While the simple thematic ending in 2sg. is relatively wellattested in the Indo-European languages, pointing to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *-e-si, it is attested with an unusual form *-ēi in Baltic. Several previous studies have argued how Proto-Baltic (PB) *-ēi could be derived from the PIE *-e-si or whether itis really a direct descendant of PIE *-e-si. This paper will revisit aproposal originally submitted by Brugmann (1889) and later byRasmussen (1999), indicating that the ending has its origin in areanalysis of the root and ending of the athematic present formsin 2sg. of the roots ending in *-s, e.g., *es-si  > *esi → *es-i ‘youare.’ The new ending replaces the inherited ending *-e-si with *-e-i, resulting in the new simple thematic ending *-ei in Baltic.However, some problems have been pointed out with this line ofapproach. The instances where the proposed reanalysis wouldhave happened are limited to a few verbs. Moreover, the new ending that originated in the athematic *es-i more seriouslyaffected the thematic verbs, not the other athematic verbs. Thenew ending will attempt to modify this original proposal byassuming that the reanalysis could have happened as well in theathematic 2sg. s-future forms, which has enjoyed great productivity since Proto-Baltic prehistoric times.

There are two preterit-stem formations in Baltic: ā-preterit and ē-preterit. While the ā-preterit can be equated with the Slavic ā-aorist and therefore suggests the Balto-Slavic å-aorist, the ē-preterit does not correspond to a particular category in Slavic and is sometimes assumed to be a Baltic creation (cf. Villanueva Svensson 2005). As for the origin of the é-suffix, one of the most interesting hypotheses is that the suffix is a result of the contraction of *-iyā- (Schleicher 1856: 224f., Larsson 2010: 71ff.), which is in fact a Sievers' disyllabic variant of *-yā-, i.e., a postvocalic variant of the Baltic preterit marker *-ā- (cf. Barton 1980: 269).

The disyllabic *-iyā-, according to Sievers' Law, appears when the suffix itself is not accented and is preceded by a heavy syllable. Therefore, *-iyā- is expected to appear in a barytone ē-preterit form (3sg./pl. *gēr-iyā > Lith. gėrė 'drank' [with the accent on the root syllable]), or in an oxytone form with the accent on the ending (2p1. *pōs-iyā-té → 3sg./pl. *pōs-ìyā > puõšė [beside púošė] 'adorned'). However, the monosyllabic variant *-yā- never occurs in the postconsonantal position (mirė, not **mirio < *mir-yā 'died'). Also interestingly, Sievers' disyllabic variants never seem to occur in their paired present stems in -ia. Thus we do not find forms like **puošija (< *pōš-iya) but puošia (< *pōš-ya). We find a clear distribution where the preterit stem has Sievers' disyllabic variant *-iyā-, while the present stem has the monosyllabic variant *-ya-.

The Baltic verbs, Lith. kláusti ‘to ask questions’, klausýti ‘to listen’, Latv. klàust ‘to ask questions’ and klàusît / klaũsît ‘to listen’ exhibit intriguing morphological and accentological distributions. For a long time, this has interested linguists as shown by numerous previous studies starting with Schulze (1904). Despite several proposals put forward so far, researchers have not yet agreed on a historical interpretation of the acute tone of Lith. kláusti, or on the historical relationship of kláusti to its cognates not only in Balto-Slavic but also in Indo-European languages. In this paper, all the relevant data and hypotheses available to the current author will be examined again, and a more probable historical interpretation will be sought.

Two stem formations are known in the Baltic simple preterit system: the ā-preterit and ē-preterit. This paper discusses the prehistoric background of the ā-preterit.Previous studies have indicated at least two Slavic categories comparable to the Baltic ā-preterit: the thematic aorist with the middle-intransitive meaning and the ā-aorist ofthe second stem in -a-. Based on the comparison of the Baltic ā-preterit and the Slavic ā-aorist, the Balto-Slavic ā-aorist is reconstructed, while the comparison of the middle-intransitive thematic aorists in Slavic and some ā-preterit in Baltic allows for the re-construction of the Balto-Slavic thematic aorist. Recent investigations have shown thatthe middle-intransitive thematic aorist in Proto-Balto-Slavic may have developed fromthe Indo-European middle root-aorist. On the other hand, the origin of the Balto-Slavic ā-aorist remains subject to debate, but it seems clear that the ā-aorist acquired a durativefunction in Balto-Slavic. Building on these previous studies, it is argued in this paperthat the Baltic ā-preterit developed through a merger of at least two different Balto-Slavic categories. The article will also describe both how the merger might have takenplace, and how the Baltic ā-preterit might have been organized through the merger.

The verbs Lith. mirti / Latv. mirt ‘to die’ and Lith. (-)miršti / Latv. (-)mirst ‘to forget’ share several features in historical morphology: both take sta-present stem, in spite of their Indo-European cognates in the *-ye/o-present stem; the root-aorist in the middle voice inflection can be reconstructed in PIE; and both are also semantically middle. However, they are contrastive in the past tense in Baltic, taking different preterit stems, i.e., Lith. mirė / Latv. miru(ē) and Lith. miršo / Latv. mirsu(ā). This article will investigate what led them to choose the different preterit stems by comparing their semantic and phonological properties, and will contribute to the reconstruction of the entire prehistory of the Baltic preterit system. In this article, it will be proposed that Lith. mirė / Latv. miru(ē) is probably descended from the older imperfect, while its aoristic nature led Lith. miršo / Latv. mirsu(ā) to inherit the older aorist stem, and this historical difference may be reflected in their different preterit stems.

Du veiksmažodžiai–liet. mirti /latv. mirt ‘mirti’ ir liet. (-)miršti / latv. (-)mirst ‘pamiršti’ – turi keletą bendrų istorinės morfologijos ypatybių: abu šie veiksmažodžiai turi esamojolaiko sta- kamieną, nepaisant giminiškų indoeuropietiškų esamojolaiko *-ye/o-kamienų formų; iš indoeuropiečių prokalbės galima rekonstruoti, kad šių veiksmažodžių šakniniai aoristai linksniuojami kaip medijai; abu šie veiksmažodžiai pasižymi medijų semantika. Vis dėlto palyginus baltų kalbas matyti, kad jų preteritų kamienai skiriasi: liet. mirė / latv. miru (ē) ir liet. miršo / latv. mirsu (ā). Šiame straipsnyje lyginant semantines ir fonologines ypatybes tiriama, kodėl šie veiksmažodžiai įgijo skirtingus preterito kamienus, bei prisidedama prievisos protobaltų kalbos preterito sistemos rekonstrukcijos. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad liet. mirė / latv. miru (ē) tikriausiai yra kilęs iš senojo imperfekto kamieno, o liet. miršo / latv. mirsu (ā) dėl aoristinių semantinių ypatybių galėtų būti kilęs iš senojo aoristo kamieno. Šis istorinis skirtumas atsispindi skirtinguose jų preterito kamienuose.

There are two preterit-stem formations in Baltic: *ā-preterit and *ē-preterit. The *ē-preterit includes a category called “long-vowel preterit” that is characterized by the long root vowel. There are at least two hypotheses regarding their origin. First, it has been proposed that these long-vowel preterits may have originated from the imperfect form of Narten presents. Then, it has been suggested that long root vowels were introduced through Stang-Larsson’s rule operating on a variant of the Baltic preterit suffix *-ìyā-, where a preceding vowel was lengthened and received a circumflex tone in a sequence *-V-ìyā-. The second hypothesis explains the tone variation of the verbs in the root structure ◦ERK-, ◦EUK-, and ◦ĒK- (e.g., spręsti (an acute / circumflex tone on -ę-), spréndžia/spreñdžia, spréndė/spreñdė ‘to stretch’ < *(s)prend-). However, this is valid only when the suffix is accented, although the environment for the disyllabic suffix (-ìyā-) must be unaccented according to Sievers-Edgerton’s law. What follows is that the disyllabic suffix originated in the root-accented long-vowel preterits, while the verbs with tone variation probably accepted the disyllabic -ìyā-,so that Stang-Larsson’s rule later operated on them. Interestingly, some of these have a historical relationship with Narten presents, according to a previous study. This article presents the different historical developments of at least two groups of verbs that form the long-vowel preterits through an examination of the accentuation of these verbs.

Baltų kalbose egzistuoja du būtojo kartinio laiko (preterito) kamienų tipai: *ā-preteritai ir *ē-preteritai. *Ē-preteritai apima kategoriją, vadinamą ilgojo balsio preteritais, kurių šaknims būtajame kartiniame laike būdingas pailgintas vokalizmas. Be to, kai kurių ilgojo balsio preteritų priegaidės varijuoja, plg. lie. berti, 3 sg./pl. pres. bẽria, 3 sg./pl. pret. bėrė (su cirkumfleksine priegaide) vs. inf. bérti, bẽria, bėrė (su akūtine priegaide). Apie ilgojo balsio preteritų kilmę iškeltos bent dvi hipotezės. Weissas ir Jasanoffas teigė, kad ilgojo balsio preteritai, egzistuojantys ne tik baltų, bet ir kitose indoeuropiečių kalbose, gali būti kilę iš Narten tipo esamojo laiko kamienų imperfekto. Villanueva Svenssono manymu, ilgasis šaknies vokalizmas susidarė, Stango-Larsson dėsniui paveikus baltų prokalbės preterito priesagą *-ìyā-turinčias formas, kurių trumpasis šaknies balsis buvo pailgintas ir gavo cirkumfleksinę priegaidę, o jei buvo ilgasis (ir akūtinis), tuomet tik įgijo cirkumfleksinę priegaidę: *-V-ìyā- > *-V̄-iyā (> *-V̄-ē, plg. *-iyā > *-ē). Antroji hipotezė paaiškina ilgojo balsio preteritų priegaidžių variantus, tačiau ji galioja tik tada, kai priesaga yra kirčiuota, nors, pagal Sieverso-Edgertono dėsnį, dviskiemenės priesagos (-ìyā-) aplinka turi būti nekirčiuota. Straipsnyje tiriama ilgojo balsio preteritų su priegaidžių variantais ir be priegaidžių variantų kirčiavimo priešistorė, ir teigiama, kad jų kilmė ir raida nevienodos. Narten imperfektų refleksai pirmojoje grupėje (su priegaidžių variantais) veikiausiai išrutuliojo oksitonines arba mobilias paradigmas, o antroji grupė (visada su akūtine priegaide) rodo, kad jie išrutuliojo baritonines arba koloninio kirčio paradigmas, kilusias iš aoristo-bendraties kamienų (pvz. lie. gérti, gėrė [su akūtine priegaide] < *gḛ̄r-), įskaitant kai kurias dešinines veiksmažodžių šaknis su neaiškia etimologija (pvz., lie. érgti, érgė < *ḛ̄rg-).

The prosodic system of Proto-Slavic (Accent Systems, Suprasegmental Phonetics and Phonology). is reconstructed characterized with stress pattern (or accentual mobility), distinctive tones and vowel quantities. The reconstruction is based on the accentuation systems of the attested Slavic languages: the western varieties of South Slavic languages, i.e., Serbo-Croatian (cf. BCSM) and Slovene, have distinctive tone systems and accentual mobility in nominal/verbal paradigms. East Slavic languages also exhibit accentual mobility. These features have systematic parallels in the Baltic languages as well, and the accentuation systems of both branches have been investigated synchronically and diachronically. This research area is called Balto-Slavic accentology, and there are many theories and schools in the area. This entry provides the research history of Balto-Slavic accentology and the backgrounds of the accentological schools with a focus on Slavic.