converge to one Old East Slavic language, which existed until at least the 12th century.
Linguistic differentiation was accelerated by the dispersion of the Slavic peoples over a large territory, which in Central Europe exceeded the current extent of Slavic-speaking majorities. Written documents of the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries already display some local linguistic features. For example, the Freising manuscripts show a language that contains some phonetic and lexical elements peculiar to Slovene dialects (e.g. rhotacism, the word krilatec). The Freising manuscripts are the first Latin-script continuous text in a Slavic language.
The migration of Slavic speakers into the Balkans in the declining centuries of the Byzantine Empire expanded the area of Slavic speech, but the pre-existing writing (notably Greek) survived in this area. The arrival of the Hungarians in Pannonia in the 9th century interposed non-Slavic speakers between South and West Slavs. Frankish conquests completed the geographical separation between these two groups, also severing the connection between Slavs in Moravia and Lower Austria (Moravians) and those in present-day Styria, Carinthia, East Tyrol in Austria, and in the provinces of modern Slovenia, where the ancestors of the Slovenes settled during first colonisation.
In September 2015, Alexei Kassian and Anna Dybo published, as a part of interdisciplinary study of Slavic ethnogenesis, a lexicostatistical classification of Slavic languages. It was built using qualitative 110-word Swadesh lists that were compiled according to the standards of the Global Lexicostatistical Database project and processed using modern phylogenetic algorithms.
The resulting dated tree complies with the traditional expert views on the Slavic group structure. Kassian-Dybo's tree suggests that Proto-Slavic first diverged into three branches: Eastern, Western and Southern. The Proto-Slavic break-up is dated to around 100 A.D., which correlates with the archaeological assessment of Slavic population in the early 1st millennium A.D. being spread on a large territory and already not being monolithic. Then, in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D., these three Slavic branches almost simultaneously divided into sub-branches, which corresponds to the fast spread of the Slavs through Eastern Europe and the Balkans during the second half of the 1st millennium A.D. (the so-called Slavicization of Europe).
The Slovenian language was excluded from the analysis, as both Ljubljana koine and Literary Slovenian show mixed lexical features of Southern and Western Slavic languages (which could possibly indicate the Western Slavic origin of Slovenian, which for a long time was being influenced on the part of the neighboring Serbo-Croatian dialects),[original research?] and the quality Swadesh lists were not yet collected for Slovenian dialects. Because of scarcity or unreliability of data, the study also did not cover the so-called Old Novgordian dialect, the Polabian language and some other Slavic lects.
The above Kassian-Dybo's research did not take into account the findings by Russian linguist Andrey Zaliznyak who stated that in the 11th century Novgorod language differed from Kiev language as well as from all other Slavic languages much more than in later centuries, meaning that there was no common Old East Slavic language of Kievan Rus' from which Ukrainian, Russian and Belorussian languages diverged, but that the Russian language developed as the convergence of Novgorod language and other Russian dialects, whereas Ukrainian and Belorusian were continuation of the development of respective Kiev and Polotsk dialects of Kievan Rus'.
Also Russian linguist Sergey Nikolaev, analysing historical development of Slavic dialects’ accent system, concluded that a number of other tribes in Kievan Rus came from different Slavic branches and spoke distant Slavic dialects.
Zaliznyak and Nikolaev's points mean that there was a convergence stage before the divergence or simultaneously, which was not taken into consideration by Kassian-Dybo's research.
Ukrainian linguists (Stepan Smal-Stotsky, Ivan Ohienko, George Shevelov, Yevhen Tymchenko, Vsevolod Hantsov, Olena Kurylo) deny the existence of a common Old East Slavic language at any time in the past. According to them, the dialects of East Slavic tribes evolved gradually from the common Proto-Slavic language without any intermediate stages.
- PIE *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ → *ś, *ź, *źʰ (→ CS *s, *z, *z)
- PIE *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ → *k, *g, *gʰ
- Ruki rule: Following *r, *u, *k or *i, PIE *s → *š (→ CS *x)
- Loss of voiced aspirates: PIE *bʰ, *dʰ, *gʰ → *b, *d, *g
- Merger of *o and *a: PIE *a/*o, *ā/*ō → PS *a, *ā (→ CS *o, *a)
- Law of open syllables: All closed syllables (syllables ending in a consonant) are eventually eliminated, in the following stages:
- Nasalization: With *N indicating either *n or *m not immediately followed by a vowel: PIE *aN, *eN, *iN, *oN, *uN → *ą, *ę, *į, *ǫ, *ų (→ CS *ǫ, *ę, *ę, *ǫ, *y). (NOTE: *ą *ę etc. indicates a nasalized vowel.)
- In a cluster of obstruent (stop or fricative) + another consonant, the obstruent is deleted unless the cluster can occur word-initially.
- (occurs later, see below) Monophthongization of diphthongs.
- (occurs much later, see below) Elimination of liquid diphthongs (e.g. *er, *ol when not followed immediately by a vowel).
- First palatalization: *k, *g, *x → CS *č, *ž, *š (pronounced [tʃ], [ʒ], [ʃ] respectively) before a front vocalic sound (*e, *ē, *i, *ī, *j).
- Iotation: Consonants are palatalized by an immediately following *j:
- *sj, *zj → CS *š, *ž
- *nj, *lj, *rj → CS *ň, *ľ, *ř (pronounced [nʲ lʲ rʲ] or similar)
- *tj, *dj → CS *ť, *ď (probably palatal stops, e.g. [c ɟ], but developing in different ways depending on the language)
- *bj, *pj, *mj, *wj → *bľ, *pľ, *mľ, *wľ (the lateral consonant *ľ is mostly lost later on in West Slavic)
- Vowel fronting: After *j or some other palatal sound, back vowels are fronted (*a, *ā, *u, *ū, *ai, *au → *e, *ē, *i, *ī, *ei, *eu). This leads to hard/soft alternations in noun and adjective declensions.
- Prothesis: Before a word-initial vowel, *j or *w is usually inserted.
- Monophthongization: *ai, *au, *ei, *eu, *ū → *ē, *ū, *ī, *jū, *ȳ [ɨː]
- Second palatalization: *k, *g, *x → CS *c [ts], *dz, *ś before new *ē (from earlier *ai). *ś later splits into *š (West Slavic), *s (East/South Slavic).
- Progressive palatalization (or "third palatalization"): *k, *g, *x → CS *c, *dz, *ś after *i, *ī in certain circumstances.
- Vowel quality shifts: All pairs of long/short vowels become differentiated as well by vowel quality:
- *a, *ā → CS *o, *a
- *e, *ē → CS *e, *ě (originally a low-front sound [æ] but eventually raised to [ie] in most dialects, developing in divergent ways)
- *i, *u → CS *ь, *ъ (also written *ĭ, *ŭ; lax vowels as in the English words pit, put)
- *ī, *ū, *ȳ → CS *i, *u, *y
- Elimination of liquid diphthongs: Liquid diphthongs (sequences of vowel plus *l or *r, when not immediately followed by a vowel) are changed so that the syllable becomes open:
- Development of phonemic tone and vowel length (independent of vowel quality): Complex developments (see History of accentual developments in Slavic languages).
The Slavic languages are a relatively homogeneous family, compared with other families of Indo-European languages (e.g. Germanic, Romance, and Indo-Iranian). As late as the 10th century AD, the entire Slavic-speaking area still functioned as a single, dialectally differentiated language, termed Common Slavic. Compared with most other Indo-European languages, the Slavic languages are quite conservative, particularly in terms of morphology (the means of inflecting nouns and verbs to indicate grammatical differences). Most Slavic languages have a rich, fusional morphology that conserves much of the inflectional morphology of Proto-Indo-European.
The following table shows the inventory of consonants of Late Common Slavic:
1The sound /sʲ/ did not occur in West Slavic, where it had developed to /ʃ/.
This inventory of sounds is quite similar to what is found in most modern Slavic languages. The extensive series of palatal consonants, along with the affricates *ts and *dz, developed through a series of palatalizations that happened during the Proto-Slavic period, from earlier sequences either of velar consonants followed by front vowels (e.g. *ke, *ki, *ge, *gi, *xe, and *xi), or of various consonants followed by *j (e.g. *tj, *dj, *sj, *zj, *rj, *lj, *kj, and *gj, where *j is the palatal approximant ([j], the sound of the English letter "y" in "yes" or "you").
The biggest change in this inventory results from a further general palatalization occurring near the end of the Common Slavic period, where all consonants became palatalized before front vowels. This produced a large number of new palatalized (or "soft") sounds, which formed pairs with the corresponding non-palatalized (or "hard") consonants and absorbed the existing palatalized sounds *lʲ *rʲ *nʲ *sʲ. These sounds were best preserved in Russian but were lost to varying degrees in other languages (particularly Czech and Slovak). The following table shows the inventory of modern Russian:
|Stop||p b||pʲ bʲ||t d||tʲ dʲ||k ɡ||kʲ ɡʲ|
|Fricative||f v||fʲ vʲ||s z||sʲ zʲ||ʂ ʐ||ɕː ʑː||x||xʲ|
This general process of palatalization did not occur in Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian. As a result, the modern consonant inventory of these languages is nearly identical to the Late Common Slavic inventory.
Late Common Slavic tolerated relatively few consonant clusters. However, as a result of the loss of certain formerly present vowels (the weak yers), the modern Slavic languages allow quite complex clusters, as in the Russian word взблеск [vzblʲesk] ("flash"). Also present in many Slavic languages are clusters rarely found cross-linguistically, as in Russian ртуть [rtutʲ] ("mercury") or Polish mchu [mxu] ("moss", gen. sg.). The word for "mercury" with the initial rt- cluster, for example, is also found in the other East and West Slavic languages, although Slovak retains an epenthetic vowel (ortuť).
A typical vowel inventory is as follows:
The sound [ɨ] occurs only in some languages (Russian and Belarusian), and even in these languages, it is unclear whether it is its own phoneme or an allophone of /i/. Nonetheless, it is a quite prominent and noticeable characteristic of the languages in which it is present.
Length, accent, and tone
An area of great difference among Slavic languages is that of prosody (i.e. syllabic distinctions such as vowel length, accent, and tone). Common Slavic had a complex system of prosody, inherited with little change from Proto-Indo-European. This consisted of phonemic vowel length and a free, mobile pitch accent:
- All vowels could occur either short or long, and this was phonemic (it could not automatically be predicted from other properties of the word).
- There was (at most) a single accented syllable per word, distinguished by higher pitch (as in modern Japanese) rather than greater dynamic stress (as in English).
- Vowels in accented syllables could be pronounced with either a rising or falling tone (i.e. there was pitch accent), and this was phonemic.
- The accent was free in that it could occur on any syllable and was phonemic.
- The accent was mobile in that its position could potentially vary among closely related words within a single paradigm (e.g. the accent might land on a different syllable between the nominative and genitive singular of a given word).
- Even within a given inflectional class (e.g. masculine i-stem nouns), there were multiple accent patterns in which a given word could be inflected. For example, most nouns in a particular inflectional class could follow one of three possible patterns: Either there was a consistent accent on the root (pattern A), predominant accent on the ending (pattern B), or accent that moved between the root and ending (pattern C). In patterns B and C, the accent in different parts of the paradigm shifted not only in location but also type (rising vs. falling). Each inflectional class had its own version of patterns B and C, which might differ significantly from one inflectional class to another.
The modern languages vary greatly in the extent to which they preserve this system. On one extreme, Serbo-Croatian preserves the system nearly unchanged (even more so in the conservative Chakavian dialect); on the other, Macedonian has basically lost the system in its entirety. Between them are found numerous variations:
- Slovenian preserves most of the system but has shortened all unaccented syllables and lengthened non-final accented syllables so that vowel length and accent position largely co-occur.
- Russian and Bulgarian have eliminated distinctive vowel length and tone and converted the accent into a stress accent (as in English) but preserved its position. As a result, the complexity of the mobile accent and the multiple accent patterns still exists (particularly in Russian because it has preserved the Common Slavic noun inflections, while Bulgarian has lost them).
- Czech and Slovak have preserved phonemic vowel length and converted the distinctive tone of accented syllables into length distinctions. The phonemic accent is otherwise lost, but the former accent patterns are echoed to some extent in corresponding patterns of vowel length/shortness in the root. Paradigms with mobile vowel length/shortness do exist but only in a limited fashion, usually only with the zero-ending forms (nom. sg., acc. sg., and/or gen. pl., depending on inflectional class) having a different length from the other forms. (Czech has a couple of other "mobile" patterns, but they are rare and can usually be substituted with one of the "normal" mobile patterns or a non-mobile pattern.)
- Old Polish had a system very much like Czech. Modern Polish has lost vowel length, but some former short-long pairs have become distinguished by quality (e.g. [o oː] > [o u]), with the result that some words have vowel-quality changes that exactly mirror the mobile-length patterns in Czech and Slovak.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (February 2013)
Similarly, Slavic languages have extensive morphophonemic alternations in their derivational and inflectional morphology, including between velar and postalveolar consonants, front and back vowels, and a vowel and no vowel.
The following is a very brief selection of cognates in basic vocabulary across the Slavic language family, which may serve to give an idea of the sound changes involved. This is not a list of translations: cognates have a common origin, but their meaning may be shifted and loanwords may have replaced them.
|*uxo (ear)||ухо (úkho)||вухо (vúkho)||вуха (vúkha)||ucho||ucho||ucho||uho||уво / uvo; uho||ухо (ukhó)||уво (úvo)|
|*ognь (fire)||огонь (ogónʹ)||вогонь (vohónʹ)||агонь (ahónʹ)||ogień||oheň||oheň||ogenj||огањ / oganj||огън (ógǎn)||оган/огин (ógan/ógin)|
|*ryba (fish)||рыба (rýba)||риба (rýba)||рыба (rýba)||ryba||ryba||ryba||riba||риба / riba||риба (ríba)||риба (ríba)|
|*gnězdo (nest)||гнездо (gnezdó)||гнiздо (hnizdó)||гняздо (hnyazdó)||gniazdo||hnízdo||hniezdo||gnezdo||гн(иј)ездо / gn(ij)ezdo||гнездо (gnezdó)||гнездо (gnézdo)|
|*oko (eye)||око (óko) (dated, poetic or in set expressions)
modern: глаз (glaz)
|око (óko)||вока (vóka)||oko||oko||oko||oko||око / oko||око (óko)||око (óko)|
|*golva (head)||голова (golová)
глава (glavá) "chapter or chief, leader, head"
|голова (holová)||галава (halavá)||głowa||hlava||hlava||glava||глава / glava||глава (glavá)||глава (gláva)|
|*rǫka (hand)||рука (ruká)||рука (ruká)||рука (ruká)||ręka||ruka||ruka||roka||рука / ruka||ръка (rǎká)||рака (ráka)|
|*noktь (night)||ночь (nočʹ)||ніч (nič)||ноч (noč)||noc||noc||noc||noč||ноћ / noć||нощ (nosht)||ноќ (noḱ)|
Influence on neighboring languages
Most languages of the former Soviet Union and of some neighbouring countries (for example, Mongolian) are significantly influenced by Russian, especially in vocabulary. The Romanian, Albanian, and Hungarian languages show the influence of the neighboring Slavic nations, especially in vocabulary pertaining to urban life, agriculture, and crafts and trade—the major cultural innovations at times of limited long-range cultural contact. In each one of these languages, Slavic lexical borrowings represent at least 15% of the total vocabulary. However, Romanian has much lower influence from Slavic than Albanian or Hungarian. This is potentially because Slavic tribes crossed and partially settled the territories inhabited by ancient Illyrians and Vlachs on their way to the Balkans.
The Slavic contributions to Germanic languages remains a moot question, though Max Vasmer, a specialist in Slavic etymology, has claimed that there were no Slavic loans into Proto-Germanic. Nevertheless, many linguists, including Andrzej Poppe, consider the Slavic contribution to the Germanic languages to be enormous. A large number of Slavic loanwords are found in the Gothic language: hlaifs (bread, from Proto-Slavonic hleb), katils (cauldron, from Proto-Slavonic kotel), biuþs (table, from Proto-Slavonic bliudo), kaupjan (buy, from Proto-Slavonic kupit), skeinan (shine, from Proto-Slavonic sianye), boka (letter, from Proto-Slavonic bukva), etc. On the other hand, scientists Rasmus Rask and August Schleicher argued that such a number of slovenisms in the German language is explained by the fact that the Slavic and Germanic languages have a common origin.
However, there are isolated Slavic loans (mostly recent) into other Germanic languages. For example, the word for "border" (in modern German Grenze, Dutch grens) was borrowed from the Common Slavic granica. There are, however, many cities and villages of Slavic origin in Eastern Germany, the largest of which are Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden. English derives quark (a kind of cheese and subatomic particle) from the German Quark, which in turn is derived from the Slavic tvarog, which means "curd". Many German surnames, particularly in Eastern Germany and Austria, are Slavic in origin. Swedish also has torg (market place) from Old Russian tъrgъ or Polish targ, tolk (interpreter) from Old Slavic tlŭkŭ, and pråm (barge) from West Slavonic pramŭ.
A well-known Slavic word in almost all European languages is vodka, a borrowing from Russian водка (vodka) – which itself was borrowed from Polish wódka (lit. "little water"), from common Slavic voda ("water", cognate to the English word) with the diminutive ending "-ka". Owing to the medieval fur trade with Northern Russia, Pan-European loans from Russian include such familiar words as sable. The English word "vampire" was borrowed (perhaps via French vampire) from German Vampir, in turn derived from Serbian vampir, continuing Proto-Slavic *ǫpyrь, although Polish scholar K. Stachowski has argued that the origin of the word is early Slavic *vąpěrь, going back to Turkic oobyr. Several European languages, including English, have borrowed the word polje (meaning "large, flat plain") directly from the former Yugoslav languages (i.e. Slovene, Croatian, and Serbian). During the heyday of the USSR in the 20th century, many more Russian words became known worldwide: da, Soviet, sputnik, perestroika, glasnost, kolkhoz, etc. Also in the English language borrowed from Russian is samovar (lit. "self-boiling") to refer to the specific Russian tea urn.
- Ruthenian section
- Russian: ISO 639-1 code: ru; ISO 639-3 code: rus
- Sorbian section (also known as Wendish): ISO 639-3 code: wen
- Lechitic section
- Czech-Slovak section
- Western Section
- Eastern Section
Para- and supranational languages
- Church Slavonic language, variations of Old Church Slavonic with significant replacement of the original vocabulary by forms from the Old East Slavic and other regional forms. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Polish Orthodox Church, Macedonian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, and even some Roman Catholic Churches in Croatia continue to use Church Slavonic as a liturgical language. While not used in modern times, the text of a Church Slavonic Roman Rite Mass survives in Croatia and the Czech Republic, which is best known through Janáček's musical setting of it (the Glagolitic Mass).
- Interslavic language, a modernized and simplified form of Old Church Slavonic, largely based on material that the modern Slavic languages have in common. Its purpose is to facilitate communication between representatives of different Slavic nations and to allow people who do not know any Slavic language to communicate with Slavs. Because Old Church Slavonic had become too archaic and complex for everyday communication, Pan-Slavic language projects have been created from the 17th century onwards in order to provide the Slavs with a common literary language. Interslavic in its current form was standardized in 2011 after the merger of several older projects.
- Slavic microlanguages
- Slavic names
- Language families and languages
- False Friends of the Slavist
- Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017). "Slavic". Glottolog 3.0. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
- Dulichenko A.D., Малые славянские литературные языки (микроязыки). Языки мира: Славянские языки. М.: Academia, 2005.
- Dulichenko A.D., Славянские литературные микроязыки. Вопросы формирования и развития. Tallinn, 1981.
- Duličenko А.D., Kleinschriftsprachen in der slawischen Sprachenwelt. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 1994, Bd. 39.
- Browne, Wayles; Ivanov, Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich (17 October 2019). "Slavic languages". Encyclopedia Britannica.
- Peter Trudgill. 2003. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 36, 95–96, 124–125.
- Kamusella (2005:77) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFKamusella2005 (help)
- Encyclopedia of Rusyn history and culture, p 274, Paul R. Magocsi, Ivan Ivanovich Pop, University of Toronto Press, 2002
- cf. Novotná & Blažek (2007) with references. "Classical glottochronology" conducted by Czech Slavist M. Čejka in 1974 dates the Balto-Slavic split to −910±340 BCE, Sergei Starostin in 1994 dates it to 1210 BCE, and "recalibrated glottochronology" conducted by Novotná & Blažek dates it to 1400–1340 BCE. This agrees well with Trziniec-Komarov culture, localized from Silesia to Central Ukraine and dated to the period 1500–1200 BCE.
- Kapović (2008:94) "Kako rekosmo, nije sigurno je li uopće bilo prabaltijskoga jezika. Čini se da su dvije posvjedočene, preživjele grane baltijskoga, istočna i zapadna, različite jedna od druge izvorno kao i svaka posebno od praslavenskoga".
- Kassian, Alexei, Anna Dybo, «Supplementary Information 2: Linguistics: Datasets; Methods; Results» in: Kushniarevich, A; Utevska, O; Chuhryaeva, M; Agdzhoyan, A; Dibirova, K; Uktveryte, I; et al. (2015). "Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data". PLoS ONE. 10 (9): e0135820. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135820. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4558026. PMID 26332464.
- "The Global Lexicostatistical Database". Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow.
- Sussex, Roland, Paul Cubberley. 2006. The Slavic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.19.
- Седов, В. В. 1995. Славяне в раннем средневековье. Москва: Фонд археологии. P. 5
- Седов, В. В. 1979. Происхождение и ранняя история славян. Москва: Наука.
- Barford, P.M. 2001. The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Curta F. 2001. The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Heather P. 2010. Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Zaliznyak, Andrey Anatolyevich. "About Russian Language History". elementy.ru. Mumi-Trol School. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
- inslav.ru. Slavic Studies Institute https://inslav.ru/publication/dybo-v-zamyatina-g-i-nikolaev-s-l-osnovy-slavyanskoy-akcentologii-m-1990. Missing or empty
- "Мова (В.В.Німчук). 1. Історія української культури". Litopys.org.ua. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
- "Юрій Шевельов. Історична фонологія української мови". Litopys.org.ua. 1979. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
- Comrie & Corbett (2002:6)
- Schenker (2002:82)
- Nilsson (2014:41)
- Comrie & Corbett (2002:8)
- Alexander Shilov (2015). Slavonic borrowings in the Romano-Germanic languages. Moscow. ISBN 3-515-07560-7. (It is based mainly on the English-Russian dictionary by W. Muller)
- Schleicher A. (1853). Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes. Allgemeine Zeitung für Wissenschaft und Literatur.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
- Rask R. K. (1818). Undersögelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse. Kjöbenhavn: Gyldendal.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) — xii + 312 s.
- Hellquist, Elof (1922). "torg". Svensk etymologisk ordbok (in Swedish). Project Runeberg.
- Hellquist, Elof (1922). "tolk". Svensk etymologisk ordbok (in Swedish). Project Runeberg.
- Hellquist, Elof (1922). "pråm". Svensk etymologisk ordbok (in Swedish). Project Runeberg.
- Titz, Karel (1922). "Naše řeč – Ohlasy husitského válečnictví v Evropě". Československý Vědecký ústav Vojenský (in Czech): 88. Retrieved 26 January 2019.
- Harper, Douglas. "vodka". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 18 May 2007.
- Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. Retrieved 28 April 2008
- Harper, Douglas. "sable". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 18 May 2007.
- cf.: Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm. 16 Bde. [in 32 Teilbänden. Leipzig: S. Hirzel 1854–1960.], s.v. Vampir; Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé; Dauzat, Albert, 1938. Dictionnaire étymologique. Librairie Larousse; Wolfgang Pfeifer, Етymologisches Woerterbuch, 2006, p. 1494; Petar Skok, Etimologijski rjecnk hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, 1971–1974, s.v. Vampir; Tokarev, S.A. et al. 1982. Mify narodov mira. ("Myths of the peoples of the world". A Russian encyclopedia of mythology); Russian Etymological Dictionary by Max Vasmer.
- Harper, Douglas. "vampire". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 21 September 2007.
- Stachowski, Kamil. 2005. Wampir na rozdrożach. Etymologia wyrazu upiór – wampir w językach słowiańskich. W: Rocznik Slawistyczny, t. LV, str. 73–92
- "Indo-European, Slavic". Language Family Trees. Ethnologue. 2006.
- Rimskyj misal slověnskym jazykem : izvoljenijem Apostolskym za Archibiskupiju Olomuckuju iskusa dělja izdan = Missale Romanum lingua veteroslavica : ex indulto Apostolico pro Archidioecesi Olomucensi ad experimentum editum (doslov napsal Vojtěch Tkadlčík). 1972. Olomouc: Kapitulní ordinariát v Olomouci, 198pp.
- Vepřek, Miroslav. 2016. Hlaholský misál Vojtěcha Tkadlčíka". Olomouc: Nakladatelství Centra Aletti Refugium Velehrad-Roma.
- Steenbergen, Jan van. Język międzysłowiański jako lingua franca dla Europy Środkowej. Ilona Koutny, Ida Stria (eds.): Język / Komunikacja / Informacja nr XIII (2018). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Rys, 2018. ISBN 978-83-65483-72-0, ISSN 1896-9585, pp. 52–54.
- Comrie, Bernard; Corbett, Greville. G. (2002). "Introduction". In Comrie, Bernard; Corbett, Greville. G. (eds.). The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. pp. 1–19. ISBN 0-415-28078-8.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Lockwood, W.B. A Panorama of Indo-European Languages. Hutchinson University Library, 1972. ISBN 0-09-111020-3 hardback, ISBN 0-09-111021-1 paperback.
- Marko Jesensek, The Slovene Language in the Alpine and Pannonian Language Area, 2005. ISBN 83-242-0577-2
- Kalima, Jalo (April 1947). "Classifying Slavonic languages: Some remarks". The Slavonic and East European Review. 25 (65).
- Kapović, Mate (2008). Uvod u indoeuropsku lingvistiku (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. ISBN 978-953-150-847-6.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Novotná, Petra; Blažek, Václav (2007). "Glottochronology and its application to the Balto-Slavic languages" (PDF). Baltistica. XLII (2): 185–210. Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 October 2008.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Richards, Ronald O. (2003). The Pannonian Slavic Dialect of the Common Slavic Proto-language: The View from Old Hungarian. Los Angeles: University of California. ISBN 9780974265308.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Schenker, Alexander M. (2002). "Proto-Slavonic". In Comrie, Bernard; Corbett, Greville. G. (eds.). The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. pp. 60–124. ISBN 0-415-28078-8.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Nilsson, Morgan (8 November 2014). "Vowel–Zero Alternations in West Slavic Prepositions". University of Gothenburg. hdl:2077/36304. ISBN 978-91-981198-3-1. Retrieved 27 March 2020. Cite journal requires
|journal=(help)CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Kamusella, Tomasz (2005). "The Triple Division of the Slavic Languages: A linguistic finding, a product of politics, or an accident?". Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences. hdl:10023/12905. Retrieved 27 March 2020. Cite journal requires
|journal=(help)CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Slavic languages.|