ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research area: word formation.

SLAVIC VERB LOANWORDS AND SLAVIC-ROOT HYBRIDS

Slavic Loan Verbs and Slavic-root Hybrids

ABSTRACT

Verbs borrowed from Slavic languages are integrated into Lithuanian according to certain rules; however, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania contain verbs of Slavic origin with irregular suffixes (uncharacteristic of loanwords or not corresponding to the suffixes of their Slavic verb sources). The texts also attest to cognate loanwords with regular suffixes. Some verbs of Slavic origin with irregular suffixes have no derivational relationship with a cognate borrowed base word, while others do (e.g., farbuoti, -uoja, -avo ‘to dye’ ChNT 404: farba ‘paint, color’ SD¹ 31 < Polish farba ‘color, paint’; Ruthenian фарба ‘paint’; cf. farbavoti, -avoja, -avojo ‘to dye’ DP 383, ChNT 25 < Polish farbować ‘to dye, impart color, coat with paint’; Ruthenian фарбовати ‘to dye’). The article discusses Slavic-root verbs from both groups and highlights the problems involved in their derivation.

KEYWORDS: verb, Slavic loanword, hybrid, loanword, suffix.

ANNOTATION

Slavic loan verbs are usually integrated into the Lithuanian language in accordance with certain rules. However, some Slavic-root loanwords of the 16^th–17^th century texts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania contain suffixes that do not have analogies in the Slavic languages or Slavic suffixes are not integrated according to the usual model. Common-root words with regular suffixes are recorded in the same texts too. A part of Slavic root verbs do not have an underlying borrowed word in the Lithuanian language; yet another part of irregular Slavic-root verbs can be explained by the process of derivation in the Lithuanian language (for example, farbuoti, -uoja, -avo ‘to paint’ ChNT 404: farba ‘paint, colour’ SD¹ 31 < Polish farba ‘colour, paint’; Ruthenian фарба ‘paint’; plg. farbavoti, -avoja, -avojo ‘to paint’ DP 383, ChNT 25 < Polish farbować ‘to paint, to colour, to cover

68

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

with paint’; Ruthenian фарбовати ‘to paint’). The article presents both groups of these Slavic-root verbs and the problem of their formation.

KEYWORDS: verb, Slavism, hybrid, loanword, suffix.

INTRODUCTION

Lithuanian loanwords, and especially Slavicisms, have long attracted scholarly interest. The origins of this research can be traced to Alexander Brückner’s Die slavischen Fremdwörter im Litauischen (1877) and Pranas Skardžius’s later major work, Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen (1931¹). Kazimieras Būga also wrote extensively about Slavicisms in Lithuanian (Būga I–III). His works offer numerous arguments—previously lacking—for assigning one origin or another to a loanword; these arguments are generally phonetic in nature. Lithuanian loanwords have also been examined in the works of Zigmas Zinkevičius (Zinkevičius 1968, 1974, 1988, 1997, 2002), Jonas Palionis (Palionis 1967), Jurgis Lebedys (Lebedys 1977), Vincas Urbutis (Urbutis 1992, 1993), and other scholars (Otrębski 1965; Kardelis 2003; Siaurukienė 1987; Dini 1987, 1989, 1993; Adomavičiūtė 1978, 1982, 1984; Widłak 2012; Kregždys 2012, 2013, 2014). Nouns predominate in most of the studies mentioned. Among the few more recent studies dealing with borrowed verbs are articles by Jurgis Pakerys (Pakerys 2013) and Kirill Kozhanov (Kozhanov 2014).

In light of the literature cited above, it can be argued that borrowed verbs have received much less scholarly attention, although the problem posed by such Slavicisms is evident: the boundary between loanwords and Lithuanian derivatives formed from borrowed nouns is unclear. Loanwords are generally defined as words that entered a language from other languages through various forms of contact (economic, cultural, political, etc.) (Jakaitienė 2009: 227), or as linguistic elements originating in other languages (or dialects) (LKE 2008: 501). By origin, loanwords are divided into those borrowed from neighboring languages and those borrowed from more distant languages via intermediary languages, i.e., international words. The essential difference between these two groups of words lies in their source: for international words, the primary source from which the word began to spread across various languages is important.

It is usually not difficult to distinguish loanwords from indigenous words. Difficulties may arise when very old loanwords are analyzed. In his study of Slavicisms in Latvian, Igor Koshkin drew attention to several problems concerning loanwords: their chronology and the difficulty of determining whether a verb is native or borrowed (Кошкин

¹ See Skardžius 1998.

Straipsniai / Articles

69

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

2014: 2). This problem is not emphasized in Lithuanian linguistics, but sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania contain verbs that some researchers have considered loanwords and others have not. One example is godóti, -ója (-o), -ójo, gõdoti, -oja, -ojo KN SE 249, SD¹ 231, SD³ 373 ‘to think, suppose, intending to remember something’; 2. ‘to think, reflect’; 3. ‘to sympathize, pity, have mercy’; 4. ‘to care for’; 5. ‘to respect’; 6. ‘to transport, pull’. Wojciech Smoczyński has written that the verb godóti, -ója (-o), -ójo, gõdoti, -oja, -ojo was formerly considered a loanword (Smoczyński 2008: 75). The LKŽe does not indicate whether this verb is a loanword at all; it merely compares it with a Belarusian verb. In Latvian, however, gādāt is not considered a loanword; it is stated to be of the same origin as Lithuanian godóti, -ója (-o), -ójo, gõdoti, -oja, -ojo and the corresponding Slavic verbs (Karulis 1992: 275).

THE CONCEPT OF HYBRIDS

Words that lie between indigenous words and loanwords are hybrids. Evalda Jakaitienė calls them an “intermediate variant of loanwords” (Jakaitienė 2009: 211). Nevertheless, it is more accurate to distinguish them from loanwords, since hybrids contain both native and borrowed morphemes. This is precisely where the issue of borrowed verbs arises: when a verb itself and its cognate nouns are adopted into Lithuanian from other languages, a derivational relationship may have developed within Lithuanian, making the word a hybrid—that is, a Lithuanian derivative formed from a loanword with indigenous suffixes (e.g., rubežioti, -ioja, -iojo SD³ 75 ‘to mark a boundary’: rubėžius 1. ‘a territorial boundary, border’; 2. ‘pl. a certain defined area, region’; 3. ‘the boundary between plots of land, a field boundary’). This is especially evident when, in the recipient language², a suffix is added to the verb that does not formally correspond to a verbal suffix in Slavic languages. When a Slavic verb is borrowed and integrated into Lithuanian, suffix correspondences are generally maintained: Polish and East Slavic verbs with the suffixes -ować, -овати (-овать, -авать, -евать) take the suffixes -avoti, -avoja, -avojo in Lithuanian (Lith. arendavoti, -avoja, -avojo DP 294 < Pol. arendować or Ruthenian арендовати); Lithuanian verbs in -yti, -ija, -ijo correspond to Slavic verbs with the suffixes -ić (-ус́), -umu (-ьму) (Lith. bõvyti, -ija, -ijo MP 36, KN SE 237, ChNT 327 < Pol. bawić or Ruthenian бавити); those in -(i)oti, -(i)oja, -(i)o jo correspond to Slavic verbs in -ać, -amu (-аць, -ать, -ять) (Lith. bujóti, -ója, -ójo KN G 168, ChNT 368 < Pol. bujać or Ruthenian буяти; old.

² The terms donor language and recipient language are used following J. Wohlgemuth’s book (Wohlgemuth 2009: 51). The first term denotes the lending language, and the second the language that adopts the loanword.

70

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

Russian būnamu). Nevertheless, in 16th–17th-century texts of the GDL, Slavic-root borrowings are attested whose suffixes are –(i)uoti, –(i)uoja, –(i)avo and –(i)auti, –(i)auja, –(i)avo, which have no analogues in Slavic languages and do not conform to the system for integrating Slavicisms. Slavic-root verbs with these latter suffixes should not be equated with borrowings that correspond to Slavic verbs in both root and suffixes. The contrast between the two groups of verbs is clear when, alongside a regular borrowing in old writings (for example, Lithuanian rūgóti DP 225, KN SE 243, ChNT 25, SD¹ 36, from Old Russian рyгamu (СРЯ XXII 232)), an irregular verb is also recorded (Lithuanian rūgúoti SD³ 500), which does not differ in root or meaning from the verbs in Slavic languages.

When Lithuanian, and especially the very same writings, attest a possible base word for such an irregular verb—that is, a borrowed nominal—the differences in suffixes are most often explained by a derivational process involving affixes. Derivation on Lithuanian soil is usually accompanied by characteristic categories as well. Good examples of such a process are sėbrinti, –ina, –ino ‘to make someone a companion, partner’ SD³ 175, its cognate sėbrauti, –áuja, –ãvo, sėbrauti, –auja, –avo 1. ‘to associate, be friends’; 2. ‘to farm as a sharecropper’ DP 416, KN G 85, SD¹ 99, and svodbáuti, –áuja, –ãvo ‘to attend someone’s wedding’ SD³ 71. The latter verb is the most typical member of the participation-meaning category: it has the most productive suffix for derivatives with a participation meaning, –auti, and its base word is an abstract noun. Sėbrinti, –ina, –ino is derived from the borrowing sėbras, –ė, sėbras, –ė, sėbras, –ė DP 293, KN SE 221, SD¹ 26, JE¹ 95, with the suffix –inti, which is highly characteristic of factitives. The base words of such derivatives are usually names of living beings (DLKG³: 388). Sėbrauti, –áuja, –ãvo, sėbrauti, –auja, –avo, by contrast, is a stative; it differs from sėbrinti, –ina, –ino not only in meaning but also in its suffixes.

Sėbrinti, –ina, –ino, svodbáuti, –áuja, –ãvo and other similar verbs should be considered hybrids from the perspective of word formation. The definition of hybrids given in LKE is very broad: “these are words which, in addition to their own, also contain non-inflectional morphemes from other languages. Hybrids generally arise through calquing, the adaptation of borrowings, or word formation using morphemes that have already been borrowed” (LKE 2008: 207). Stasys Keinys, who has perhaps examined most deeply the place of hybrids in the Lithuanian language system, has pointed out that hybrid is primarily a lexicological term, “since it is, in part, an intermediate link in the system for classifying words by origin (between borrowings and indigenous words)” (Keinys 1984: 117), but it is inseparable from word formation, because hybrids arise precisely through it—the essential condition for a hybrid is that it have a clear base word (Keinys 1984: 114). Thus, verbs such as sėbrinti, –ina, –ino, svodbáuti, –áuja, –ãvo and other similar cases meet this definition of hybrids: they have a Slavic root, an indigenous suffix, and a base word. Moreover, their meanings are modified relative to those of the corresponding Slavic verbs, in accordance with the meanings of their base words and suffixes.

Straipsniai / Articles

71

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

Nevertheless, the status of Slavic-root verbs that have no base words in Lithuanian but acquired irregular suffixes during integration remains unclear (for example, the aforementioned rūgūoti). In presenting Betz’s classic scheme for the integration of borrowings, Joachim Grzega divides borrowings into three categories based on the manner of integration: importation (importation), partial substitution (partial substitution), and substitution (substitution). The first category—importation—is further divided into two: cases where a borrowing is not adapted to the recipient language’s morphological system (for example, metro), and cases where it is adapted. Borrowings belong to the latter, while some international words belong to the former. Substitution, meanwhile, comprises calques, in which words or entire phraseological units are translated morpheme by morpheme (Grzega 2003: 25). Words of the rūgūoti type would seem, if Betz’s classification is followed, to belong to partial substitution, the so-called loan blends (loan blend). The latter, however, are understood differently: they are combinations of an original word and a translated word (for example, German Showgeschäft based on English show business) or compounds. Grzega himself calls them hybrid compounds (hybrid composites) (Grzega 2003: 28). In Lithuanian linguistics, such partial morphemic translations, in which some morphemes are replaced with Lithuanian ones (for example, antiyriausybinis), are also classified as hybrids (LKE 2008: 207). It must be emphasized that partial calques may be considered hybrids, but not vice versa (Keinys 1984: 115). Nevertheless, verbs of the rūgūoti type can hardly be classified as partial calques, since the claim that their suffixes are translated is highly questionable. Moreover, such translation would be entirely chaotic. For example, the verb štōrauti, -auja, -avo DP 189 has acquired the suffix -auti, although the Ukrainian dialect verb старува́ти (ECYM V 398), its source, would yield the suffix -авоти; and treliūoti, -iūoja, -iāvo DP 628 already has the suffix -iuoti, although its possible sources (Ukrainian dialect трелюва́ти (ECYM V 628), Polish dialect trelować (SJP VII 107)) would again point to -avoti.

A borrowed nominal integrated into Lithuanian is not considered a hybrid, because its ending has only a grammatical function (Keinys 1984: 115). In the aforementioned verb rūgūoti -uo- is a suffix, while -ti serves a grammatical function, but there is no base word here. According to Urbutis, this is not derivation based solely on a root. Although he gives no examples of verbs, it can be understood that he proposes viewing this as a manifestation of morphological adaptation that does not produce new words. It can produce only variants of the same word, when a previously borrowed word, or a word otherwise, is remodeled and the affix is merely a morphological component; both variants may function alongside one another (Urbutis 1978: 115). It has already been noted that Slavicisms of the rūgūoti type should not be treated in the same way as regular borrowings; moreover, they are not partial calques. Following Urbutis’s reasoning, such cases may be viewed as remodeled borrowings (when a regular borrowing is attested alongside them) or as remodelings arising during separate integration (when no borrowing with a regular suffix is attested alongside them). In view of LKE’s broad definition of hybrids and the fact that remodeled borrowings are included among them, they

72

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

are called hybrids. For clarity, verbs that have no exact counterparts in Slavic languages are divided into two types of hybrids—adaptational and derivational—according to the opposition morphologically opaque / morphologically transparent. The names of these word groups are open to debate, but the basis for distinguishing them is clear: if the suffix of a borrowed-root verb does not correspond to the donor language’s suffixes in the recipient language, and no cognate verb attested in the recipient language—a potential derivational base—exists, the verb is considered an adaptational hybrid. If a cognate verb is attested in the recipient language and a derivational relationship between them can be discerned, the verb is a derivational hybrid.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HYBRIDS AND LOANWORDS

Slavic-root verbs that had acquired suffixes formally not corresponding to those of Slavic verbs, together with their cognates—regular loanwords—were extracted from texts representing the central and eastern variants of the language of the old Lithuanian writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) from the 16th–17th centuries³ to determine whether a difference in meaning could be observed between adaptational hybrids and regular loanwords. All the verbs collected can be divided into several groups:

• A verb of Slavic origin has an irregular suffix compared with its source and has no derivational relationship with borrowed words used in Lithuanian; no cognate regular loanwords are attested in 16th–17th-century GDL writings. A total of 7 such verbs were found⁴.

³ Medžiaga rinkta iš indeksų (Mikalojaus Daukšos Postilla Catholicka (Kudzinowski 1977); Mikalojaus Daukšos Kathechismas arba mokslas kiekwienam krikszczioniui priwalus (Jakšienė, Palionis 1995); Konstantino Sirvydo Dictionarium trium linguarum (Pakalka 1979, 1997); Konstantino Sirvydo Punktay sakimu (Specht 1929); Samuelio Boguslavo Chilinskio Naujojo Testamento (Kudzinowski 1964); „Knygos Nobažnystės“ leksika (I dalis) (Jakulis 1995)) ir paskelbtų konkordancijų (1605 m. anoniminio katekizmo; Roberto Bellarmino katekizmo; Saliamono Mozerkos Slavočinskio Giesmes tikieimoy katholickam pridarancias; Jono Jaknavičiaus Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie; Pradžios pamokslo; Jurgio Kasakauskio Rožančius švenčiausios Marijos).

⁴Išpėlioti, -ioja, -iojo 1. ‘to stretch out by crucifying; to crucify’; 2. ‘to beat’ DP 145, MP 153, SD³ 137, SPII 24 < cf. Belarusian dialectal тарм. пяліць (ЭСБМ X 296); Ukrainian dialectal тарм. п'ялити (ЭСУМ X 296); Russian dialectal тарм. пялить (СРНГ XXXIII 213). Štorauti, -auja, -avo 1. ‘to talk, ramble, chat, talk like an old man’; 2. ‘to joke, jest’ DP 189 < Ukrainian dialectal тарм. старувати (ЕСУМ V 398); Russian dialectal тарм. старовать (СРНГ XLI 79). Tùlkavyti, -ija, -ijo ‘to work as an interpreter’ DP 385 < Ruthenian толковати (ГСБМ XXXIII 384); Old Russian толковати (СДрЯ XXIX 404). Huliuoti, -iuoja, -iavo ‘to carouse, revel, make merry’ ChNT 128 < Polish dialectal hulać (SGPK II 196; SJP II 31).

Straipsniai / Articles

73

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

• A verb of Slavic origin has an irregular suffix compared with its source and has no derivational relationship with borrowed words used in Lithuanian, but it has cognate loanwords with a regular suffix. There are only 4 such verbs; they will be discussed later.

• A Slavic-origin verb in Lithuanian has an irregular suffix compared with its possible source, but can be linked to a corresponding borrowed word. In other words, the verbs in this group are derivations—hybrids; 11 were found⁵. No variant with a regular suffix compared with the corresponding Slavic verb was found in 16th–17th-century GDL texts.

• A Slavic-origin verb in Lithuanian has an irregular suffix compared with its possible source and has a derivational relationship with a cognate Lithuanian

Kastyrauti, -auja, -avo ‘to play with dice’ DP 30 < Polish kostyrować (SPol XI 11).

Paliecavōti, -avója, -avójo 1. ‘to entrust, confide, assign, offer’; 2. ‘to promise’ DP 177, KN G 283, ChNT 225, JE⁵ 213, PP 34, KR 17 < Ruthenian полеяти, полицяти, полыцити (ГСБМ XXVI 136; МДСУМ II 163); Polish polecić (SS VI 343).

Treliūoti, -iúoja, -iãvo ‘to drag, pull’ DP 628 < Ukrainian dialectal трељовати, триљовати (ЕСУМ V 628); Polish dialectal trelować (SJP VII 107).

⁵Kalėdōti, -ōja, -ōjo 1. ‘to collect Christmas gifts’; 2. ‘to beg’; 3. ‘to make rounds around Christmas collecting dues (of a priest and church servants)’ SD³ 112: kalėdà DP 57, KN G 129, SD¹ 59 < Ruthenian коледа, коляда (ГСБМ XV 191).

Pāšnykauti, -auja, -avo; pasnykāuti, -ãuja, -ãvo ‘to abstain from a particular food (usually meat or dairy) on days prescribed by religion’ PK 88, DP 20, MP 108, ChNT 12, SD¹ 282, SPII 5: pāšnykas DK 89, DP 109, SD¹ 280, SPII 5 < Ruthenian посникъ (ГСБМ XXVII 140).

Sėbrauti, -áuja, -ãvo; sėbrauti, -auja, -avo 1. ‘to associate, be friends’; 2. ‘to share the proceeds equally’ DP 416, KN G 85, SD¹ 99: sėbras, -ė, sėbras, -ė, sėbras, -ė DP 293, KN SE 221, SD¹ 26, JE¹ 95 < Ruthenian сябрь (МДСУМ II 383).

Sėbrinti, -ina, -ino ‘to make someone a partner, to make someone a co-participant’ SD³ 175: sėbras, -ė, sėbras, -ė, sėbras, -ė DP 293, KN SE 221, SD¹ 26, JE¹ 95 < Ruthenian сябрь (МДСУМ II 383).

Svodbāuti, -áuja, -ãvo ‘to attend someone’s wedding’ SD¹ 71: svodbà DP 51, MP 67, KN G 223, SD¹ 71, SPI 214, JE¹ 22, BK 23 < Belarusian свадьба, свадьба (ГСБМ XXXI 71).

Heretikuoti, -uoja, -avo ‘to turn into or call a heretic’ KN SE 120: heretikas, -ė, herètikas, -ė, hèretikas, -ė DP 68, SD¹ 50, KN SE 5, KR 56 < Polish heretyk (SPol VIII 328; SP).

Kytráuti, -áuja, -ãvo ‘to speak or act cleverly, deceitfully, cunningly’ SD¹ 13: kytrùs KN M 53, SD¹ 13; kỹtras KN G 57, ChNT 288 < Polish chytry (SPol III 392); Old Russian хытрыи, хитрыи (СДЯ III 1430).

Nepakājūoti, -ūoja, -āvo 1. ‘not to give peace’; 2. ‘to be restless, worry’ KN SE 57: nepakājūs DP 220, SD¹ 95, KN G 251 < Polish niepokoj (SPol XVII 504); Old Russian непокой (СРЯ XI 221).

Razbajāuti, -āuja, -āvo ‘to be a brigand, rob, kill’ DP 308: razbājus (LKŽe) < Ruthenian разбой (ГСБМ XXIX 446); розбой (ГСБМ XXX 168; CCM II 287); Polish rozbój (SS VII 502); Russian разбой (СДЯ III 21); Russian разбой, розбой (СРЯ XXI 140).

Storastáuti, -áuja, -ãvo; stórastauti, -auja, -avo ‘to be a starosta, to serve as a starosta’ DP 25: stórasta, stōrasta, stò̀rasta, storastà DK 82, DP 6, KN SE 276, ChNT 423, SPII 166, JE¹ 6, BK 15 < Ruthenian староста (ГСБМ XXXII 342); староста, старостъ, староста (CCM II 381); Polish starosta (SPol VIII 418); Russian староста (СДЯ III 496; СРЯ XXVIII 11).

74

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

Borrowed words from the language, usually nouns. In 16th–17th-century texts of the GDL, cognate verbs of this group are attested as borrowings whose suffix formally corresponds to the verbal suffixes of Slavic languages.

DERIVATIONAL HYBRIDS

Verbs in the latter group are interesting because they may reveal whether the meanings of borrowed verbs differ substantially from those of verbs derived in Lithuanian from borrowed words. Twelve pairs of verbs were found in 16th–17th-century texts of the GDL. The regular borrowing is given first, followed by the derivative formed from an already borrowed base word: afieravóti, –avója, –avójo DK 99, DP 59, SG1 47, KN G 196, ChNT 267, KR 19, SD³ 110, SPI 41, JĒ¹ 19 / afierúoti, –úoja, –ávo KN SE 182; atpróvyti, –ija, –ijo PK 216, DP 18, KN SE 99, ChNT 63 / atprovinėti, –inėja, –inėjo DP 582, KN M 20, ChNT 95, PP 27, KR 3; bursavóti, –avója, –avójo DP 515 / bursyti, –ija, –ijo DP 515; farbavoti, –avoja, –avojo DP 383, ChNT 25 / farbuoti, –uoja, –avo ChNT 404; latravóti, –avója, –avójo SD¹ 74 / latráuti, –áuja, –ávo DP 574; míeryti, –ija, –ijo KN SE 105, SD¹ 10, JĒ¹ 87 / mierúoti, –úoja, –ávo DK 142, SG1 57, KN SE 20, ChNT 16, SD¹ 106, SPI 179, JĒ¹ 87; mūravóti, –avója, –avójo SD³ 434 / mūryti, –ija, –ijo MP 93, SD³ 207; pētnavoti, –avoja, –avojo SD¹ 10 / pētnyti, –ija, –ijo SD¹ 88; priuóbyti, –ija, –ijo DP 397, ChNT 368 / priuobinėti, –inėja, –inėjo DP 35; rubėžyti, –ija, –ijo ChNT 19, SD¹ 111, SPI 79 / rubežioti, –ioja, –iojo SD¹ 75; sūdyti, –ija, –ijo DK 37, PK 51, DP 101, MP 249, SG1 78, KN G 174, ChNT 237, SD¹ 115, SPI 4, PP 11, KR 13, JĒ¹ 51, BK 16 / sūdinti, –ina, –ino ChNT 26; tancavóti, –avója, –avójo SD³ 165 / tancúoti, –úoja, –ávo ChNT 72.

There are no consistent tendencies in how hybrids and regular borrowings are recorded in old texts. Sometimes both a hybrid and a regular borrowing are recorded in roughly the same way, and in some cases the hybrid is even more frequent. Nor can borrowings and hybrids be classified on the basis of the suffixes of the two types of words. For example, in one case the regular borrowing has the suffixes –avóti, –avója, while the hybrid has –áuti, –áuja (as in latravóti and latráuti); in another, the hybrid already has different suffixes (as in farbavoti and farbuoti). Such variability in the suffixes of hybrids could be explained only by the derivational categories of the derivatives themselves.

Vālninti, –ina, –ino 1. ‘to make free, liberate’; 2. ‘to set loose, make less constrained, freer’ PK 69, KN SE 11: vālnas, –à, vālnas, –a, vālnas, –a DP 340, KN SE 207, SD³ 196 < Ruthenian вольный, вольный (ГСБМ IV 165; МДСУМ I 112); Polish wolny (SS X 292; SP); Russian вольны (СДЯ I1 279; СРЯ III 17).

Straipsniai / Articles

75

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

TABLE 1. The relationship between the meanings of hybrids and their base words

HYBRID | BASE WORD | Latráuti, -áuja, -ávo | Lãtras | 1. to live as a vagabond, drink heavily, lead a debauched life; | 1. vagabond, drunkard, debauchee, idler; | 2. to steal, rob, kill; | 2. murderer; | 3. robber; | Rubežioti, -ioja, -iojo | Rubežius | 1. to mark out a boundary; | 1. territorial boundary, border; | 2. pl. a certain defined area, region; | 3. boundary of a strip of land or field, field boundary; | Farbuoti, -uoja, -avo | Farba | 1. to dye; | 1. dye, color; | Tancúoti, -úoja, -ávo | Tãnčius | 1. to dance; | 1. dance; | 2. dancing, party; | 3. crowd, group;

Among the 12 verb pairs mentioned above, there are cases in which the meanings of the Lithuanian derivative and the loanword do not differ at all: latravóti, -avója, -avójo / latráuti, -áuja, -ávo 1. ‘to live as a vagabond, drink heavily, lead a debauched life’; 2. ‘to steal, rob, kill’; rubežyti, -ija, -ijo / rubežioti, -ioja, -iojo ‘to mark out a boundary’; farbavoti, -avoja, -avojo / farbuoti, -uoja, -avo ‘to dye’; tancavóti, -avója, -avójo / tancúoti, -úoja, -ávo ‘to dance’. Latráuti, farbuoti ir tancúoti have suffixes that are generally not characteristic of loanwords and have no formal counterparts among source verbs in the Slavic languages. The case of the suffixes -(i)oti, -(i)oJa, -(i)oJo in the hybrid rubežioti among verbs of foreign origin is very similar to that of -yti, -ija, -ijo: loanwords with these suffixes have counterparts in the Slavic languages that are verbs with the Polish suffix -ać or the East Slavic suffix -amu (-ауь, -ать, -ять), and these suffixes are highly productive in Lithuanian. Moreover, the interpretation of Slavic-root verbs with these suffixes is even more complex. When derivatives are formed from a borrowed nominal word with -yti, -ija, -ijo, they are only factitives or mutatives (Otrębski 1965: 390). The formation of verbs with -(i)oti, -(i)oJa, -(i)oJo from borrowed verbs is not restricted by derivational categories, and it is quite difficult to distinguish a loanword from a hybrid when there are exact verbal counterparts in the Slavic languages and a potential base word in Lithuanian. Nevertheless, the verb rubežioti presented here is classified as a hybrid because no formal counterpart exists in the Slavic languages.

76

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

All the hybrids mentioned above, latráuti, farbuoti, tancúoti and rubežioti, are derivationally related to borrowed nouns that are also attested in 16th–17th-century texts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: lãtras DK 176, DP 425, SD¹ 74, SP¹ 27, JE¹ 84, KN SE 60; farba SD¹ 31; tãncius DP 71, SD³ 165; rubẽžius SG² 40, SD¹ 60, JE¹ 106, KN G 38. The relationship between the meanings of these nouns and their derivatives is shown in Table 1.

None of the suffixes listed in the table is restricted to particular derivational categories when used to form verbs from Slavic loanword nouns. Nevertheless, -uoti, -uoja, -avo is highly productive specifically in causative derivatives, and both hybrids in this group (farbuoti, tancúoti) are factitives. Derivatives in -uoti have a somewhat different meaning when the base word is the name of a material or product and the general categorical meaning is ‘to smear or cover with what is denoted by the base word’; this is the case with the hybrid farbuoti (‘to smear with farba [dye]’).

In Lithuanian, suffixes -auti, -auja, -avo are sometimes used to form factitives or instrument-marking derivatives, but they are most characteristic of verbs expressing conformity and participation. These suffixes are most productive in the formation of verbs expressing conformity. Their general categorical meaning is ‘to perform the functions of, work as, or behave in the manner denoted by the base word’; the base words are usually names of persons. The meanings of the verb latráuti, -áuja, -ãvo can be explained through its base word: ‘to live as a vagabond, drink heavily, lead a debauched life’ < ‘to behave like a vagabond, drunkard, debauchee’; ‘to steal, rob, kill’ < ‘to behave like a robber, murderer’. The base word is a noun denoting a person. This verb is a typical derivative expressing conformity of state.

Another group of verbs consists of pairs in which the regular loanword has more meanings than the Lithuanian derivative formed from a previously borrowed word: bursavóti, -avója, -avójo 1. ‘to socialize; to be friends’; 2. ‘to incite, set against one another’ / bursyti, -ija, -ijo ‘to socialize’; sūdÿti, -ija, -ijo 1. ‘to hear a case in court, judge’; 2. ‘to condemn’; 3. ‘to decide, think’; 4. ‘to advise’/ sūdinti, -ina, -ino ‘to hear a case in court, judge’; afieravóti, -avója, -avójo 1. ‘to sacrifice’; 2. ‘to bring’ / afierúoti, -úoja, -ãvo ‘to sacrifice’. Two verbs in this group have the suffixes -yti, -ija, -ijo, which, as noted, are problematic: on the one hand, Lithuanian verbs with -yti, -ija correspond to Slavic verbs with the Polish suffix -ić or East Slavic -umu, while on the other hand the suffixes -yti, -ija, -ijo are highly productive in derivatives formed within Lithuanian. A Slavic loanword verb with such suffixes, when a corresponding nominal word is attested, should first be assessed as a possible Lithuanian derivative: that is, the nominal word may have been borrowed into Lithuanian and the verb then derived from it using productive Lithuanian suffixes. In assessing this possibility of Lithuanian word formation, it is necessary to consider the derivational category, accentuation, and meanings of the possible derivative. Sūdÿti, -ija, -ijo is a loanword that came from Old Russian, as confirmed by analysis of this verb in all the respects mentioned above. By contrast, bursyti, -ija, -ijo has no formal counterparts in the Slavic languages; it is derivationally

Straipsniai / Articles

77

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

related to the loanword bursà DP 28, AK 69. The other hybrids, sūdinti and afierūoti, are respectively compared with the nouns sūdas DK 38, PK 101, DP 484, MP 67, SG1 155, SD¹ 162, SPI 4, JE¹ 74, BK 33, KN G 193, ChNT 163, PP 30, KR 86 and afierà DK 41, DP 180, SG1 150, AK 82, SD¹ 100, SPI 41, JE¹ 157, KN G 55, ChNT 79, PP 21, KR 43.

² TABLE. The relationship between the meanings of hybrids and their base words

HYBRID

BASE WORD

Bursyti, -ija, -ijo

Bursà

1. to socialize;

1. female friend, friendship;

2. gang;

3. society; a group of people; an association; a supported association;

Sūdinti, -ina, -ino

Sūdas

1. to hear a case in court, to try;

1. a public or state body for deciding cases, a court; court premises;

2. a court proceeding;

3. a court decision, verdict, sentence; a decision;

4. a judge;

5. expression of an opinion, evaluation; an opinion;

To make sacred, -ūoja, -āvo

Afierà

1. to sacrifice;

1. a sacrifice; an object or being offered to God;

It is known from Jan Otrębski that -yti, -ija derivatives formed from borrowed nouns should be factitives or mutatives (Otrębski 1965: 390). Bursyti, -ija, -ijo is not a mutative, but it may be mistakenly interpreted as a stative (‘to associate’ < ‘to be a friend’) or as a derivative expressing participation (‘to be in a gang’; ‘to belong to society’). However, the suffix -yti, -ija is entirely uncharacteristic of the latter group, and nouns are rarely base words for statives; even then, they are abstract nouns. Bursyti, -ija, -ijo is a factitive, whose meanings could be paraphrased as ‘to make a friendship’; ‘to form a gang’; ‘to constitute a society, an association’.

Although the suffixes -inti, -ina, -ino are most common in the formation of deverbal derivatives, especially causatives, the hybrid sūdinti, -ina, -ino has precisely these suffixes. When the potential derivational base is a noun, the derivative is usually factitive, i.e. the general meaning of the category is ‘to make what or such as is denoted by the base word’. When the base word of factitives formed with the suffixes -inti, -ina is a noun, it denotes living beings, objects, or substances, and more rarely abstract concepts (DLKG³: 388).

78

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

The semantic connection between Sūdinti, –ina, –ino and the meaning of the noun sūdas, ‘judge’, is harder to paraphrase as a factitive, since that would sound like ‘make, consider someone a judge’, whereas ‘hear a case in court, judge’ does not mean this. It is worth recalling that derivatives matching the base in meaning can occur in this type of formation, although this meaning is usually only secondary alongside the resultative one. Nevertheless, ‘hear a case in court, judge’ can indeed be paraphrased as ‘act as a judge’.

Derivatives with the suffixes –inėti, –inėja, –inėjo are worth discussing separately. Like –inti, –ina, –ino, these suffixes are used predominantly in deverbal formations. –inėti most commonly occurs in the formation of iterative verbs and carries a diminutive nuance. When the base word is a prefixed verb, the derivative has no diminutive meaning, only an iterative one. Both hybrids in this subgroup have precisely this meaning: atprovinėti, –inėja, –inėjo ‘iter. spend a period of time, perform’ and priuobinė́ti, –inėja, –inėjo ‘iter. lure closer by enticement or cunning, entice’. Their base words are the regular borrowings atpróvyti, –ija, –ijo and priuóbyti, –ija, –ijo, which have more meanings than the hybrids. The relationship between their meanings is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3. Relationship between the meanings of the hybrids and their base words

HYBRID

BASE WORD

To speak against, –inėja, –inėjo

Atpróvyti

1. iter. spend a period of time, perform;

3. spend a period of time, perform;

1. send away, dispatch, transport;

2. drive away, remove, separate;

To buy in small quantities, –inėja, –inėjo

Priob́vyti

1. iter. lure closer by enticement or cunning, entice;

3. lure closer by enticement or cunning, entice;

1. imitate the sounds of animals or birds to lure them closer;

2. to lure or win over to one’s side through deceit or cunning;

4. to attract through deceit or cunning, entice, persuade (someone to do something);

5. to tame, accustom;

The final group consists of verbs in which derivational hybrids have more meanings than the regular borrowings: mūravóti, –avója, –avójo ‘to build from stone or bricks’ / mūryti, –ija, –ijo 1. ‘to build from stone or bricks’, 2. ‘to eat greedily, stuff oneself’; pėtnavóti, –avoja, –avojo ‘to mark, label’ / pėtnyti, –ija, –ijo 1. ‘to make spots, stain’, 2. ‘to mark’; miéryti, –ija, –ijo 1. ‘to measure’; 2. ‘to aim’ / mierúoti,

Straipsniai / Articles

79

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

–úoja, –ãvo 1. ‘to measure’; 2. ‘to measure out’; 3. ‘to check whether something fits, adjust’; 4. ‘to aim’. The base words of the hybrids are respectively mūras DP 209, SG2 25, SD¹ 84, SPI 102, KN SE 260; pėtnas MP 184, SD¹ 23 and mierà, míera, mieras DP 126, SD¹ 79, SPI 178, JE¹ 31, KN G 46, ChNT 251.

TABLE 4. Relationship between the meanings of hybrids and their base words

HYBRID BASE WORD Mūryti, –ija, –ijo Mūras 1. to build from stone or bricks; 1. wall, enclosure made of cement, stone, or bricks; 2. intr. to eat greedily, stuff oneself; 2. masonry building; city; 3. heated stove wall; Pėtnyti, –ija, –ijo Pėtnas 1. to make spots, stain; 1. sign, mark; stamp; stain; 2. to mark; 2. to mark; Mieruoti, –úoja, –ãvo Mierà, míera, mieras 1. to measure; 1. unit of measurement, measure; size, weight, etc.; 2. to measure out; 3. a vessel used for measuring something out, a measure; 3. to check whether something fits, adjust; 6. dimension; 7. size, height, thickness; 7. size, height, thickness; 4. to aim; 8. target; 2. measuring instrument; method; 4. an amount equal to the capacity of an old measure for dry goods; 5. small glass for alcoholic drinks; measure; 9. moderation;

The suffixes –úoti, –úoja, –ãvo are not restricted by derivational categories, and all the meanings of mieruoti can be explained through the noun mierà, míera, mieras; the accentuation is also consistent with such a derivation. The situation is somewhat different with the –yti, –ija, –ijo derivative from mūras mūryti: the second meaning is recorded in dialects, but is not attested in early Lithuanian writings. If only the first meaning is intended, mūryti, –ija, –ijo is a causative derivative. The verb pėtnyti has formal equivalents in Slavic languages (for example, Russian ru. пятнить (СРНГ XXXIII 231)), but their meanings coincide only partly with those of pėtnyti, –ija, –ijo. Several criteria confirm that this verb is a denominal derivative from pėtnas. First, all the meanings of the hybrid can be explained through derivation from a noun. Second, in Lithuanian, the formation of factitives with the suffixes –yti, –ija

80

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

The formation of nouns is very common. In this case, the loanword, following the donor Slavic languages, has only one meaning, while derivation in Lithuanian gives the hybrid new meanings on the basis of a noun.

ADAPTATIONAL HYBRIDS

In 16th–17th-century texts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, there are not many verbs that could be classified as adaptational verbs and that have attested regular loanwords alongside them. Four pairs were found (the loanword is given first): pečetavoti, -avoja, -avojo DP 10 / pečėtyti, -ija, -ijo SD³ 249, SPI 375, KN SE 138, ChNT 385; rūgóti, -ója, -ójo DP 225, SD¹ 36, KN SE 243, ChNT 25 / rūgúoti, -úoja, -ãvo SD³ 500; rokavóti, -avója, -avójo DK 68, DP362, SD¹ 153, ChNT 127 / rokúoti, -úoja, -ãvo DP 390, SG² 2; žỹčyti, -ija, -ijo; žičyti, -ija, -ijo DK 71, SD¹ 139, ChNT 119 / žỹčioti, -iója, -iójo; žỹčioti, -ioja, -iojo; žičióti, -iója, -iójo; žičióti, -ioja, -iojo KN SE 254, ChNT 108. The relationship between the meanings of the hybrids and regular loanwords is shown in Table 5.

Because of the article’s limited length, the reasons why pečėtyti, rūgúoti⁶, rokúoti⁷, and žỹčioti (žičioti, žičióti, žỹčioti) are classified as adaptational hybrids will not be repeated here. A brief explanation may be needed as to why pečėtyti, -ija, -ijo and žỹčioti, -iója, -iójo (žỹčioti, -ioja, -iojo; žičióti, -iója, -iójo; žičióti, -ioja, -iojo) are not considered loanwords: after all, the suffixes of these verbs have counterparts in Slavic languages.

The verb pečėtyti, -ija, -ijo has no formal counterparts in Slavic languages. Its cognate pečetavoti, -avoja, -avojo is borrowed from East Slavic, and precisely this kind of suffix is regular (< Ruthenian печатовати, печатовать 1. ‘to apply a seal, to seal’; 2. ‘fig. to finish, close, confirm’ (ГСБМ XXIV 284; МДСУМ II 105)). And although pečėtyti could, on semantic grounds, be related to the noun pečėtis ‘a tool for impressing a mark; a mark stamped or impressed with that tool; a seal’ DP 355, SD¹ 121, SPI 116, KN K 80, its accentuation prevents the verb from being connected with it. Derivatives in -yti, -ija with root stress retain the stress position and pitch accent of their base nouns (Stundžia 2009: 221), which is not the case here.

⁶ Cf. the source of the loanword rūgóti, -ója, -ójo, Ruthenian руати(ся) 1. ‘to scold (one another)’; 2. ‘to despise’ (ГСБМ XXX 464).

⁷ Cf. the source of the loanword rakavóti, -avója, -avójo, Polish rachować 1. ‘to perform arithmetic, calculate’; 2. ‘to include in a count’; 3. ‘to bear in mind’; 4. ‘to estimate approximately’ (SPol XXV 4; SP).

Straipsniai / Articles

81

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

TABLE 5. Relationship between the meanings of loanwords and adaptational hybrids ⁸

LOANWORD

HYBRID

Pečėtavoti, –avoja, –avojo

Pečėtyti, –ija, –ijo

1. to apply a seal, to seal;

1. to apply a seal, to seal;

Rūgóti, –ója, –ójo

Rūgúoti, –úoja, –ãvo

1. to reproach, be angry, scold;

1. to reproach, be angry, scold;

to row, –s, –ed

To row, –s, –ed

1. to solve arithmetically, calculate;

1. to solve arithmetically, calculate;

2. to settle accounts;

4. to settle accounts;

2. to mention, enumerate how much of something there was;

3. to set a price, ask for when selling;

5. to consider something to be something;

6. to hold an opinion, think;

Žýčyti, –ija, –ijo; žičýti, –ija, –ijo

To borrow, –s, –ed; to borrow, –s, –ed; to borrow, –s, –ed; to borrow, –s, –ed

1. to lend money to someone, lend;

1. to lend money to someone, lend;

2. to borrow;

2. to borrow;

3. to wish;

3. to wish;

4. to want⁸;

In Lithuanian, both žýčyti, –ija, –ijo (žičýti, –ija, –ijo), and žyčioti, –iója, –iójo (žičioti, –ioja, –iojo, žičióti, –iója, –iójo, žičióti –ioja, –iojo) denote an ongoing, incomplete action. Polish pożyczać and Ruthenian позычаму, позычати, позычати likewise denote an ongoing, repeated action, but there is no evidence that non-prefixed forms with this meaning, žýčati and *зычamu, *жичamu, *жычamu (which would formally correspond precisely to žičióti (žičioti, žičióti, žýčioti)) were used in the Slavic languages. Thus, either the prefixed verb pažyčioti, –iója, –iójo was borrowed into Lithuanian, meaning 1. ‘to lend something to someone, to be repaid’; 2. ‘to borrow something from someone, to be repaid’ (according to LKŽe, attested only in later writings and dialects), and later žyčioti, –iója, –iójo (žičioti, –ioja, –iojo, žičióti, –iója, –iójo, žýčioti –ioja, –iojo) began to be used through deprefixation, or else this is a reshaping that took place during borrowing.

⁸ Meaning attested in DK.

82

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

SUMMARY

Lithuanian derivatives of loanwords undergo no semantic change relative to regular loan verbs with the same root only rarely. More often, derivational hybrids are based on the meanings of the base word, and differences between Slavic-root verbs and loanwords arise on this basis. The latter generally arrive from Slavic languages with several meanings, whereas hybrids derived within Lithuanian acquire one specific meaning based on a particular occupational category (for example, atprovinėti, -inēja, -inėjo); conversely, depending on the meanings of the base word, a derivative may acquire new meanings (for example, mierúoti, -úoja, -ãvo) that are absent even from verbs with the corresponding root in Slavic languages. Meanwhile, verbs proposed to be called adaptive hybrids are essentially no different in meaning from regular Slavicisms with the same root: differences in meaning have been observed only in the pair rokavóti, -avoja, -avójo / rokúuoti, -úoja, -ãvo, but it should be emphasized that the latter’s meanings are attested in Slavic languages (for example, Polish dialectal rachować ‘za co = uważać, poczytywać, mieć, brać za co’ (‘to regard as, consider, take to be’) or ‘myśleć, mniemać, sądzić’ (‘to think, suppose, judge’) (SJP V 457). This case, in which a Slavic-root verb with a non-regular suffix has more in common with the meanings of the verb in Slavic languages than the regular loanword does, would indicate that rokúuoti and similar verbs underwent modifications during integration.

SOURCES AND LITERATURE

BK – Roberto Bellarmino’s Catechism. Available online: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/db.php.

Brückner Alexander 1877: Die slavischen Fremdwörter im Litauischen. Prieiga per internetą: www.https://archive.org/details/dieslavischenfr01brgoog.

Būga Kazimieras I–III: Selected Writings 1–3. Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature, 1958–1961.

Daukša Mikalojus 1595: Kathechismas arba mokslas kiekwienam krikszczioniui priwalvs. – Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 metų katekizmas, par. V. Jakšienė, J. Palionis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995.

Daukša Mikalojus 1599: Postilla Catholicka. – Daukšos Postilė. Kaunas: Lietuvos Universiteto leidinys, 1926.

Dini Pietro Umberto 1987: Slavismi e germanismi lessicali nel Piccolo Catechismo lituano di Lysius. – Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 225–245.

Straipsniai / Articles

83

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

Dini Pietro Umberto 1989: Slavizmai Lizijaus ir Engelio katekizmuose: sugretinamoji analizė. – International Conference for Balto-slavistics.

Dini Pietro Umberto 1993: Sul velato influsso polacco negli aggettivi derivati del lituano antico (Ledesma 1590, Daukša 1595, Anonimo 1605). – Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 147–159.

DLKG³ – Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, ed. V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1997.

Grzega Joachim 2003: Borrowings as a Word-Finding in Cognitive Historical Onomasiology. – Onomasiology Online, 22–42. Prieiga per internetą: http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVg1SW/OnOn.htm.

Jakaitienė Evalda 2009: Leksikologija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Jaknavičius Jonas 1647¹, 1674², 1679³, 1690⁴, 1705⁵: Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie. Available online: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/db.php.

Jakulis Antanas 1995: „Knygos Nobažnystės“ leksika 1. Klaipėda: S. Jokužio leidykla.

Kardelis Vytautas 2003: Rytų aukštaičių šnektų slavizmų fonologijos bruožai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Karulis Konstantīns 1992: Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca 1–2. Rīga: Avots.

Keinys Stasys 1984: Lietuvių kalbos hibridai (sąvoka, rūšys ir normiškumas). – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija, 113–123.

KN – Knyga nobažnystės 1653¹, 1684²: – Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos, ed. D. Pociūtė, Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, 2004.

Kozhanov Kirill 2014: Priešdėlio da- semantika lietuvių kalboje. – Baltai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūrų sankirtoje, 254–274.

KR – Kasakauskis Jurgis 1681¹, 1691²: Rožančius švenčiausios Marijos. Available online: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/db.php.

Kregždys Rolandas 2012: Charakterystyka słownika polonizmów w języku litewskim. – LingVaria 2(14), 125–146.

Kregždys Rolandas 2013: Leksiniai skoliniai – tautų kultūrinės interferencijos refleksija: lietuvių kalbos polonizmai-semitizmai. – Baltu filoloģija 22(2), 55–93.

Kregždys Rolandas 2014: Методика и критерии идентификации полонизмов литовского языка. – LingVaria 2(18), 195–217.

Kregždys Rolandas 2014 (2): Features of the Attribution of Polonisms and Latinisms in the Lithuanian Language. – Funkcjonowanie języków i literatur na Litwie, 407–421.

84

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

Kudzinowski Czesław, Otrębski Jan 1958: Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 2. Poznań: Wydawnictwo naukowe uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.

Kudzinowski Czesław 1964: Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 3. Poznań: Wydawnictwo naukowe uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.

Kudzinowski Czesław 1977: Indeks-słownik do „Daukšos postilė“. Poznań: Wydawnictwo naukowe uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.

Lebedys Jurgis 1977: Senoji lietuvių literatūra. Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKE – Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, ed. V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2008.

LKŽe – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, electronic version. Editorial board: Gertrūda Naktinienė (editor-in-chief), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2005. Available online: http://www.lkz.lt/.

Otrębski Jan 1965: Gramatyka języka litewskiego 2: Nauka o budowie wyrazów. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo naukowe.

Pakerys Jurgis 2013: Naujųjų skolinių duomenų bazės veiksmažodžių morfologija. – Taikomoji kalbotyra. Prieiga per internetą: http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/lt/2013/12/naujuju-skoliniu-duomenu-bazes-veiksmazodziu-morfologija.

Palionis Jonas 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a. Vilnius: Mintis.

PP – Beginning of the sermon. Available online: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/db.php.

SGPK I–VI – Dictionary of Polish Dialects 1–6. Edited by J. A. L. Karłowicz, Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press, 1900–1911.

Siaurukienė Halina 1987: „Knygos nobažnystės“ giesmyno skoliniai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 145–150.

Sirvydas Konstantinas 1620¹: Dictionarium trium lingvarum. – The Old Dictionary of Konstantinas Sirvydas, prepared by K. Pakalka. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1997.

Sirvydas Konstantinas 1631²; 1677⁴: Dictionarium trium lingvarum. Available online: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/db.php.

Sirvydas Konstantinas 1642³: Dictionarium trium lingvarum. – The First Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, prepared by K. Pakalka. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979.

Sirvydas Konstantinas 1629–1642: Punktay sakimu. – Punktai sakymų 1–2, par. F. Specht. Göttingen, 1929.

Straipsniai / Articles

85

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

SJP I–VIII – Dictionary of the Polish Language 1–8. Warszawa, 1898–1923.

SP – Dictionary of Seventeenth-Century Polish. Available online: http://sxvii.pl.

Skardžius Pranas 1998: Rinktiniai raštai 4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Slavočinskis Saliamonas Mozerka 1646: Giesmes tikieimvy katholickam pridarančias. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/db.php.

Smoczyński Wojciech 2008: Uzupełnienia do „Słownika etymologicznego litewskiego“, 1 dalis. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 58, 53–151.

SPol I–XXXV – Dictionary of Sixteenth-Century Polish 1–35. Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk – Łódź: 1966–2011.

SS I–XI – Old Polish Dictionary 1–11. Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk – Łódź, 1953–2002.

Stundžia Bonifacas 2009: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos akcentologija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Urbutis Vincas 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Urbutis Vincas 1992: Senosios lietuvių kalbos slavizmai. – Baltistica 27(1), 4–41.

Urbutis Vincas 1993: Senųjų slavizmų kilmės įvairovė. – Baltistica 28(1), 91–101.

Widłak Stanisław 2012: Italianismi in lituano dovuti al tramite polacco. – Romanica Cracoviensia 11, 472–479.

Wohlgemuth Jan 2009: A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH&Co.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1968: Apie 1605 m. katekizmo tarmę. – Baltistica 4, 109–116.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1974: S. M. Slavočinskio giesmyno (1646 m.) kalba. – Žodžių formos ir jų vartosena, 135–170.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1988: Senųjų raštų kalba. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1997: Dėl balsių a, o, e, ė kaitos slavizmuose. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 37, 196–200.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 2002: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Адамавичюте Ирена 1978: Лексические полонизмы в литовских говорах: виды заимствований и их адаптация. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 12, 91–105.

86

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Slavizmai veiksmažodžiai ir slaviškos šaknies hibridai

Адомавичюте Ирена 1982: Механизмы семантической адаптации заимствований. – Sintaksės ir semantikos klausimai. Tezės, 102–103.

Adomavičiūtė, Irena 1982 (2): Stages of Polish-Lithuanian lexical interaction. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 14, 1–48.

Адомавичюте Ирена 1984: Проблемы изучения польских заимствований в литовских говорах. – Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, 7–21.

ГСБМ I–XXXIII – Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language 1–33. Minsk, 1982–2013.

ЕСУМ I–VI – Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language 1–6. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1982–2012.

Кошкин Игорь 2014: Древнейшие славизмы в латышском языке: некоторые проблемы исторической реконструкции. – Studia Slavica Hung. 59(1), 1–13.

МДСУМ I–II – Тимченко Євген Костянтинович 2002–2003: Матеріали до словника писемної та книжної української мови 1–2. Київ – Нью-Йорк: Національна академія наук України.

СДЯ I–III – Dictionary of the Old Russian Language 1–3, ed. I. I. Sreznevsky. Moscow: Kniga, 1989.

СДрЯ I–IX – Dictionary of the Old Russian Language (11th–14th centuries) 1–9. Moscow, 1988–2012.

СРНГ I–XLVI – Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects 1–46. Moscow, Leningrad, Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 1965–2013.

СРЯ I–XXIX – Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th centuries 1–29. Moscow: Nauka, 1975–2011.

ССМ I–II – Dictionary of the Old Ukrainian Language, 14th–15th centuries 1–2, eds. L. L. Humetska, I. M. Kernytskyi. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1977–1978.

ЭСБМ I–XIII – Etymological Dictionary of the Belarusian Language 1–13. Minsk, 1978–2010.

Slavic Loan Verbs and Slavic-root Hybrids

S U M M A R Y

Slavic loan verbs have been researched to a far lesser degree than Slavic loan nouns or adjectives, although there is no clear line between loan verbs and Lithuanian derivatives from the borrowed nouns or adjectives. It becomes very relevant when a verb in the recipient language is given a suffix which formally does not correspond to a suffix of Slavic verbs. Usually, such Slavic words as Ruthenian арендовати and Polish arendować come

Straipsniai / Articles

87

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

to the Lithuanian language with the suffix -avoti (Lit. arendavoti, -avoja, -avojo DP 294), Ruthenian бавити and Polish bawić – with the suffix -yti (Lit. bõvyti, -ija, -ijo MP 36, KN SE 237, ChNT 327), Ruthenian буяти or Old Russian буꙗти and Polish bujać – with the suffix -oti (Lit. bujóti, -ója, -ójo KN G 168, ChNT 368), etc. However, the 16^th–17^th century texts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania contain Slavic-root loanwords with the suffixes -(i)uoti, -(i)uoja, -(i)avo, -(i)auti, -(i)auja and -(i)avo that do not have analogies in the Slavic languages or Slavic suffixes are not integrated according to the usual model. Such Slavic-root verbs could hardly be paralleled to the loanwords which conform to Slavic verbs in respect of both the root and suffixes. When there is an underlying word (loan word) in the Lithuanian language, such nonconformities of suffixes may be usually explained by the derivation process with affixes usually accompanied by a typical category. However, there is a portion of borrowed verbs which have no underlying word in the Lithuanian language and got irregular suffixes during their integration. The main question is how to regard such verbs. Most likely, such verbs can be considered hybrids. Stasys Keinys pointed out that a hybrid, first of all, is a lexicological term as “it is partially included into the system of dividing words according to their origin (an intermediate link between loanwords and indigenous words)” and that the essential precondition for hybrids is the underlying word (Keinys 1984: 114–117), while LKE provides a comprehensive definition of a hybrid: “Hybrids are words which, in addition to their own uninflectable morphemes, have those of other languages as well. Hybrids usually appear as a result of loan-translation or transformation of loanwords or through word formation using the already borrowed morphemes” (LKE 2008: 207). According to Vincas Urbutis, there is no derivation if it is based only on the root rather than on the underlying word (Urbutis 1978: 115), which means that Slavic-root verbs with irregular suffixes and no underlying word should be seen as a manifestation of morphological adaptation which produces no neologisms and may only result in different versions of the same word, where the previously borrowed word or any other word is transformed and the affix is only a morphological component (Urbutis 1978: 115). Hence, if Slavic loan verbs with a suffix, which formally does not correspond to a suffix of Slavic verbs, are considered remakes of a loanword or remakes (when a loanword with a regular suffix is not evidenced nearby) during a separate integration process, based on the broad definition of hybrids given in LKE and the fact that they include remakes of loanwords, such words are referred to as hybrids. In this article verbs with no accurate equivalents in the Slavic languages according to the opposition segmentable / non-segmentable are divided into the following two types of hybrids – adaptational and derivational.

Received on January 19, 2016.

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania

[email protected]

88

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV