I just read this on a blog, which nearly made me fall off my chair: "The Baltic languages are not ancient, they arose no sooner than they separated from the Balto-Slavic continuum. There is nothing particularly ancient in it, the verb system is so simply completely innovative, essentially Finno-Ugric, in contrast to the completely archaic Indo-European Slavic". I always believed that the Baltic conjugation (without speaking of the nominal morphology and the phonology, which are imo completely explainable on an IE ground) is precisely very archaic, and furthermore that they share some of their innovations with other IE groups (like the -s- future, with Greek and Sanskrit). I'm absolutely unable to find the least feature in Baltic conjugation that could be due to a Uralic influence. I'm really perplexed, as I cannot imagine how anyone could write something so affirmative without at least some strong argument. What do I miss, where is the flaw in my knowledge?
