Bahman писал(а):Пожалуй, единственная «ветвь», которая была сформулирована давно и до сих пор не подвергнута пересмотру – это индоиранская. Это при том, что уже положение дардской и, тем более, нуристанской, групп внутри неё точно так же постоянно дискутируется.
И в чем разница между проблемой балто-славянского единства и проблемой дардо-индо-арийской единства?
Вы считаете, что в одном все ясно и говорить не о чем, а во втором дискуссия допустима?
Ну и так к слову о некоторых примечательных албано-славянских "инновациях" (очевидно параллельного развития):
Although Proto-Albanian and Proto-Slavic are not classified together in a genetic sub-group of Indo-European languages, there are a number of early developments from Indo-European that Albanian and Slavic share, usually in common with Baltic. While a thorough discussion of these developments is beyond the scope of the present work, a brief treatment of the major developments is in order, as they bear on the analysis of the linguistic material shared by Albanian and Slavic, especially the phonology and morphology. Among the innovations that Albanian and Slavic share in their development from Proto-Indo-European include (1) the lengthening of short vowels before original unaspirated stops in closed syllables (Winter’s Law),[10] (2) the loss of voiced aspirates *bh, *dh and *gh, which merge with the plain (unaspirated) voiced consonants *b, *d, and *g,[11] (3) the merger of IE *ă and *ŏ,[12] (4) the development of IE *ks to /x/[13], and possibly (5) the treatment of long syllables ending in a sonorant[14] (Porzig 1954; Jokl 1963: 116–129; Hamp 1966: 115–119, 1994: 67; 1984: 238–239; Mayer 1993: 78–79). ... In addition to these phonological developments, Albanian and Slavic share some developments morphologically and lexically from Indo-European that may also show vestiges of ancient contact, such as (1) the development of preterites from Indo-European aorist stems but active participles from present stems (Hamp 1966: 117), (2) 1st and 2nd accusative pronouns from *mem and *tṷem (Jokl 1963: 141–142; Hamp 1966: 119), (3) the formation of cardinal numbers from ordinals ending in *-ti, as in Alb dhjetë (Geg dhetë), OCS desętĭ ‘ten’,[15] (4) the use of the IE root *ǵombh o- for the meaning ‘tooth’, as in Alb dhëmbë, OCS zǫbŭ, which has meanings of ‘peg’ or ‘protruding object’ elsewhere in IE (as in Eng. comb), and a number of other lexical developments (Jokl 1963: 129–156; Svane 1965; Çabej 1976: 63–74; Huld 1984: 166; Stanišić 1995: 8; Orel 2000: 250–256).[16] — Matthew Cowan Curtis, Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence // Ohio State University, 2012.