Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity

OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-6244-5473 Fields of research: teaching English and Chinese to future translators/interpreters (teaching tools and socio-political background for developing skills in listening comprehension, speaking, reading and writing), Translation Studies (discourse analysis, adequacy of translation, translatorial competence, tactic and strategic issues of translation), General Linguistics, Comparative Linguistics, etc. OLGA A. KOPUS South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-1235-2997 Fields of research: Problems of Linguistic Didactics, Linguistic Stylistics, Cognitive Linguistics, etc. OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-3382-0155 Fields of research: Teaching English and Chinese to Future Translators/Interpreters, Translation Studies, etc. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all91-06 LITHUANIAN–UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE PARALLELS: ETYMOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP AND TYPOLOGICAL SIMILARITY Straipsniai / Articles 147 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN Lietuvių ir ukrainiečių kalbų paralelės: etimologinis ryšys ir tipologinis panašumas ANNOTATION The article aims to confirm an important hypothesis about the existence of separate parallels in the Lithuanian and Ukrainian languages. The absence of common areal boundaries of both languages with striking correspondences at different levels indicates the preservation of common lingual relics of the era of ancient contacts between speakers of Baltic and Slavonic dialects. The exclusivity of the Lithuanian-Ukrainian isoglosses, which do not extend to other languages of the Baltic and Slavonic groups of the Indo-European language family, is most likely the result of close lingual interaction between the Eastern Slavs and the ancestors of modern Lithuanians on the territory outlined by the river network of tributaries of the Dnipro in its upper reaches. Some of the relics turned out to be resistant to evolutionary processes, due to which they “survived” to our time as part of the descendant languages of ancient dialects. Preliminary data collection and linguistic analysis show that very close structural-etymological encounters are presented at several levels of the Lithuanian and Ukrainian language systems, namely, lexical, word formation and textual (phrases with a genetically common composition). The authors include typologically very close textual analogies at the phraseological level among the evidence of the development of joint innovations introduced by the ancestors of the speakers of Lithuanian and Ukrainian speech, which are probably based on common semantic-semiotic models generated by common cultural experiences of the two ethnic groups in the process of contacts. KEYWORDS: vocabulary, word formation, etymology, text, phraseology, Lithuanian, Ukrainian. ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje siekiama patvirtinti svarbią hipotezę dėl atskirų paralelių egzistavimo lietuvių ir ukrainiečių kalbose. Abiejų kalbų bendro paplitimo ploto ribų nebuvimas ir ryškūs atitikmenys skirtinguose kalbų lygmenyse rodo, kad yra išlikusių bendrų kalbos reliktų iš senovės baltų ir slavų tarmėmis kalbėjusių kontaktų epochos. Lietuvių-ukrainiečių izoglosų išskirtinumas, neapimantis kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų šeimos baltų ir slavų kalbų grupių, greičiausiai yra glaudžios rytų slavų ir dabartinių lietuvių protėvių kalbinės sąveikos jų ankstesnėje teritorijoje, ribojamoje Dniepro intakų tinklo upės aukštupyje, rezultatas. Kai kurie reliktai pasirodė esą atsparūs evoliucijos procesams, todėl jie išliko iki šių laikų kaip senųjų tarmių palikuonių kalbų dalis. Preliminarių duomenų rinkimas ir jų lingvistinė analizė rodo, kad itin glaudžios struktūrinės-etimologinės sankirtos reprezentuojamos keliuose lietuvių ir ukrainiečių kalbų sistemų lygmenyse: leksiniame, žodžių darybos ir teksto (genetiškai bendros struktūros frazės). Tipologiškai labai artimus 148 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity teksto analogus frazeologiniame lygmenyje autoriai priskiria prie bendrų inovacijų, vartotų lietuvių ir ukrainiečių kalbėtojų protėvių, raidos įrodymų, kurie, tikėtina, remiasi bendrais semantiniais–semiotiniais modeliais, sukurtais abiejų etninių grupių bendros kultūrinės patirties kontaktų procese. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: žodynas, žodžių daryba, etimologija, tekstas, frazeologija, lietuvių, ukrainiečių. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Systemic coincidences in related languages are usually not limited to a single tier: the higher the degree of genetic relationship of languages, the greater the number of their subsystems that reveal a single principle of organization. And, of course, the closest relationship of languages determines the specific weight of their common vocabulary, i.e. the presence in their lexicons of whole-lexical analogues with a common root and/or affixes. This is seen in the example of the Romance languages (especially in their most ancient state) and the languages of two branches of the Aryan group – ancient Iranian and ancient Indo-Aryan, demonstrating a significant closeness of grammatical structure and vocabulary. A similar situation exists in the case of the Slavonic and Baltic languages, whose grammatical paradigms, lexicon, word morphology, morphemics (repertoire of root and function morphemes), several word-formation models and semantics are often related as “twins”. This is obvious even with the results of phonetic (e.g. contraction of diphthongs, reflection of PIE *k) and morphological evolution, which has alienated the languages. This phenomenon in comparative-historical linguistics is traditionally explained within the framework of several theories, the main ones being: 1) the theory of Slavonic–Baltic or Balto–Slavonic linguistic unity/proto-language (for a discussion, see the works of August Schleicher, Reinhold Trautmann, Jan Otrębski, Vladimir Georgiev, Vytautas Mažiulis, Jonas Kazlauskas, Rainer Eckert and others); 2) the theory of the formation of Slavonic from peripheral dialects of Baltic (Vyacheslav Vs. Ivanov, Vladimir N. Toporov, Viktor V. Martynov, Tadeusz Lehr–Spławiński); 3) the theory of independent development and secondary rapprochement of speakers of Proto-Slavonic and Proto-Baltic languages (Jānis Endzelīns, Oleg N. Trubachev). No doubt, the system of close correspondences between Slavonic and Baltic cannot be considered in a simplified and straightforward manner, since the systemic similarity is formed by several factors – a common Indo-European heritage and common innovations during areal contacts. This circumstance Straipsniai / Articles 149 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN alone prompts us to talk about the convergence of the languages of the two groups and the emergence of new joint formations at different times. However, the common elements of the lexical systems within Slavonic and Baltic are distributed unevenly, i.e. they often connect not all, but only individual languages of both groups. This is already a direct indication of the ancient dialectal relations of the Proto-Indo-European era, as well as the time of the Balto-Slavonic interaction, which did not have a “frontal” character, covering all dialects at once, but local specificity, since it affected only a part of the Proto-Slavonic and Proto-Baltic dialects. Traces of an ancient map of areal Balto-Slavonic contacts help to clarify the dialectal differentiation of both proto-languages, cf., for example, the separate isoglosses linking Slovene with the Baltic languages (Bezlaj 1966–1968). For individual examples of this type, see also: (Trautmann 1923; Anikin 1998), and also more recently (Iliadi 2023 with important nuances of the isogloss configuration). 2.1. It should be noted that it is not only the units formed during the era of contacts between speakers of the two proto-languages that exhibit a systemic character. It is quite possible to speak with confidence about a common (rather old!) Slavonic-Baltic heritage from the era of interaction between individual languages of the two groups, cf., for example, isolexes in the languages of the Pomeranian Slavs, Kashubians and Old Prussians (Labuda 1974; Popowska–Taborska 1991), revealing the complex nature of ancient Baltic-Slavonic relations, as well as examples of Belarusian–Lithuanian lexical connections (Čekman 1972). But in the case of the languages of the Baltic Slavs and Balts, everything is clear: their territories of residence are contiguous, and the consequence of historical contacts were common innovations in their speech. On the contrary, the problem is presented by the Lithuanian–Ukrainian parallels, remarkable in that they exist in languages whose areas do not have common borders, so a completely fair question arises about the conditions of their origin. Some of these similarities may date back to the time of the most ancient contacts between the Balts, the ancestors of the speakers of modern Lithuanian, and the Proto-S​lavs, whose dialects much later took part in the genesis of the dialects of the Ukrainian language. To a large extent, this idea applies to cases of genetic identity of root lexemes (Ukrainian ѝна: Lithuanian opà; see below) or to derivatives from an etymon found only in the root word of the Slavs and Balts (cf. Ukrainian язк–ар: Lithuanian ežgys, ežegys; see below). However, most of the Lithuanian–Ukrainian or Ukrainian–Lithuanian parallels examined below at different levels of language, as it seems to us, reproduce the results of linguistic interaction between the ancient East Slavonic population and the Baltic ethnic group, linguistically close to the Lithuanians, on the territory of the 150 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity Upper Dnipro region. We mean contacts of the era, the upper limit of which is reflected in the Old Russian chronicles. The very fact of communication between the Dnipro Slavs and a branch of the Lithuanian tribe is indirectly confirmed not only by the fact that for Ukrainian language units (Old Russian heritage), there are only Lithuanian parallels. The Baltic hydronymic substrate of the Dnipro region also testifies in its favour, explained only by data from the Lithuanian language. In the literature on onomastics, such hydronyms are attributed to “a relic of the Baltic dialect of the Eastern Lithuanian or, more broadly, Aukštaitian type” (Nepokupnyj 1981: 76). We emphasize that the problem of identifying the heritage of these separate contacts has not yet been specifically addressed, although it is necessary in the interests of comparative-historical grammar, lexicology, and the etymology of the Baltic and Slavonic languages, which emphasizes the relevance of the proposed study. 2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The main purpose of the proposed study, in our opinion, is the practical substantiation of the problem related to the common linguistic heritage in Lithuanian and Ukrainian, which distinguishes them from other languages of the Baltic and Slavonic groups. The stated purpose is achieved by solving several scientific tasks: 1) to identify separate etymological parallels in the Lithuanian and Ukrainian languages; 2) to detect the integrity of Lithuanian and Ukrainian derivatives formed according to word-formation models common to them (with genetically identical affixes); 3) to determine genetically identical text units – word combinations that have an etymologically common composition and close semantics in the Lithuanian and Ukrainian languages (including the sum of phrasemes with etymologically identical components and close/identical ideological content for both languages); 4) to single out typologically common Lithuanian–Ukrainian phraseological parallels illustrating a close semantic contour. Straipsniai / Articles 151 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN 3. MATERIAL AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study material was extracted from lexicographic sources of the Lithuanian and Ukrainian languages (dictionaries of literary, dialectal vocabulary, phraseological dictionaries and, to a lesser extent, from folklore materials, onomastic dictionaries and written monuments) utilizing continuous sampling. The methods used in the proposed study are as follows: etymological (to clarify the genesis of lexical units and their original morphology), comparative-historical (to establish the genetic identity of the compared forms in the two languages, to understand the common paths of their joint evolution and reconstruction of prototypes) alongside the method of linguistic typology (to clarify the general patterns of the structure and semantics development of etymologically heterogeneous units in Lithuanian and Ukrainian and to describe the typological similarity in the semantic-ideological contour of phrasemes of the two languages). The analytical procedure used in the study is based, in general terms, on the scientific methods used in etymology, works on diachronic word formation and comparative semasiology. The logic and sequence of their use follow from the treatment of the material in the next section. Here we would like to emphasize several methodologically important points that correspond to the tasks set above. 1. The presence of separate whole-lexical (with homogeneity of the root and affix parts) analogues in Lithuanian and Ukrainian, characterized by the absence of correspondences outside both languages, is interpreted as a product of lingual interaction between some speakers of Old Russian dialects and ancient Baltic dialects (conditionally) of the Aukštai type, preserved by them. However, one should not reject the possibility of reproducing more ancient linguistic relations between some dialects of the Proto-Slavs and Proto-Balts in such isolexes. The authors of the proposed article realize that the area of some parallels may be somewhat expanded over time with the introduction of new dialect data from other languages of both groups into scientific circulation. It should be noted that the exclusivity of isolexes is a fact until proven otherwise. In addition, an important diagnostic criterion for exclusivity is the absence of Russian analogues identical to Ukrainian ones, although they should be expected since the territory of the upper part of the Dnipro is also the area of Russian dialects. 2. We attribute the formation of common word-formation models or their activation (revitalization) during close, long-term communication to the results of separate language contacts between the languages mentioned. 152 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity 3. Within the framework of contacts, both ancient dialects developed common elements of the text (ritual, mythological, legal, if we consider phraseological units as archaic legal regulations) – word combinations built from homogeneous lexemes. We attribute set expressions with the same image symbols, expressed by words that are genetically identical for Baltic and Slavonic, to examples of the text belonging to this type. 4. In a certain sense, the results of separate contacts can also be manifested in the semantics of lexemes, phraseological units that do not have an etymologically common core, but contain a typologically identical or close semantic pattern. They are likely formed according to some common semantic patterns. 4. ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIAL 4.1. Lexical “doubles” (whole-lexemic identities) Lith. draũgalas : Ukr. дрyґoлик Lith. draũgalas ‘comrade’ – a derivative with the formant –alas from draũgas ‘friend’, ‘pal’ (Smoczyński 2019: 332). This Lithuanian word in Ukrainian corresponds to the colloquial дрyґoлик ‘buddy’, formed by the suffix –ик-, added to the stem of the archaic *другол (cf. also the modern surname Друґолюк = *Друґол-), where -ол- (Proto-Slavonic –olь) historically corresponds to Lith. –alas (Sławski 1974: 109). Lith. ilga- : Ukr. довго- (in composites) Lith. ilgaburnis ‘having a long mouth (lips)’, ‘long-faced’ (LKŽe1) ~ Ukr. *довгобéрний, reconstructed concerning the modern surname Довгобéрний (Odesa). As in all other examples considered here, both parts of the Ukrainian composite are etymologically identical to parts of the Lithuanian one. The Ukrainian example is interesting since it may contain the East Slavonic reflex of Proto-Slavonic *bьrna ‘lip’, the geography of which, according to ESSJ, is limited to the South Slavonic languages (ESSJ III 130); Lith. ilgagalvis ‘long-headed’ ~ Ukr. довгоголовий ‘the same’ (used, for example, when tracing the Latin Cenchrus longispinus Fernald = Ценхрус довгоголовий); ¹ Available at: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviiu-kalbos-zodynas/ilgaburnis?i=0e187e4a-f7b7-4c3f-bf2c-51218035453e [accessed 30.08.2024]. Straipsniai / Articles 153 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN Lith. ilgakā̃sis ‘long-braided’ ~ Ukr. dial довгокóсий (although in this case, the isogloss configuration is somewhat more complex: Lithuanian–Ukrainian–South Slavonic, cf. Serbian, Croatian dugòkos ‘the one with long hair’, Bulgarian дългокóс, Macedonian долгокос (Sławski, ed., 1979: 264 without Ukrainian word); Lith. ilgavīlnis ‘long-haired’ (LKŽe²) ~ Ukrainian довговóлний ‘the same’. Lith. kìlpa : Ukr. [чóун] Lith. kìlpa ‘a loop obtained after crossing or joining the ends of a rope’, ‘stirrup’, ‘bend’ (LKŽe³) ~ Ukr. dial. Podolsk. [чóун] ‘loop’ in the set expression зачóунити чóун = to tie a loop (about a thread with a needle) (Brods’ka 1979: 35), cf. Proto-Slavonic *čьlpti ‘to weave’, comparable with Lith. kìlpotì ‘to make loops’, ‘to get entangled’, kìlpa ‘loop’ (ESUM VI 337). Lith. nerūnė : Ukr. нерíнь Lith. nerūnė ‘water plant (Lemanea)’ (LKŽe⁴) ~ Ukr. dial. Chernihiv. нерíнь ‘Duck-potato Sagittária’ (Dialektolohična anketa no. 57, 2015). V. N. Toporov rightly correlates the Lithuanian word, among other cognate forms in Slavonic and Baltic, with Lith. nérti ‘to dive’, Slavonic names of a hole, a pit, a pool starting with норand further – with the Proto-Indo-European *ner-/*nor- (Toporov 2010a: 204, 205). The Ukrainian lexeme reproduces Proto-Slavonic dialectal *nerynb, preserving the vocalism e, as in the correlative verb *nerti, *nъrǫ, in contrast, for example, to Russian норíпа ‘perennial herbaceous plant (Scrophularia nodosa)’. Thus, it is a complete (in morphological and ablaut respects) analogue of Lith. nerūnė. Regarding the suffixal formation, see Sławski 1974: 140–141 (especially cf. Emile Benveniste’s thesis on the connection between PIE –ūn–iā–, Common Baltic –ūni–, Tocharian –ūne) (Ambrazas 1993: 149–150; 2000: 159). Lith. nešìkas : Ukr. несéць Lith. nešìkas ‘porter’ (LKŽe⁵) ~ Ukr. dial. несéць ‘the same’ (ESUM IV 77: no exact Lithuanian equivalent). Derivatives from the etymologically identical ² Available at: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/ilgavilnis?i=451f9700-d14a-486b-a658-6125f8dcea8f [accessed 30.08.2024]. ³ Available at: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/kilpa?i=07020bef-9484-4c14-a2cb-807382b8beb9 [accessed 30.08.2024]. ⁴ Available at: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/ner%c5%abn%c4%97?i=3d5def6d-61b5-46b5-ab5e-420948e212de [accessed 30.08.2024]. ⁵ Available at: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/ne%c5%a1ikas?i=ed642f76-f0a3-41cf-a1dc-c250300a7c98 [accessed 30.08.2024]. 154 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity verbs nèšti ‘to carry’: hecmú ‘the same’ (for relatedness, see: ESSJ XXV 19–22; Smoczyński 2019: 1114–1115), formed according to a common word-formation model with the formant –ikas : -ьсъ. Lith. pusbrolis : Old Ukrainian Полбрать Lith. pusbrolis ‘cousin’ ~ pus- ‘half-, semi-’ + brólis ‘brother’ (Lyberis 1971: 618) (literally – ‘half-brother’) ~ Old Ukrainian Полбрать – Vterinus frater (Лексикон словено-латинский by Epifanij Slavineckij and Arsenii Koretsky–Satanovsky) (Leksykony 1973: 486), i.e. “half-brother”. A remnant of the old system of designating the degree of kinship between brothers (cf. Anatolij P. Nepokupny’s idea that “the Slavs also had had the same [as the Lithuanians and Latvians] “semi-brotherly” system of designating kinship, but it disappeared, leaving behind themselves only individual relics” (Nepokupnyj 1979: 91), an echo of which is the Ukrainian dialect *nivсestpa, preserved in the modern surname Півсестрин (Sumy). Old Lith. (?) *šovēj(a)s/*sovēj(a)s : Slav. *savějьnikъ Baltic (Old Lith.?) *šovēj(a)s/*sovēj(a)s as a ritual term is reconstructed taking into account the name Covuu: this was the name of the legendary “founder and disseminator” of the cremation rite among pagan peoples, the story of which is described in the insertion made in 1261 by the copyist of the Russian translation of the “Chronicle” of John Malalas. In essence, this is nom. agent. from the verb *šauti/*sauti ‘to poke’, ‘to push’, ‘to move’, ‘to throw’ ~ Slav. *sovati, *suti, praes. *suję. Cf. phrases Lith. šáuti & ugnìs, krósnis, Latvian šaut & ugns, krāsns ‘to stick (push) into the fire, into the oven’ (Toporov 1985: 102; for more details see: ibid.: 101–104; Toporov 2010b: 386–390). The Ukrainian counterpart of this word is reproduced in the dialect (steppe dialects) савійнук ‘hook (for a cast-iron cauldron)’, ‘baking tray for bread’ (Dialektolohična anketa no. 17, 2015) with a prolongation of the root vowel (*a < *ō), which is rare for Slavonic representatives of this etymological nest. In contrast to the Baltic lexeme, here a more archaic, profane semantics is presented, isolating the Slavonic technical term from the language of the ritual: Slav. ‘oven-fork’, ‘baking sheet, baking tray’ (= a device with the help of which an object is placed into the fire) alongside Baltic. ‘a priest who places a ritual object in the fire’. But the structural correlation of the Lithuanian and Ukrainian forms shows a simpler morphology of the former with a word-formation complication (suffixal innovation in –bn–ikъ) of the latter, cf. Baltic (Old Lithuanian?) *šovēj(a)s / *sov–ēj(a)s VS Proto-Slavonic *sav–ěj–bnьikъ. Straipsniai / Articles 155 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN Lith. virbū tūorà : Ukr. вербóва тварь The Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (Lith. Lietuvių kalbos atlasas) in the section “Fences names” (Lith. „Tvorų pavadinimai“), devoted to dialectal names of types of fences and enclosures, contains a complex technical term dialectal virbū tūorà (Morkūnas, ats. red., 1977: 63), which in its etymological composition and semantics ‘a fence made of rods, vines’ is quite close to Ukr. dialectal Podolsk. вербóва тварь ‘a fence woven from rods’, cf. in the same meaning вербóва пліть (but also as a collective nomen ‘willow rods’) (Brods’ka 1979: 34). Thus, we have Lith. dialectal virbū tūorà : Slavonic *vъrb-ova tvarb with the genetic identity of virbas ‘vine’, ‘rod’ : *vъrba ‘willow’, ‘willow rod’ (Old Slavonic връба, Old Russian вѧрба, etc.; Fraenkel 1965: 1259) and tūorà ‘enclosure’, ‘fence’, ‘wattle’ : *tvarb (cf. Upper Sorbian twar ‘structure’, ‘construction’; ESUM V 530; Smoczyński 2019: 1963). The second of the given designations of a fence contains the deverbative плїть < praes. плету́ (to плести́ ‘to weave’), actually – плетéнь. Folk geographical terminology It is especially worth noting several very close parallels in the field of terms of geographical nomenclature: Lith. bědre, Latvian bedre ‘pit’, ‘swamp’, ‘valley’ (Nevskaja 1977: 19) ~ Ukr. dial. (Rivne Polesie) бедра ‘a large pit’ (for more details, see: Nepokupnyj 1976: 27–29: as a Polesian-Latvian isogloss; Anikin 1998: 30); Lith. Bér žoras – the name of a lake and a village (Būga 1958: 525: correlated with béržas ‘birch’) ~ Ukr. dial. березар ‘birch forest’ (Iliadi 2013: 169); Lith. č iur kšlė ‘stream, ‘flow’ (Nevskaja 1977: 21) ~ Ukr. dial. чýркало ‘flow’. Cf. the hydronym Чýркало – a flow in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region; “nad potokiem Czurkalo”, 1792 (Slovnyk 1979: 616); Lith. kaũparas ‘hill, mound’ – derivative from kaũpas ‘pile’, ‘elevation’, ‘top’ (Sławski 1976: 25; Smoczyński 2019: 668), together with which they exactly repeat the etymological and word-formation relations of the Ukrainian купа ‘pile’, ‘stack’, ‘embankment’ and dial. *купор ‘hill’, ‘embankment’, which has left appellative use, but is sporadically noted in the old microtoponymy of the Poltava Region. The expressive form (with voicing of the labial) of this word is recorded in the dialects of Central Ukraine, cf. кубýр ‘pile’ this is the name of the children’s game “куча мала” (Hromko 2017: 246) < *купор or *купир. The suffixes of Lith. –aras and Proto-Slavonic –orb (> –ор–) are reflexes of a common Indo-European formant (Sławski 1976: 25); Lith. Liepora – a river (left tributary of the Švitinys River), Lieporai – the name of a village (Būga 1958: 525: correlated with liépa ‘lipa’) ~ Ukr. *Липар (Лı́парів) – one of the names of the left tributary of the Netrius along with Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity Лūnīb, -оволо (Slovnyk 1979: 314), similarly integrated into the system of toponyms ending in -ов and therefore receiving the corresponding suffix. It should be noted that the Balto–Slavonic isogloss itself is somewhat broader: it goes beyond the Lithuanian–Ukrainian one. The fact is that in Baltic, in addition to Lithuanian, there is also a Prussian correspondence Lepare (collect. ‘linden forest, linden grove’) ~ lipa ‘linden tree’ (Nepokupnyj 2002: 23; 2013: 216–218: highlights the suffix of collectiveness -or–; see also the literature on the name here), and the Ukrainian example marked the second pole of the realization of Proto-Slavonic *liparь (coll.), which until now, as far as we know, was marked only in the Slavonic South – in Bulgarian and Serbian toponymy, as evidenced by the data of the Etymological Dictionary of the Slavonic Languages (ESSJ XV 118–119); Lith. sraujynė ‘rapidity’, ‘rapid current’ (srauja ‘strong current’) (Nevskaja 1977: 85) ~ Ukr. dial. [струїна] ‘fast current’ (Iliadi 2013: 172); Lith. užtakis, užtakỹs ‘bay’, ‘space along the shore of a lake or a river overgrown with grass’, ‘river bend’, ‘low place flooded with water in spring or after rain’, ‘deep place at a river bend’ (Nevskaja 1977: 93–94) ~ Ukr. dial. устъой, -и ‘lowland river area covered with grass, obolon’, Khmelnytskyi Region (Iliadi 2013: 172) < *уз-точь < *ъbъz-točь. To conclude the analysis of this group of lexemes, we consider it necessary to dwell on one more parallel. It does not belong to the category of whole-lexical ones, but it helps to reconstruct an etymon for Slavonic, which until now, seems not to be known here. We are talking about the pair of Lith. kūliavà ‘stone threshold in the river’ (< kūlis ‘stone’), Kūliàvas – the name of the river (Smoczyński 2019: 821) ~ Ukrainian Куля́вка – the name of the left tributary of the Smotrych in the Dniester basin (Slovnyk 1979: 301). Perhaps, Кулява is an oikonym, Lviv Region (ibid.: 288). Despite the obvious formal closeness of the Ukrainian hydronym and Proto-Slavonic adj. *kul’avъ(jь) (see about it: ESSJ XIII 99), they are hardly related, since the reflexes *kul’avъ(jь) have the semantics ‘crippled, maimed’, ‘lame’, ‘bald’, which in no way contributes to the consolidation of the adjective in the sphere of geographical nomination. Rather, in Куля́вwe encounter a special Proto-Slavonic *kul’avъ ‘stone’, ‘rapids’ or ‘located on a cape’ (if we are talking about a settlement), etymologically close to the aforementioned Lith. kūliavà, which has a variant vocalism of the root and suffix. Thus, there is a possibility that a derivative of an etymon that is poorly preserved in the Slavonic languages has been preserved in Ukrainian toponymy (for its possible connections, see: Smoczyński 2019: 821). Its exact root analogue in Slavonic would be *kylor *kъl-: the length of the vowel in the Lithuanian word itself is not necessarily original (it could be caused by secondary lengthening in the originally stressed Straipsniai / Articles 157 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN syllable, which is typical of the Samogitian dialects; Zinkevičius 1966: 75, 491 (map no. 46); see also: Krėgždys 2012: 225), therefore for Proto-Slavonic *kul- (*kou̯l-) not only the Lithuanian correlate kūl-, but also *kulare possible. There is no need to talk about a whole-lexical identity, since the Lithuanian formant –(i)ava is etymologically not correlated with the Slavonic suffix -av-, being a complex of two formants –(i)a + –va (the word-formation model with –(i)ava is noted rather late – from the 16th–17th centuries (Ambrazas 1993: 72)). The genetic analogue of the Proto-Slavonic –avin Lithuanian is –ovas(–ė) (see: Ambrazas 2000: 180 with references), and therefore, the full Lithuanian correspondence would have the form *kūlovas or *kūlovė. Other parallels It seems to be expedient to give a few more examples that have already appeared in the literature on etymology, but their status as narrow isoglosses has not been discussed yet, cf.: Lith. ežǧys, ežėǧys ‘ruff’ ~ Ukr. dial. яукар, я зкар ‘ruff’ (Anikin 1998: 358); Lith. kirtūkas, kertūkas ‘shrew’ ~ Ukr. dial. Transcarpathian черепе́й ‘rodent Myoxus nitela’ (ESSJ IV 166; Anikin 1998: 168). Compare it with structurally and etymologically identical, but semantically distant Rus. dial. черепе́й ‘cut from a roe deer’ (ESSJ IV 166); Lith. opà ‘ulcer, wound’, ‘damage to tree bark’, ‘blow’ ~ Ukr. dial. йна ‘stripe on an animal’s skin from a strong blow with a stick’ (Anikin 1998: 351); Lith. skaĩtyti, skaĩtau ‘to count, to set a price; to settle accounts’, ‘to look at, to pay attention to, to evaluate’ in Latvian skaĩtīt, skaĩtu ‘to count, to read’ ~ Ukr. dial. yiмáти, yiмáтися ‘to play odd and even’, ‘to worry, to think for a long time’ (< Proto-Slavonic *čę́tati(s(ę))) (Anikin 1998: 114 with references). 4.2. Word-formation parallels Lith. bė- : Ukr. без– Both prepositional prefixes are genetically united, ultimately going back to the common Indo-European etymon *b(h)eǵh- (Fraenkel 1962: 38; ESSJ II 7–9; Smoczyński 2019: 136). In both languages, bė- : без– participate in the formation of semantically identical lexemes; moreover, synonymous Lithuanian and Ukrainian nominal compounds are observed, in which the etymological relationship also extends to their second component: Lith. beãkis ‘eyeless’ (Baronas 1967: 37) ~ Ukr. безо́кий ‘the same’ (Nikovskiј 1927: 29). This archaic adjective is present not only in Ukrainian, but also 158 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity in other Slavonic languages, but the Lithuanian word-formation analogue is usually overlooked (see, for example, in ESSJ II 36: *bezokъ(jь)); Lith. bęraũjis ‘bloodless’ (Baronas 1967: 46) ~ Ukr. безкрі́в’я, безкро́в’я ‘bloodlessness’ (Nikоvskij 1927: 28); Lith. bemeilis (as an equivalent of Pol. bezmiłosierny ‘merciless’, ‘cruel’ (Subačius, par., 1993: 81)) ~ Ukr. Безмил̨ц – a modern surname < *Безмил (at the level of producing bases cf. Lith. meilė ‘love’, meilùs ‘affectionate, gentle’: Proto-Slavonic *milb; ESSJ XIX 46–47); Lith. besar̃mātis ‘shameless’ (Lyberis 1971: 112) ~ Ukr. dial. (deriv.) безсоромíм-но ‘shamelessly’, ‘impudently’ (Želechivs’kij 1886: 22) < *безсоромот-. Regarding the identity of the stems of Lith. sarm-at– (< *šarm-ata): Proto-Slavonic *sorm-ot– see: (Smoczyński 2019: 1481, as well as Ambrazas 2000: 29, 32: Slavonic –otъ, –ota : Lith. –atis, –ata); Lith. bešìrdis ‘heartless’, ‘soulless’ (Lyberis 1971: 113) ~ Ukr. безсéрдий ‘the same’ (Hrinčenko 1958: 45; ESUM V 222; to Lith. širdìs ‘heart’); Lith. bevaldìs ‘powerless’, ‘powerless’ (Baronas 1967: 36) ~ Ukr. Безволод, Безволодченко – modern surnames (Kharkov); Lith. bevàlis ‘weak-willed’ (Baronas 1967: 37) ~ Ukr. dial. безвíль ‘weak-willed’, cf. derivative in –bje безвíлля ‘lack of will’, ‘oppression’, ‘lack of freedom’ (Nikоvskij 1927: 26); Lith. beveidìs ‘faceless’ (Baronas 1967: 39) ~ Ukr. безви́дий ‘the same’ (Nikоvskij 1927: 25) in the derivative (innovative) form in other languages, cf. Rus. dial. Perm безви́дный ‘unsightly’, ‘unattractive’ (Slovar’ 1966: 182); Lith. bevė́jis ‘windless’ ~ Ukr. dial. безвíй ‘quiet, windless weather’. At the level of the Indo-European etymon cf. Lith. vė́jas ‘wind’: Proto-Slavonic *vějati (ESUM I 408). Lith. iš– : Ukr. з-, с– This prefix in Lithuanian also has an older and dialectal form iš, close to Slavonic *jьz, together with which they go back to Proto-Indo-European *eǵhs (Fraenkel 1962: 188; ESSJ IX 7–8; Smoczyński 2019: 568). In Ukrainian, the Proto-Slavonic reflex *jьz– in the prefix function is represented as з-, с-, (dial.) iz-, ic– depending on the nature of a sound following it. This circumstance often does not allow us to formally distinguish between the continuations *joz– and *sъ– (which was emphasized by Oleg N. Trubachev), therefore the statement of *jьz– in Ukrainian words is further based on their grammatical semantics (near e-deixis) in which there is hardly a hint of *sъ–. As in the case of derivatives based on the model in bė- : bėz– (see above), the examples given below are also interesting due to the complete etymological identity of the morphology: Straipsniai / Articles 159 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN Lith. išaiškėti ‘to become clear’ (Lyberis 1971: 240) ~ Ukr. з’ясувати(ся) ‘to find out(s)’, cf. Rus. из-ясниться with a more complex morphology (-sk-n-); Lith. išbrinkti ‘to swell’, ‘to swell’, ‘to become swollen’ (ibid.: 243) ~ Ukr. зб́рякнути ‘the same’; Lith. išbudinti ‘wake up’, ‘awaken’ (ibid.: 244) ~ Ukr. збудити ‘the same thing’; Lith. iškrūvinti ‘to stain with blood’, ‘to bleed’ (ibid.: 257) ~ Ukr. з(не) кровити ‘to drain blood’ (ESUM III 99); Lith. išlakti ‘to lap up’ (Lyberis 1971: 259) ~ Ukr. colloquial зло́кти ‘to drink greedily’, ‘to lick’, ‘to lap up’. On the relationship of the root verbs ląkti : dial. lókamu see: Fraenkel 1962: 337–338; ESUM III 282; Smoczyński 2019: 869; Lith. išlenkti ‘to bend’, ‘to arch’, ‘to curve’, ‘to flex’ (Lyberis 1971: 259) ~ Ukr. зляка́ти(ся) ‘to be/get scared/frightened’, dial. зля́ку with the development of semantics ‘to bend’ → ‘to bend over from fear’ (ESUM III 337: there is no comparison of prefixal Lithuanian and Ukrainian forms); Lith. išmirti ‘to die out’ (Lyberis 1971: 262) ~ Ukr. *зме́рти ‘the same’ reconstructed based on its derivative participle зме́рлий ‘dead’ (Nik ovskij 1927: 321); Lith. išner̃ti ‘to emerge’, ‘to surface’, ‘to float up’ (Lyberis 1971: 264) ~ Ukr. dial. зне́рти, знера́ти ‘to emerge’, ‘to come up’ (Želechivs’kij 1886: 310; ESUM IV 90) as a result of the morphological restructuring *nereti < *nerti; Lith. išperti ‘to whip’, ‘to flog’, ‘to rip out’ (Lyberis 1971: 265) ~ Ukr. спéрти ‘to be stubborn’, ‘to argue’ (Nik ovskij 1927: 735), dial. спéртися ‘to become stubborn’ (ESUM IV 356: compare with Lith. per̃ti ‘to beat’) < *jьz-perti(se) where zis devoiced before n; Lith. išpinti ‘to unbraid’, ‘to weave out’ (Lyberis 1971: 266) ~ Ukr. dial. спя́ти ‘to pull’, ‘to put’, ‘to build’ (Želechivs’kij, Nedil’skij 1886: 912; ESUM IV 651: compare with Lith. pinti ‘to weave’, ‘to twist’); Lith. iš́tinti ‘to beat off’, ‘to carve’, ‘to flog’ (Lyberis 1971: 289) ~ Ukr. dial. стя́ти ‘cutting off, separating something’, ‘chopping off’ (Želechivs’kij, Nedil’skij 1886: 932). For a comparison of prefix-less Slavonic and Baltic forms, see Fraenkel 1965: 1099; ESUM V 702; Smoczyński 2019: 1893. 4.3. Textual etymological parallels Here we present some observations on word combinations whose etymological composition in both languages coincides completely or partially. Moreover, in the semantic-ideological aspect, Lithuanian and Ukrainian units turn out to be equivalent. 160 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity 1. Phrases with the genetic identity of both components. Examples of this kind are found in phraseology: Lith. Akys (akyse) aptemo (Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 16) : Ukr. в очах темніє (akys : *oko & ap-termo (térnti ‘to darken’) : *tbm–bn–ėt); Lith. Akįs į akį (ibid.: 17) : Ukr. віч на віч (‘one-to-one’, ‘face-to-face’) < *о́сь на о́сь; Lith. Akys limpa (ibid.: 20) : Ukr. очі злипаються (“Рученьки терпнуть, злипаються веченьки... Боже, чи довго тягти? / З раннього ранку до пізньої ніченьки / Голкою денню верти” Pavlo Hrabovskyi “Seamstress”). That is, Akys limpa (lipti ‘to stick’, ‘to cling’) : *oči & *lip(nǫ)ti; Lith. Imti į širdį (= to take to heart; to ache with one’s soul (heart) for someone, for/about something (Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 115) : Ukrainian Podolsk dialect |ún’amu в |серце ‘to worry, to be nervous’, ‘to break one’s heart’ (expeditionary note of the authors), маму серце на кого/що – to be dissatisfied, to be angry (V. Užčenko, D. Užčenko 1998: 168). Lith. im̃ti ‘to take’, ‘to grab’ – an exact structural–genetic analogue of Slavonic *ęti, praes. *jьmǫ ‘the same’ (ESSJ VI 71; Fraenkel 1962: 184–185; Smoczyński 2019: 556–558); Lith. savo báldu ‘with one’s own mind’, ‘at one’s own discretion’ (Nedaryk savo báldu, pasklaus̃k razumnesnių) with tuo báldu (idiom) ‘meanwhile’, ‘in the meantime’, which should be understood as ‘at that time’. The second component is associated with Lith. bélsti ‘to knock’ (the idea of breaking, smashing) : baldóti ‘to knock’, ‘to make noise’ (Toporov 2010a: 390, 392, 395 with literature), i.e. ‘to strike’, ‘to beat’ → ‘one tome’. In Slavonic, this expression can be matched by the Ukrainian dialect expression [св|оїм |бо́йдом] = на свій розсуд (Hromko 2008: 55) with the variability of the root vocalism: Lith. bald- : Slavonic *bъld-. For the homogeneity of the Possessive Prononoun savo (gen. sing. for savas ‘one’s own’) : Slavonic *svojь see: Fraenkel 1965: 767; Lith. Už akių (in someone’s absence, in absentia; Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 320) : Ukr. dial. уз очі (Hromko 2008: 24) – dialectal analogue of the more widespread poza очі = behind the eyes, in someone’s absence, in absentia. Dial. уз is the result of the development of the older *vъz < Old Russian вьз. Regarding the prepositional-case construction: here we need to talk about the etymological unity of not only the noun but also the preposition Lith. už : Proto-Slavonic *vъz (both a preposition and a prefix < PIE *u̯g(h); Jānis Endzelīns keeps to the same idea, cf.: Endzelīns 1971: 413; Smoczyński 2019: 1991–1992); Lith. vakar dùsavãi ant lovelės, o šiandien ant baltos lentelės (LD 1882: 287), to be more precise: Yesterday she was breathing on a bed, and today on a white board (Nevskaja 1982: 118) : Ukr. Учора на лі́шку дихала, а ту́пер на бі́лім лутку завмерла, Novoarkhangelsk Region (Dialektolohічna anketa no. 38, 2015). Ukr. dial. лумо́к, gen. sing. –ткá ‘a young linden tree; young Straipsniai / Articles 161 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN linden bast’ continues Proto-Slavonic *l̥ot–къb < *l̥otъ ‘linen’, ‘a twig, a bark, bast of linden’, ‘a stick, a pole of a linden’ (ESSJ XVI 152). Here tymók is euphemistically used – ‘a coffin made of a linden tree’. The Proto-Slavonic word *l̥otъ is associated with the alternation of e : o – with Lith. lentà ‘board’ (ibid.: 152; Smoczyński 2019: 900), whereas Slavonic *bělъ (Ukr. білуй) is related to Lith. báltas (Fraenkel 1962: 32; ESSJ II 79–81). Thus, the unified poetic image of the white board (coffin, deathbed) in the texts of Lithuanian and Ukrainian lamentations is embodied utilizing synonymous attributive constructions the composition of which in these languages is genetically identical. Regarding the playing of the name of the board as a euphemistic designation of the deathbed, the coffin in Ukrainian, we should compare it with the dialectal expression (Eastern) чотири(чтирі) дошки збирати; чотири (чтири) дошки найти (V. Užčenko, D. Užčenko 2013: 182). 2. Phraseological units with the genetic identity of one of the components. This category of examples is also represented by phraseological units with nuclear components – the names of the eye, and heart, which are etymologically identical in Lithuanian and Slavonic: Lith. Dingti iš akių (Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 76) : Ukr. зникнути з очей (Lith. dingti ‘to disappear’, ‘to vanish’ : Ukr. зні́кну́ти & Lith. iš : Ukr. з) = to hide, to vanish; Lith. Iš (nuo) senų senovės (from/since ancient times, from time immemorial, from olden days; Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 125; Lyberis 1971: 657) : Ukr. з давніх давен. Very close typological similarity: lith. šėnas ‘old’ + senovė ‘antiquity’, ‘antique’ with tautological Ukrainian. adj. plur. давній ‘old’ + subst. plur. *давна ‘antiquity’; Lith. Po akių (akimis) (before the eyes, in front of the eyes; Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 271) : укр. на очах (V. Užčenko, D. Užčenko 1998: 121); Lith. Rėžti akį (to catch the eyes; Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 282) : Ukr. різати око (очі) (stand out sharply, be noticeable), cf. “Здалеку ця мішанина стилів різала око, псувала архітектурний ансамбль. Але зблизька ті будинки виростали в усій величі й красі” (V. Kucher) (Ногох⁶); Lith. Ryti akimis (to eat (devour) someone with one’s eyes, to keep one’s eyes on someone/something, to fix one’s gaze on someone/something; Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 283) : Ukr. їсти (жерти) очима (оком) [кого, що] (inescapably, attentively look at someone, showing a certain feeling; V. Užčenko, D. Užčenко 1998: 120); Lith. Spausti širdį (to squeeze the heart, the soul (heart) hurts; Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 290) : Ukr. серце стисло (Lith. suspáusti ‘to squeeze’, ‘to press’ : Ukr. стискáти, стúснути ‘the same’); ⁶ Available at: https://goroh.pp.ua [accessed 23.08.2024]. 162 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity Lith. Širdis plyšta (the heart (soul) is torn (into pieces); Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 306) : Ukr. серце крається (someone is suffering, tormented, worried), (роз)краяти (різати) серце (to experience/cause mental anguish; V. Užčenko, D. Užčenko 1998: 167) (plyšti ‘to crack’, ‘to split’, ‘to burst’, ‘to tear’: крається ‘is torn’, ‘splits’, ‘is cut’); Lith. Šuns akis turėti (there is no shame in anyone’s eyes; neither shame nor conscience; Galnaitytė et al. 1989: 308) : Ukr. очі у Сірка позичати, очей у Сірка (Рябка) позичати (to lose the sense of shame, one’s dignity; V. Užčenko, D. Užčenko 1998: 122), where Сірко/Рябко are generalized names for a grey or motley yard dog, often used as nicknames. As a result, there is an almost complete coincidence of both the ideological content of the phraseme as a whole and the semantics of its components in Lithuanian and Ukrainian: lith. šuo, šuñs ‘dog’, ‘canine’: Ukr. Сірко/Рябко = dog, canine & akis : oko & turėti ‘to have’, ‘to possess’, ‘(to) hold’ : Ukr. позичати ‘to take (for oneself)’, ‘to borrow’; Lith. Varna nenešė kaulo (= it was not at all; FŽė⁷) : Ukr. куди ворон кісток не заносить (V. Užčenko, D. Užčenko 2005: 56, 78). However, with the general mythopoetic image embodied, the Ukrainian analogue (Proto-Slavonic *vornъ, *vorna : Lith. var̃nas, várna) still has a slightly different meaning: here, unlike in Lithuanian, it is not the absence of the results of the event (visai nebuvo) that is actualized, but the uncertainty of place and direction. In conclusion, we should note one more textual correspondence, namely, Lith. Perkūno ąžuolu : Old Russian (Galicia) Пероуновъ дубъ in the mythologem about the oak of the thunder god (the Supreme God of the Slavs and Balts), whose name is etymologically identical and structurally close among the Lithuanians and Slavs, cf.: Lith. “Perkūno ąžuolu vadinamas Kupiškio v. Bėdos ganyklose. Didelio ąžuolo kamienas išpuvusiu viduriu. Jis dėl to taip vadinamas, kad yra griausmo sudaužytas” (Balys 1937: 163, 197) along with Old Russian. “А ѿ той горы до Пероунова Дoуба горѣ Скломь. а ѿ Пероунова Дoуба до Бѣлыхъ береговъ” in the “Charter of Lev Danilovich, Prince of Galicia, to the Bishopric of Peremyska”, 1302 (Žalovannaja gramota 1854: 317; for more details on this mythologem, see Ivanov, Toporov 1974: 14–16). The charter was written in a language that later formed the basis of some of the South-Western dialects of Ukraine. ⁷ Available at: https://www.lietuviuzodynas.lt/frazeologizmai/Varna [accessed 23.08.2024]. Straipsniai / Articles 163 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN 4.4. Typological analogies at the text level Typologically similar material is found in folklore texts of funeral rituals, healing (magic) spells and phraseology. 1. Lith. “O mano motinėlei budavoja tėviškėlė baltų lentelių be stiklinų langelių, be durelių: nematysi saulėlės užtekant nei saulėlės nusileidžiant” (LD 1882: 281) : Ukr. Черnihiv “Яка твоя доріженька смутна та невесела! / Яка твоя хаточка темна та невидная, / Що ні дверчок, ні оконечка, ні праведного сонечка…”, (Podolia) “Якої ти хатки собі загадав – / Ци ти не мав у чім жити? / Маленької, новенької – Без дверецу і віконечу, / Щоби сонце не загріло і вітер не завіяв, / Без лавочок, без поличок” (Svenčickyj 1912: 37, 65). One can cite a proverb with a more complete lexical set, outlining the pragmatic and symbolic contour of the text and conceptually equating it with Lithuanian, cf. Lvivi (in the former Ravsky district) “Мій господарейку. [...] Чи ти не мав собі хатіночки? / А там тобі збудували таку маленькую, що в ній нема ані дверойків, ані віконяйків, що там навіть вітер не завіє, ані сонце не загріє” (Svenčickyj 1912: 63). Thus, we have very similar text contours: Lith. [budavoja] & [tėviškėlė baltų lentelių] as a euphemistic name for a coffin (= a paternal house made of white planks)] & [be langelių] & [be durelių] & [saulelė] VS Ukr. [збудували] & [хатка, хаточка, хатинойка] & [Без дверецу, дверчок, дверойків] & [Без віконечу, оконечка, оконяйків] & [сонечко, сонце]. Both text matrices are similar in some details: 1) the sun, which does not rise or set for the deceased (Lithuanian) and does not warm (Ukrainian); 2) the use of names of concepts supporting the lamentation exclusively in the diminutive form with suffixes –el– (Lithuanian) VS –к–/–оч–к–/–еч–к–, –ць–, –ой–к– (–яй–к–) (Ukrainian). 2. Lith. Ėjo Kristus per ciltų ir nulūžo lieptas ir inkrito Kristaus koja. Nuėjo Kristus sveikas, neskauda koja, taip tegu neskauda Jonui (ligonio vardas arba plaukų spalva). – Christ was walking on a bridge and the crossbar broke and Christ’s leg got stuck, Christ went healthy, his leg didn’t hurt, so let Jonas’s (name or hair colour of the sick person) not hurt either (Balys 1951: 72, no. 477) : Ukr.: Ишов Христос, ступив на трость, трость уломалась, кровь угамовалась, цветы цветаеться, кровь угамовається (Efimіenko, ed., 1874: 14). 3. Lith. Ugniaoystas kraujas, paparčio žiedas. Aprimo upė. Tegul šitas kraujas nustos tekėti. – Fiery blood, red fern flower. The river has calmed down. Let this blood stop flowing (Balys 1951: 76, no. 503, Švenčionys) : укр. Вогняна кров, червона напороть. Вгамовалась річка. Нехай буде клята кров, котра тече, Kharkiv region (Hromko 2008: 42). 4. Let us pay attention to the Lithuanian and Ukrainian phraseological units with the phrase рябий кінь (“speckled horse”) : margas arklys – a rather 164 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity rare coat colour, therefore noticeable and ambiguous in terms of the people’s attitude towards it, cf. the Lithuanian belief that “a girl will get married when a speckled horse crosses her path” (Nepokupnyj 1979: 135). Cf. Lith. Nusišauk­si kaip margas arklys (you will call upon yourself, like a speckled horse) : Ukr. dial. Poltava Побачив рябого коня – завтра празник буде (ibid.: 135), сон рябої кобили – about nonsense. 5. Phrases that play on the mythopoetic image of trampling the grass as life: Lith. dial. Dar ilgai žolė mins senis (= the old man will trample the grass for a long time, i.e. ‘to live’) : Ukr. dial. Chernihiv Йому довго трави не топтати (i.e. he will not live long) (Nepokupnyj 1979: 158). Cf. also the dialectal expression вже мен’і с’візочі дерн’і не топтати = “I won’t live to see spring” (Onyškevyč 1984: 209), (Eastern) скоро не буде роси топтати “there is not enough left for someone to live” (V. Užčenko, D. Užčenko 2013: 430), (Western) мураву топтати (V. Užčenko, D. Užčenko 2005: 142) = to live. 6. The image of the Moon as a horned shepherd of sheep in riddles: Lith. Laukas nematuotas, avys neskaitytos, piemuo raguotas – ‘The field is immense, the sheep are innumerable, the shepherd has horns’; Pie­vos nematuotos, avys neskaičiuotos, piemuo raguotas – ‘Meadows are not measured, sheep are not counted, the shepherd has horns’ (The sky, the stars and the Moon) (Laurinkienė 2019: 298) : Ukr. Поне не зміряне, бидло не злічене, пастух рогатий (The Moon, the sky and the stars) (Nomys 1993: 637), Один пастух багато овець пасе (The Moon and the stars); Аж до раночку вночі / Ді­пастух овець лічив. / Вийшло сонечко з-за гаю… / Де вони тепер – не знає (The Moon and the stars) (Zahad­ku⁸). 7. A zoomorphic image of the Moon as a bald bull/ox/horse looking through the gate (in riddles): Lith. Laukas jautis pro vartus žiūri – ‘The bald bull is looking through the gate’ (The Moon) (Laurinkienė 2019: 298) : Ukr. Лисий віл через ворота дивицця (The Moon) (Nomys 1993: 637). Cf. Lith. laũkas ‘with a white bald spot (mark) on the forehead’; Lith. Laukas arklys pro vartus žiūri – ‘The bald horse is looking through the gate’ (The Moon) (Laurinkienė 2019: 298) : Ukr. Лисий кінь у ворота загляда (Month) (Nomys 1993: 637). 8. A zoomorphic image of a thunderstorm/storm as a bull/ox roaring behind the mountains: Lith. Už trijų kalnų jautis baubia (Perkūnija) – ‘Behind three mountains, the bull roars’ (Thunderstorm) (Laurinkienė 2019: 299) : Ukr. Ревнув віл за сто гір, за сто річок, за сто нічок… (Thunder, and also a bell) (Nomys 1993: 638). ⁸ Available at: https://dovidka.biz.ua/zagadki-pro-misyats/ [accessed 23.08.2024]. Straipsniai / Articles 165 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN 5. CONCLUSION It seems to us that in the comparative grammar of the Baltic and Slavonic languages, the outlines of a section covering the ancient exclusive relations between the two dialect groups against the background of the others are quite clearly outlined. The above material is sure to be clarified in the future in terms of areal characteristics, and it is quite possible that the geography of some of the parallels will be expanded. However, even the remaining facts taken together will very likely prove to be a sufficient basis for developing a theory of lingual contacts of the type indicated. In any case, we have only outlined a program of work in a narrower direction of Balto-Slavonic linguistics, highlighting the most promising angles of research, the results of which depend entirely on the quantity and quality of the data collected. For example, the issue regarding the reason why Ukrainian etymological parallels to Lithuanian units are noted not in the area of ancient interaction between the Eastern Slavs and the ancestors of the Lithuanians on the Upper Dnipro, but generally far beyond its borders, is very interesting. The task of identifying etymological correlates at the lexical level shows some thematic “blurring” of correspondences, their belonging to a large number of thematic groups. However, in this thematic diversity, several important points can be seen. Firstly, these are elements of general social terminology (Lith. draūgalas : Ukr. дру́золик; Lith. pusbrolis : Old Ukr. Полбга́ть), secondly, it is worth emphasizing several technical terms (Old Lithuanian (?) *sovėj(a)s/*sovej(a)s : Slavonic *savějьnīkъ; Lith. kìlpa : Ukr. [чоӯнь]; Lith. vìrbū tvoră : Ukr. вербо́ва тва́рь), which do not belong to the most important terminological vocabulary (the oldest corpus of basic craft and other terminology), being the names of secondary details, which indicates their late age. Thirdly, there is a significant number of common innovations in the field of geographical nomenclature, possibly partly arising as a result of loan translation (both Balto-Slavonic and Slavonic-Baltic) based on genetically common building material (roots, affixes). A whole series of joint lexical neoformations are represented by prefixal derivates constructed according to a single model (Lith. bė- : Ukr. без-; Lith. iš- : Ukr. з-, с-). This is rather a variegated material semantically, but it shows the unity of Baltic and Slavonic in the use of common methods of morphological derivation of nominals and verbs. The multiplicity (it can be discussed even with a far from complete sample from dictionaries) of parallels shows not the sporadic use of etymologically common prefixes, but its systematicity, which also testifies to the relatively late chronology of contacts, the results of which have not yet been erased by later processes or innovations in Lithuanian and Ukrainian. 166 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity Textual analogues that demonstrate the same etymological composition in Lithuanian and Ukrainian are mostly phraseological units, stable word combinations with similar or identical ideological load. It is noteworthy that even a limited selection of phraseological units with two nuclear lexemes involved in the system of cultural associations and meanings (Lith. akis : Ukr. oko; Lith. širdis : Ukr. серце), reveals not just common elements of the late Balto–Slavonic text; the practically identical ideological content of phrases in both languages (cf. Lith. akis į akį : Ukr. віч на віч; Lith. už akių : Ukr. dial. уз очі; Lith. imti į širdį : Ukr. іґн’ати в |серце) shows the significant depth of cultural interaction, which turned out to be so significant that it has survived to the present days (cf. in particular examples of elementary legal regulations: Lith. savo baldu : Ukr. свoїм |бoудoм). Often such stability is also explained by the comparatively late age of contacts (on the scale of linguistic history, a thousand or slightly more years is a very relative antiquity). The same situation is confirmed by common elements of texts belonging to other genres. Lithuanian–Ukrainian typological analogies are unlikely to be accidental, primarily due to their systematic nature, which is usually a consequence of the design of common (right up to the smallest semiotic nuances) cultural experiences using identical semantic models. Even plotand image-centred similar texts of spells, in which characters of Christian doctrine appear, could have emerged early in both languages based on a common pagan spell tradition and then just as early experienced the influence of Christianity. The planned prospects for the development of ancient Balto–Slavonic linguistic relations, reproduced in the Lithuanian–Ukrainian separate parallels, with due attention to the material, can provide abundant material for theoretical generalizations. REFERENCES Ambrazas Saulius 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida 1: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Ambrazas Saulius 2000: Daiktavardžių darybos raida 2: Lietuvių kalbos vardazodiniai vediniai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Anikin Aleksandr E. 1998: Аникин, Александр Е. Этимология и балто-славянское лексическое сравнение в праславянской лексикографии. Материалы для балто-славянского словаря [Ètimologija i balto-slavjanskoe leksičeskoe sravnenie v praslavjanskoj leksikografii. Materialy dlja balto-slavjanskogo slovarja], вып. [vyp.] 1 (*a– – *go–), Новосибирск: РАН. СО; Институт филологии [Novosibirsk: RAN. SO; Institut filologii]. Straipsniai / Articles 167 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN Balys Jonas 1937: Perkūnas lietuvių liaudies tikėjimuose. – Tautosakos darbai 3, 149–238. Balys Jonas 1951: Liaudies magija ir medicina, Bloomington, Indiana: Lietuvių tautosakos lobynas II. Baronas Jonas 1967: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas / Русско–литовский словарь [Russko–litovskij slovar’] 1, sudarytas, panaudojant spausdintą ir rankraštinę medžiagą, kurią surinko J. Baronas, par. V. Baronas, V. Galinis, Vilnius: Mintis. Bezlaj France 1966: Einige slovenische und baltische lexische parallelen. – Linguistica 8(1), 63–81. Brods’ka Kateryna A. 1979: Бродська, Катерина А. Усталені вислови в мові народних промислів [Ustaleni vyslovy v movi narodnych promysliv]. – Сборник материалов научной конференции студентов КГПИ им. А. С. Пушкина [Sbornik materialov naučnoj konferencii studentov KGPI im. A. S. Puškina], Кировоград: КГПИ [Kirovograd: KGPI], 33–35. Būga Kazimieras 1958: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Čekman Valerij N. 1972: Чекман, Валерий Н. К проблеме литовско–белорусских лексических связей [K probleme litovsko–belorusskich leksičeskich svjazei]. – Baltistica 8(2), 147–156. Dialektolohična anketa 2015: Діалектологічна анкета (відповіді) [Dialektolohična anketa (vidpovidi)], укл. Г. В. Громко [ukl. T. V. Hromko], Кіровоград: БВ [Kirovograd: BV]. Efimenko Petr S., ed. 1874: Ефименко, Петр С., ред. Сборник малороссийских заклинаний [Sbornik malorossijskich zaklinanij], Москва: Университетская типография [Moskva: Universitetskaja tipografija]. Endzelīns Jānis 1971: Darbu izlase četros sējumos 1, Rīga: Zinātne. ESSJ II – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд [Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 2 (*bez – *bratrъ), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačіov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1975. ESSJ III – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд [Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 3 (*bratrъ – *cьrky), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačіov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1976. 168 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity ESSJ IV – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Пра­славянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 4 (*čaběniti – *děl’a), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačìov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1977. ESSJ VI – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Пра­славянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 6 (*e – *golva), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačìov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1979. ESSJ IX – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Пра­славянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 9 (*jbz – *klenьje), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačìov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1983. ESSJ XIII – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Пра­славянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 13 (*kroměžirь – *kъyžiti), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačìov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1987. ESSJ XV – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Пра­славянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 15 (*lětina – *lokačь), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačìov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1988. ESSJ XVI – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Пра­славянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 16 (*lokadlo – *lъzъvьcь), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačìov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1990. ESSJ XIX – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Пра­славянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 19 (*mę(s)’arb – *morzakъ), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačìov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1992. ESSJ XXV – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Пра­славянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 25 (*neroditi – *novoťьnь(jь)), ред. О. Н. Трубачёв [red. O. N. Trubačìov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1999. ESUM I – Етимологічний словник української мови 1 (А–Г) [Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy 1 (A–G)], ред. О. С. Мельничук [red. O. S. Mel’nyčuk], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyjiv: Naukova dumka], 1982. Straipsniai / Articles 169 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN ESUM III – Етимологічний словник української мови 3 (Кора–М) [Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy 3 (Kora–M)], ред. О. С. Мельничук [red. O. S. Mel’nychuk], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyjiv: Naukova dumka], 1989. ESUM IV – Етимологічний словник української мови 4 (Н–П) [Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy 4 (N–P)], ред. О. С. Мельничук [red. O. S. Mel’nychuk], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyjiv: Naukova dumka], 2003. ESUM V – Етимологічний словник української мови 5 (Р–Т) [Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy 5 (R–T)], ред. О. С. Мельничук [red. O. S. Mel’nychuk], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyjiv: Naukova dumka], 2006. ESUM VI – Етимологічний словник української мови 6 (У–Я) [Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy 6 (U–Ja)], ред. О. С. Мельничук [red. O. S. Mel’nychuk], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyjiv: Naukova dumka], 2012. Fraenkel Ernst 1962: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1, Heidelberg, Göttingen: Carl Winter and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fraenkel Ernst 1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 2, Heidelberg, Göttingen: Carl Winter and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. FŽe – Frazeologizmų žodynas, par. I. Erm­antytė, O. Kačukauskaitė, G. Naktinienė, Z. Šimėnaitė, A. Vilutytė, red. J. Paulauskas, Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2001, e. variantas. Available at: https://www.lietuviuzodynas.lt/frazeologizmai. Galnait­ytė Elzė, Pikčilingis Juozas, Sivickienė Marija 1989: Mokyklinis lietuvių–rusų kalbų frazeologijos žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa. Horox – Горох. Фразеологія [Horoch. Frazeolohija], available online. Available at: https://goroh.pp.ua. Hrinčenko Borys D. 1958: Грінченко, Борис Д. Словарь української мови 1 (А–Ж) [Slovarʹ ukrajins'koji movy 1 (A–Ž)], Київ: Вид-во АН УРСР [Kyjiv: Vyd-vo AN URSR]. Hromko Tetjana V. 2008: Громко, Тетяна В. Діалектологічно-фольклорні матеріали говорок Центральної України [Dialektolohično-fol’klorni materialy hovirok Central’noji Ukrajiny], Кіровоград: БВ [Kirovograd: BV]. Hromko Tetjana V. 2017: Громко, Тетяна В. Матеріали до словника говірок української мови [Materialy do slovnyka hovirok ukrajins'koji movy]. – Наукові записки [Naukovi zapysky], вип. [vyp.] 160, сер. Філологічні науки: Studia semasiological [ser. Filolohični nauky: Studia semasiologica], Кропивницький: РВВ ЦДПУ ім. В. Винниченка [Kropyvnytsky: RVV CDPU im. V. Vinnyčenka], 239–253. 170 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity Iliadi Oleksandr I. 2013: Іліаді, Олександр І. З ономастичного архіву Інституту української мови НАНУ [Z onomastỹčnoho archyvu Instytutu ukrajinsʹkoji movy NANU]. – Studia linguistica et juridica. 2012–2013: 36. наук. праць / відп. ред. О. І. Іліаді [zb. nauk. pracʹ / vidp. red. O. I. Iliadi], Кіровоград: КІРоЛ [Kirovograd: KIRoL], 137–149. Iliadi Aleksander I. 2023: Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *sraua-, *srauša-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background). Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 89, 39–74. Ivanov Vjačeslav V., Toporov Vladimir N. 1974: Іванов, Вячеслав В., Топоров, Владимир Н. Исследования в области славянских древностей (Лексические и фразеологические вопросы реконструкции текстов) [Issledovanija v oblasti slavjanskich drevnostej (Lek­sičeskie i frazeologičeskie voprosy rekonstrukcii tekstov)], Moskva: Наука [Moskva: Nauka]. Kreǧdys Rolandas 2012: Креждис, Роландас. Данные к реконструкции балто-славянского похоронного обряда: кашуб. donota ‘молоко’ (лексико-семантические параллели балто-славянского ареала) [Dannye k rekonstrukcii balto-slavjanskogo pochoronnogo obrjada: kašub. donota ‘moloko’ (leksiko-semantičeskie paralleli balto-slavjanskogo areala)]. – Studia mythologica slavica 15, 217–230. Labuda Gerard 1974: Ze stosunków językowych kaszubsko-pruskich. – Słowianie w dziejach Europy: studia historyczne ku uczczeniu 75 rocznicy urodzin i 50-lecia pracy naukowej profesora Henryka Łowmiańskiego: tom przygotowany przez Jerzego Ochmańskiego, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu im. A. Mickiewicza, 75–83. Laurinkienė Nijolė 2019: Лауринкене, Ниоле. Мифологический образ неба в балтийской традиции [Mifologičeskij obraz neba v baltijskoj tradiciji]. – Балто-славянские исследования [Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija] 20: сборник научных трудов– [sbornik naučnych trudov], Москва: ООО «Буки Веди» [Moskva: OOO “Buki Vedi”], 292–316. LD 1882 – Lietuviškos dainos užrašytos par Antaną Juškevičę Velūnos apigardoje iš žodžiu Lietūviu dainininkų ir daininīkiu / Литовскія народныя песни, записанныя Антоном Юшкевичем в окрестностях Велёны со слов литовских певцов и певиц [Litovskija narodnyja pesni, zapisannyja Antonom Juškevičem v okresnostjach Veliony so slov litovskich pevcev i pevic] 3: Daina 1024–1569, Казань, тип. Имп. ун-та [Kazan’, tip. Imp. un-ta]. Leksykonу 1973: Leksykonу E. Slavinеc’koho ta A. Korec’koho–Satanovs’koho (Пам’ятки української мови XVII ст. Серія наукової літератури), підготував до видання В. В. Німчук [Leksykonу Ě. Slavуnec’koho ta A. Korec’koho–Satanovs’koho Straipsniai / Articles 171 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN (Pamiatky ukrainskoji movy XVII st. Serija naukovoji literatury), pidhotuvav do vydannja V. V. Nimčuk], Kiïv: Naukova dumka [Kyïv: Naukova dumka]. Lyberis Antanas 1971: Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas, red. Ch. Lemchenas, Vilnius: Mintis. LKŽė – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20 (1941–2002), red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008 (atnaujinta versija, 2018). Available at: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/. Morkūnas Kazys, atsak. red., 1977: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1: Leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1976: Непокупный, Анатолий П. Балто-севернославянские языковые связи [Balto-severnoslavjanskie jazykovyje svjazi], Киев: Наукова думка [Kiev: Naukova dumka]. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1979: Непокупный, Анатолий П. Балтійські родичі слов’ян [Baltijski rodyči slovjan], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyïv: Naukova dumka]. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1981: Непокупный, Анатолий П. Балтійсько-українські взаємозв’язки і паралелі [Baltijsko-ukrajinski vzajemozv’jazky i paraleli]. – Гідронімія України в її міжмовних і міждіалектних зв’язках [Hidronimija Ukrajiny v iji mižmovnych i miždialektnych zv’jazkach], відп. ред. O. C. Стрижак [vidp. red. O. S. Stryžak], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyïv: Naukova dumka], 65–84. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 2002: Непокупный, Анатолий П. Куршско-прусский суффикс собирательности –or–: лит. (жем.) оз. Béržoras и прус. paycoran E 6 ‘Плеяды’ [Kuršsko-prusskij suffiks sobiratel’nosti –or–: lit. (žem.) oz. Béržoras i prus. paycoran E 6 ‘Ple­jady’.] – Jono Kazlausko diena: istorinės gramatikos dalykai. Tarptautinės konferencijos programa ir tezės, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 23–25. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 2013: Непокупный, Анатолий П. Балто-слов’янський суфікс збірності –or– / –aȓ [Balto-slovjanskij sufiks zbirnosti –or– / –aȓ]. – Індоєвропейська спадщина в лексиці слов’янських, балтійських, германських і романських мов: семантичні та словотвірні зв’язки і процеси [Indoêvropejs’ka spadščyna v leksyci slovjans’kych, baltijs’kych, germans’kych i romans’kych mov: semantyčni ta slovotvirni zv’jazky i procesy], відп. ред. В. П. Пономаренко [vidр. Red. V. P. Рonomarenko], Київ: Видавничий дім Дмитра Бураго [Kyjiv: Vydavnyčij dim Dmytra Buraho], 208–218. Nevskaja Lidija G. 1977: Невская, Лидия Г. Балтийская географическая терминология (к семантической типологии) [Baltijskaja geografičeskaja terminologija (k semantičeskoj tipologiji)], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka]. 172 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity Nevskaja Lidija G. 1982: Невская, Лидия Г. Семантика дома и смежных представлений в погребальном фольклоре [Semantika doma i smežnyh predstavlenij v pogrebal’nom folklοre]. – Балто-славянские исследования – 1981 [Balto-slavianskie issledovanija – 1981], отв. ред. В. В. Иванов [otv. red. V. V. Ivanov], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 106–121. Nikоvskij Andrij 1927: Ніковський, Андрій. Словник українсько–російський [Slovnyk ukrajinsko–rosijskyj], Київ: Горнo [Kyjiv: Hornо]. Nomys Matvij T. 1993: Номис, Матвій Т. Українські приказки, прислів’я і таке інше [Ukrajinski prykazky, pryslivja i take inše], упоряд., приміт. та вступна ст. М. М. Пазяка [uporjad., prymit. ta vstupna st. M. M. Pazjaka], Київ: Либідь [Kyjiv: Lybid’]. Opuškevyč Mychajlo J. 1984: Онишкевич, Михайло Й. Словник бойківських говірок 1 (А–Н) [Slovnyk bojkivskych hovirok 1 (A–N)], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyjiv: Naukova dumka]. Popowska–Taborska Hanna 1991: Z rozważań nad językowymi związkami prusko–pomorskimi. – Rocznik Slawistyczny 47(1), 59–67. Sławski Franciszek 1974: Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego. – Słownik prasłowiański 1 (A–B), pod red. F. Sławskiego, Wrocław, Warszawa etc.: Wydawnictwo Polskiej akademii nauk, 43–141. Sławski Franciszek 1976: Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego (ciąg dalszy). Słownik prasłowiański 2 (C–DАVBNOTA), pod red. F. Sławskiego, Wrocław, Warszawa etc.: Wydawnictwo Polskiej akademii nauk, 13–60. Sławski Franciszek, ed., 1979: Słownik prasłowiański 3 (DAVbNЬ–ДОБЬРАТИ), pod red. F. Sławskiego, Wrocław, Warszawa etc.: Wydawnictwo Polskiej akademii nauk. Slovar’ 1966 – Словарь русских народных говоров [Slovar’ russkich narodnych govorov] 2 (Ба–Блазниться) [(Ba–Blaznit’sja)], гл. ред. Ф. П. Филин [gl. red. F. P. Filin], Москва, Ленинград: Наука [Moskva, Leningrad: Nauka]. Slovnyk 1979: Словник гідронімів України [Slovnyk hidronimiv Ukrajiny], Київ: Наукова думка [Kyjiv: Naukova dumka]. Smoczyński Wojciech 2019: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego, współpraca redakcyjna M. Osłon, wydanie drugie, poprawione i znacznie rozszerzone, na prawach rękopisu. Available at: www.rromanes.org/pub/alii/Smoczyński W. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.pdf. Subačius Giedrius, par., 1993: Didysis lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Straipsniai / Articles 173 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN Svenсickyj Ilarion 1912: Свенціцький, Іларіон. Похоронні голосіння [Pochoronni holosinnja]. – Етнографічний збірник Наукового товариства імені Шевченка [Etnografičnyj zbirnyk Naukovoho tovarystva imeni Ševčenka] 31–32, Львів: Друкарня НТШ [L’viv: Drukarnja NTŠ], 1–129. Toporov Vladimir N. 1985: Топоров, Владимир Н. Мифологизированные описания обряда трупосожжения и его происхождение у балтов и славян [Mifologizirovannye opisanija obrjada truposоžženija i ego proischoždenie u baltov i slavjan]. – Конференция «Балто-славянские этнокультурные и археологические древности. Погребальный обряд»: тезисы докладов [Konferencija “Balto-slavjanskie ètnokul’turnye i archeologičeskie drevnosti. Pogrebal’nyj obrjad”: tezisy dokladov], Москва: Институт славяноведения и балканистики АН СССР [Moskva: Institut slavjanovedenija i balkanistiki AN SSSR], 95–107. Toporov Vladimir N. 2010a: Топоров, Владимир Н. Балтийские и славянские данные о бобре в мифологической перспективе (опыт реконструкции) [Baltijskie i slavjanskie dannye o bobre v mifologičeskoj perspektive (opyt rekonstrukcii)]. – Исследования по этимологии и семантике 4: балтийские и славянские языки [Issledovanija po ètimologii i semantike 4: baltijskie i slavjanskie jazyki] 1, Москва: Языки славянских культур [Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskich kul’tur], 185–240. Toporov Vladimir N. 2010b: Топоров, Владимир Н. К реконструкции одного балтийского ритуального термина [K rekonstrukcii odnogo baltijskogo ritual’nogo termina]. – Исследования по этимологии и семантике 4: балтийские и славянские языки [Issledovanija po ètimologii i semantike baltijskie i slavjanskie jazyki] 2, сер. Opera etymologica. Звук и смысл [ser. Opera etymologica. Zvuk i smysl], Москва: Языки славянских культур [Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskich kul’tur], 386–397. Trautmann Reinhold 1923: Baltisch-Slawisches Wörterbuch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Užčenko Viktor D., Užčenko Dmytro V. 1998: Ужченко, Віктор Д., Ужченко, Дмитро В. Фразеологічний словник української мови [Frazeolohičnyj slovnyk sučasnoji ukrajinskoji movy], Київ: Освіта [Kyjiv: Osvita]. Užčenko Viktor D., Užčenko Dmytro V. 2005: Ужченко, Віктор Д., Ужченко, Дмитро В. Фразеологія сучасної української мови: посібник [Frazeolohija sučasnoji ukrajinskoji movy: posibnyk], Луганськ: Альма-матер [Luhans’k: Al’ma-mater]. Užčenko Viktor D., Užčenko Dmytro V. 2013: Ужченко, Віктор Д., Ужченко, Дмитро В. Фразеологічний словник східнослобожанських і степових говірок Донбасу [Frazeolohіčnyj slovnyk schidnoslobožans’kych i stepovych hovirok Donbasu], вид. 6-е, доповн. й переробл. [vyd. 6-e, dopovn. j pererobl.], Луганськ: ЛНУ імені Тараса Шевченка [Luhans’k: LNU imeni Tarasa Ševčenka]. 174 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Lithuanian–Ukrainian Language Parallels: Etymological Relationship and Typological Similarity Zahadky – Загадки про місяць [Zahadki pro misjac’], available online. Available at: https://dovidka.biz.ua/zagadki-pro-misyats/. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija: lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfologija (su 75 žemėlapiais), Vilnius: Mintis. Žalovannaja gramota 1854: Жалованная грамота Льва Даниловича князя Галицкого епископии Перемыской (1302 года) [Žalovannaja gramota L’va Daniloviča knjazja Galickogo episkopii Peremyskoj (1302 goda)]. – Хрестоматия церковнославянская и древнерусская в пользу учеников высшей гимназии [Chrestomatija cerkovnoslovenskaja i drevnerusskaja v pol’zu učenikov vyššej gimnazii], сост. Я. Головaцкий [sost. J. Golovackij], Виден: Накладом правительства [Viden: Nakladom pravitel’stva], 316–317. Želechivs’kij Jevhenij I. 1886: Желехівський, Євгеній І. Малорусько–німецький словар 1 (А–О) [Malorus’ko–nimec’kij slovar 1 (A–O)], Львів: Друкарня тов. ім. Шевченка [L’viv: Drukarnja tom. im. Ševčenka]. Želechivs’kij Jevhenij I., Nedil’skij Sofron G. 1886: Желехівський, Євгеній І., Недільський, Софрон Г. Малорусько–німецький словар 2 (П–Я) [Malorus’ko–nimec’kij slovar 2 (P–Ja)], Львів: Друкарня тов. ім. Шевченка [L’viv: Drukarnja tom. im. Ševčenka]. Lietuvių ir ukrainiečių kalbų paralelės: etimologinis ryšys ir tipologinis panašumas SANTRAUKA Straipsnis patvirtina svarbią atskirų paralelių egzistavimo lietuvių ir ukrainiečių kalbose hipotezę. Bendrų abiejų kalbų arealo ribų nebuvimas parodė, kad yra išlikę bendrų kalbos reliktų iš senųjų baltų ir slavų tarmių kalbėtojų kontaktų epochos. Lietuvių–ukrainiečių izoglosų savitumas pasirodė esąs rytų slavų ir dabartinių lietuvių protėvių glaudžios kalbinės sąveikos rezultatas teritorijoje, kurią apibrėžia Dniepro aukštupio intakų tinklas. Autoriai pateikė keleto lietuvių ir ukrainiečių kalbų sistemų lygmenų pavyzdžių – leksinio, žodžių darybos ir teksto (genetiškai bendros struktūros frazių). Bandymas identifikuoti etimologines koreliacijas leksiniu lygmeniu rodo tam tikrą teminį atitikmenų „išplitimą“, jų priklausymą keletui teminių grupių. Bendrieji pastebėjimai yra šie: bendrosios socialinės terminijos elementai (liet. draŭgalas : ukr. дрօуголик; liet. pusbrolis : senoji ukrainiečių kalba Полбрать); techniniai terminai (sen. lietuvių (?) *sovėj(a)s/*sovėj(a)s : slavų *savějnikъ; Straipsniai / Articles 175 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, OLGA A. KOPUS, OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN liet. kilpa : ukr. [чоўн]; liet. virbū̃ tvorà : ukr. вербо́ва тва́рь); bendros naujovės geografinės nomenklatūros srityje, pagrįstos genetiškai įprasta darbyne medžiaga (šaknimis, afiksais), pvz., pagal vieną modelį sudaryti priešdelio vediniai (liet. bė- : ukr. без-; liet. iš- : ukr. з-, c–). Įrodyta, kad frazeologiniai vienetai, pastovieji žodžių junginiai, turintys panašų ar identišką ideologinį krūvį, reprezentuoja tą pačią lietuvių ir ukrainiečių kalbų etimologinę sudėtį (plg. liet. akis į akį : ukr. віч на віч; liet. už akių : ukr. dial. уз очі; liet. imti į širdį : ukr. ї́нтаму в серце). Analogiškus kalbinius vienetus abiejose kalbose galima paaiškinti ir glaudžia kultūrine Lietuvos ir Ukrainos sąveika. Įteikta 2024 m. rugpjūčio 27 d. OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA The State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” 26, Staroporfankijska Str. 65020, Ukraine, Odesa [email protected] OLGA A. KOPUS The State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” 26, Staroporfankijoska Str. 65020, Ukraine, Odesa [email protected] OLEKSANDRA O. MORHUN The State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” 26, Staroporfankijoska Str. 65020, Ukraine, Odesa [email protected] 176 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI