Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.baltics,soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.ukrainian,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!granite.ciw.edu!quartz!mazin
From: mazin@quartz.ciw.edu (Igor Mazin)
Subject: Re: Good Finn is a dead and buried one?
Sender: usenet@granite.ciw.edu
Message-ID: <27Feb95.053717.20820@granite.ciw.edu>
Date: 27 Feb 95 05:37:17 GMT
References: <3ip017$71n@decaxp.harvard.edu> <26Feb95.053556.18546@granite.ciw.edu> <3ip64m$7rr@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Organization: Geophysical Laboratory, CIW
Lines: 26

>>Hmm, wsegda prijatno pojmat' Mishu na fakticheskoj oshibke. Prussians
>>were a Baltic tribe, most close to Lituanians, and not a Slav tribe.
>
>	This is actually interesting: I have written "Prussians,
>	a Baltic tribe" in a Usenet article a while ago and
It IS intersting: first I correctly guessed that this was a real mistake,
not a flamebait. Second, I incorrectly assumed that Misha will defend
this mistake with tons of irrelevant citations. Instead, I with pleasure
learned that thera are persons that Misha thinks are of better knowlaedge 
than himself. A nice surprise.

>	someone (with, I thought, better knowledge than me)
>	corrected me. Hence I assumed that the Soviet paradigm,
>	which considers Prussians a Baltic tribe, is not generally 
>	accepted, and used "Prussians a Slavic tribe" thereupon. 
>	The distinction between Balts and Slavs is blurry (see 
>	my other article), but could someone shed some light on
>	this, please? 
>
I agree with your last point. The only way distinguish Balts from Slavs is
linguistical. Linguistically, letto-lituanian, being the closest to
slavic group, includes Latvian, Lituanian, a couple of dead tongues of some
 lituanian tribes, _and_ prussian language. That's all.

P.S. You could of use luzhickie sorbs instead of Prussians in your article.
They are genuine western Slavs (liker Poles and Chehs)
