Why do north germanic languages and slavic languages both have the adjective ending -sk/-ska even if they're not...

I don't know why, but the wiktionary page doesn't mention any other cognates. See this:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/-ākos
See the wiki on PIE nominatives for how *-eh2- works.

>Can you really steal grammar forms from a different language?
Yup.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund

By that logic Iranic languages should have sk endings too because slavic is closer to them than germanic but they dont but they dont.

why did other germanic languages and all other PIE languages lose it?

> regarding PIndo-Iranic and other IE langs
they do have it, see . its just an alternative but parallel construction. PIE is full of stuff like this, it wasn't a well-structured language or anything.

In regard to Iranic in particular, I can say a bit more. PIE *k corresponds in Indo-Iranian to either *k or č (the palato-labial series, not the palatal one), depending on context.

If there's a laryngeal H after it, you get
*kH --> š
So in Sanskrit, we see exactly this, namely śasa/kasa. In avestan, it is časa/šasa/kasa. For source, see "An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit".

> regarding germanic languages
They didn't lose it. English -ish even derives from this.

other germanic languages have it, it's the engilsh "-ish"

Interestingly I was just looking at random PIE words, and came across "h1lewdʰ" which led to the slavic "lyude", icelandic "lýður" and german "leute", all these words mean "people". Seems other germanic languages have lost it. I guess German is pretty conservative compared to other slav languages.

>compared to other slav languages
oh shit i meant compared to other germanic languages

also it seems germanic and especially slavic are quite close to PIE compared to others, or maybe the wikitionary doesnt have much info on other languages, like most importantly iranic and sanskrit

Forgot to add, due to the way Indo-Iranian ablaut and such work, the suffix became -akasa, and ended up only keeping the final "a" if inflected, i.e. -kasya.

In Iranian proper, you have s->h. So it became -akaha, which just became -aka. Indeed, this is a super common Old Iranian suffix, creating adjectives. In middle persian, its -ag/-ak (depending on the ending of the stem), again, extremely common. In Sanskrit, it became -ka.

I don't think germanic is "quite close" at all. Tons of vowel changes (umlaut etc.), lots of innovations, etc. Sanskrit/Avestan, Greek and Latin are by far the most conservative.

Honestly, studying PIE you'd think its most similar to Greek, then next, to Sanskrit, mostly because the way its transcribed is based on Greek, and Sanskrit just had a literary culture earlier than other branches, and ended up being stable earlier.

can you give examples?

>baltslav

No such thing

>Sanskrit/Avestan, Greek
Yes.
>and Latin
No, Latin is quite innovative

Its not quite easy to see these things in a few examples - the changes in each branch are all quite different, and most branches preserve things that others do not.

That said, while Anatolian, Greek, Sanskrit/Avestan, Latin, Balto-Slav all have plenty of (not always the same) archaic features of PIE, Germanic is honestly pretty far removed in both grammar and phonology (though it did keep aspiration intact-ish). A good example is Grimm's law, which is such a drastic change that it, along with all the vowel shifts, might have been due to a substrate.

You certainly see substrates in other branches (BMAC and Dravidian for Indo-Iranian), but in that case, they didn't impact structure, only some very simple phonology.

Latin preserves the cases pretty well. But yeah I agree.

But they ARE directly related.

>I would guess
>probably
>likely
>maybe
I always disregard posts starting with this shit.

>I always disregard posts starting with this shit.
would you prefer if he pretended his guesswork is 100% pure fact?

They're both indo European language groups that are right next to each other. Similarities are inevitable.

>right next to each other.
Not (pre-)historically though. Slavs were nested all the way in Belarus while Germanics were in Denmark. Slavs had more contact with Balts and Scythians while Germanics were in contact with Celts.

Yup. Slavic has just as much or more in common with Indo-Iranian (namely Scytho-Sarmatian) as it does with Germanic.

Celtic(at least Gaulish) had it too Taur-isci, Scord-isci,

>even if they're not directly related?
who the fuck says they aren't directly related?

I'm pretty sure those are Latin-izations. The corresponding sound changes in Celtic should make it -(V)ch, where V is the ablauting vowel, in this case "a", and ch = /x/, or the voiced ɣ.

By latinizations, I mean, the word is entirely latin, perhaps some Celtic name sounded something like "Taur", then the Romans added -isci to it.

>This cretin Pole pushing his Baltslav agenda again

>Yes you can. English does this incredibly often...
Go ahead and post some examples.

English uses plenty of French, Latin and Greek affixes, and not just in loanwords. A good example is -ician (from French), or -ia (latin places), -oid (greek), -age (like "storage", from French/latin), etc.

These are all used without the grammatical context they are originally in, but are borrowed as word-creating suffixes, ignoring inflection.

They both originate from the Proto-Indo-European -iskos:
Proto-Balto-Slavic: ishkas -> Proto-Slavic: -ish -> Russian: -ski etc.

Proto-Germanic: -iskaz -> Old Norse: -skr, iskr -> Swedish: -sk, -isk etc.

this was already posted in the third and fourth reply, and is what the entire thread is about.

If by "occupied at one point" you mean "are the indigenous inhibaitants of"

>no contact
What about the Varangians?

Pole are by far the worst posters on Veeky Forums.

Baltic Sprachbund, perhaps?