while in the Proto-Baltic language vowel reduction is not being reconstructed. This shows the different nature of assimilation in Baltic languages. When analyzing the dropping of consonants at the end of a word, she claims that in Proto-Slavic this process was a consequence of a general tendency but in Baltic languages, the endings of consonants were not dropped at all. According to the linguist, metathesis in the Proto-Baltic was an independent phenomenon that, unlike in the case of Proto-Slavic, is not connected with the open syllable principle (in the Baltic languages such a principle did not and does not exist to this day). When evaluating the gemination (the fadeaway of consonant lengthening) Dubasova emphasizes that linguists do not have a consensus on this: some interpret this as an independent process while some believe it to be a common genetic deviation. Dubasova presents the opinions of other specialists about the system of consonants and even though she notes that there is no common ground regarding this, the linguist draws attention to the alveolar and dental consonant differences that Baltic and Slavic languages possess. In conclusion, Dubasova states:The examples of previously discussed factors reveal that Slavic and Baltic languages “had put an emphasis” on different ways of reorganization, and used various [linguistic] tools irregularly; all changes despite their similarities in Baltic and Slavic languages are independent processes, which have a different basis and consequences. So, it is more logical to talk about the independent evolution from the very beginning rather than “separation” without postulating the idea of a common Proto-Balto-Slavic language. Morphology and syntax The opponents of the Balto-Slavic theory had presented morphological properties that, according to them, prove that the Proto-Balto-Slavic language did not exist: In the Baltic languages, ordinal numeral first (Lithuanian: pirmas, Latvian: pirmais) is created with a suffix -mo-, whereas in the Slavic languages it is done with a suffix -wo-, as in the Indo-Iranian languages and Tocharian languages. In Hittite language as well as the Proto-Slavic language the suffix -es- was used to create names for parts of the body. That is not the case with the Baltic languages. The Slavic perfect of the word know *vĕdĕ comes from *u̯oi̯da(i̯), an archaism that has no equivalent in the Baltic languages. The Slavic imperative form of the verb go *jьdi is the continuation of *i-dhí, something that cannot be found in the Baltic languages. The Slavic suffix of