ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research interests: comparative grammar of Baltic and other Indo-European languages, etymology.

MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROBLEMS OF ETYMOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS OF THE EAST BALTIC PHYTONYM RASPBERRY (RUBUS)

East Baltic names of the raspberry (Rubus): morphological analysis, retrieval of the etymological links of the phytonym

ANNOTATION

The article analyzes the derivation of the East Baltic phytonym raspberry (Rubus) and critically evaluates the linguistic etymology of Lithuanian avietė 2, dialectal avietė 3^b, avietė 1, avietė 2, avietė 3^a, and Latvian avene, based on the connection between lexemes with zoonymic connotations.

In addition to a detailed account of the structural distribution of morphological variants of the Latvian names for raspberry, descriptions of the origins of Lithuanian dialectal aš(v)óklė, ašóklis, ašóklė, vašóklis, vaišóklis, vaišókšlis, vaišúoklis; Lithuanian (dialectal) vaivóras, dialectal vąvóras, vavóras, Latvian (dialectal) vài̯vari⁽²⁾, vaivāri, vai̯vāriņi, vàivàriņi, vaivariņas, and the Latvian dialectal phrase àitu uôgas are presented.

ANNOTATION

The article deals with the derivation and developmental peculiarities of the East Baltic names for the phytonym Rubus. In light of the current zoonymic argument for the origin of the phytonym, recent etymological evaluations of Lithuanian aviẽtė 2, dialectal avietė 3b, avéte 1, avietė 2, avietė 3^a, and Latvian avene are critically assessed.

Besides the derivational analysis of the lexemes of the multiform Latvian phytonym Rubus, an etymological investigation of the apparent morphological or semantic equivalents of Lithuanian dialectal aš(v)óklė, ašóklis, ašóklė, vašóklis, vaišóklis, vaišókšlis, vaišúoklis and Latvian dialectal àitu uôgas is also presented.

KEYWORDS: phytonym; Rubus; Ribes rubrum; Vaccinium uliginasum, myrtillus, uliginosum.

KEYWORDS: phytonym; Rubus; Ribes rubrum; Vaccinium uliginasum, myrtillus, uliginosum.

Straipsniai / Articles

63

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

0. INTRODUCTION

Lith. aviētė 2, dial. avietē 3^b, avētė 1, avētė 2, avētė 3^a (with ie > ē monophthongization in the Samogitian dialect area [see Zinkevičius 1966: 86])¹ ‘a bushy plant with sweet berries (Rubus); its berry’ (LKŽe), classified among late East Baltic Proto-language inheritances (cf. Zinkevičius 1984: 336, 1987: 152), are etymologized by Ernst Fraenkel (LEW 28), drawing on earlier works by Balticists (cf. Būga II 20; ME I 232), by invoking Lith. dial. aš(v)óklė ‘currant’ (← Lith. noun ašva ‘mare; large mare; large breeding mare’ [LKŽe]), which is semantically associated with an animal and is morphologically similar (i.e., a derivative); that is, he derives this phytonym from the Lith. noun avis 4 ‘an animal kept for wool, meat (elsewhere also milk), etc.’ (DLKŽ⁵), and Latvian (dial.) avene, -es ‘raspberry, -ies; raspberry bush with fruit’ from the Latvian noun avs ‘sheep’ (ME I 232). This etymological development of the phytonyms is also posited in the most recent Lithuanian etymological dictionaries (LEŽ 38; ALEW).

The aforementioned explanation of the origins of Lith. aviētė, avietē and Latvian avene, -es is apparently attributable to folk etymology (cf. Latvian dial. àitu uôgas ‘raspberries, or sheep berries’² Valka [LVDA 74]); it led to the emergence of quasi-etymological interpretations, cf.: 1) Václav Machek’s (1961: 346) discussion of the connections between this phytonym and the woolly animal—the sheep—based on the supposed similarity between the surface of a ripe raspberry and tufts of this animal’s wool (see also LEŽDB); 2) Wojciech Smoczyński’s (LEŽ 38) explanation that raspberry fruits supposedly resemble little sheep; 3) the motivation of the name for the deer-family mammal “fallow deer” proposed by Konstantīns Karulis (LEV I: 93), apparently relying on Germanists’ identical claim about German Himbeere ‘raspberry’ (see below), and reconstructing a zoonymic connotation for this plant, supported by the referent of raspberry leaves as a favorite food of sheep (cf. Hermodsson 1990: 79).

The emergence of the zoonymic hypothesis of the word’s origin was apparently influenced by German compounds of an entirely different word-formation pattern³, of the same semantic type and in the tatpuruṣa type—

¹ Some researchers attempt to connect Lith. dial. aš(v)óklė with Lith. ašvōnės 1 (dim.), ašvōnēys 3ᵇ ‘workhorse’ (LKŽe) (for further discussion, see Wodtko, Irslinger, Schneider 2008: 233).

² That is, this reflects a pseudo-etymological phrase prompted by the homonyms Latvian dial. aviētenes ‘raspberries’ Bilska (LVDA 74) ↔ Latvian avutiņa, avutiņa ‘little sheep’ (ME I 232); cf. also Latvian dial. avetene ‘raspberry’ Mazsalaca ↔ Latvian dial. avetēna ‘little sheep’ Rucava (EH I: 190).

³ That is, compounds rather than derivatives; cf. the morphologically related variant of the phytonym Lith. ašvōklė ‘currant’ cited by Kazimieras Būga (RR II 20), German Bocksbeere ‘black currant (Ribes nigrum)’ or ‘goat berry’; the etiology of the latter is explained by some through odour-based motivation (for example, Richard Loewe [1913: 131] says the foul smell of the blackcurrant bush resembles the stench of a goat), and by others as a late alteration of old structural elements caused by folk etymology (for further discussion, see Prokosch 1916: 292–293).

64

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Morphological development of the East Baltic phytonym avietė (rubus) and the problem of its etymological connections

site German Himbeere ‘fallow-deer berry, or raspberry (Rubus idaeus)’ < German Hinde ‘fallow deer (Cercus dama); female fallow deer’ + German Beere ‘berry’ (Frisch 1741: 454; Kluge 2002: 412), whose motivation⁴ is associated with the animal’s antlers (Loewe 1913: 131, 161).

It is regrettable that researchers examining the structure of phytonymic compounds with zoonymic connotations have overlooked a rather important feature characteristic of Lithuanian dialectisms: a p e j o r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s h a d e, when one of their components reflects an animal designation: Lith. dial. kačuoġe 1 ‘(bot.) stone bramble (Rubus saxatilis); its berry’ ↔ Lith. noun katė 4, kātė 2 ‘(zool.) a domestic animal of the predatory family (Felis domestica)’ / Lith. dial. šūnuogė 1 ‘(bot.) stone bramble (Rubus saxatilis); stone-bramble berry’ ↔ Lith. noun šuo, šuva 4 ‘(zool.) an animal kept to guard the home, for hunting, etc.’ (LKŽe), and so on (for more examples, see Gritėnienė 2006: 133)—the fruits of this plant are not gathered or used as food, since they are sour and stony (Gritėnienė 2006: 134). It should be emphasized that without a zoonymic component, this meaning is not characteristic of the phytonym under discussion; that is, the virtual referent ‘raspberry’ is reflected. Compare Latvian dial. aveņuogas², avēņuogas² ‘raspberries’, used in Vidzeme, Kurzeme, and Zemgale, and Latvian dial. avesenuogas ‘the same’ recorded in Naukšēni (LVDA 73 [see below]). Thus, this explanation is contradictory with respect to the semantic expression of the East Baltic phytonyms in question, which reflects the virtual denotatum ‘berry’ without a pejorative connotation.

The morphological status of Lith. dial. aš(v)óklė ‘currant’, supposedly a word-formation counterpart (or derivative) of the standard Lith. avietė, avietė and hitherto semantically unmotivated (see also ALEW), is presumably quite different from what has been proposed so far (cf. Blažek 2010: 14): it should be explained by the structural features of the referent rather than by zoonymic motivation. It may cautiously be hypothesized that Lith. dial. ašóklis 1 ‘(bot.) red currant, currant (bush and berry) (Ribes rubrum)’ / Lith. dial. ašóklė⁵ 1 ‘same’ ↔ Lith. dial. ašvóklis 1 ‘same’ / Lith. ašóklė 2 ‘same’ and Lith. dial. ašvóklė ‘same’ (with sporadic epenthetic or non-etymological second -š-) are derived, contrary to Kazimieras Būga’s hypothesis (RR II 20; see above), from Lith. vašóklis 1 ‘(bot.) currant with red, yellow, or black berries (Ribes); berry of this fruit shrub; red currant (Ribes rubrum); berry of this fruit shrub’ (LKŽe) < and the Lith. noun vãžas 4 ‘hook (usually on a pole, wire, or chain) for hanging a kettle when cooking over a hearth or in a chimney; the pole with a hook on a well-sweep for hooking a bucket; bracket, clothesline; forked stick, wooden hook for twisting fetters and ropes; icicle, etc.’ (LKŽe), reflecting the referent ‘a stick/pole with a hook ↔ something hanging down, like

⁴ It is supported by the factual evidence characteristic of folk etymology (for further discussion, see Hermodsson 1990: 82–83).

⁵ Su pradžios v- afereze dėl lyties *vašvoklis (su antriniu -v-) [plg. Zinkevičius 1966: 199] ↔ *(v-)ašvoklis analogiško proceso – šios lyties v- nykimas dėsningas dėl dviejų v...v (plg. Endzelīns 1961: 7; ME IV 654–655) ir dialektinių ypatumų bei pirmojo sando pamatinio žodžio pradžios v- kitimo tendencijų (plg. Zinkevičius 1966: 177–178) – morfologinio išlyginimo.

Straipsniai / Articles

65

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

‘a stick; a stick / pole on which something is hung’ + (secondary) suffix Lith. -öklių- (for which see Skardžius I 198). Thus, this phytonym could be classed among associative formations; its semantic connotation may be motivated by the form of currant clusters, hanging down from the bush’s branches like poles or sticks covered with berries.

Besides the root vaš-, Lithuanian dialects also use derivatives with the root vaiš-, of the same origin (← Lith. dial. vaišas 4 ‘a hook in general or a tool with a hook’ [LKŽe]); cf. Lith. dial. vaišōklis 1 ‘red currant (Ribes rubrum); the berry of this fruit bush’ / Lith. dial. vaišvuokliai ‘same’ ↔ Lith. dial. vaišōkšlis 1 ‘same’ // Lith. dial. vaišvōklis 1 ‘red currant (Ribes rubrum); the berry of this fruit bush’ ↔ Lith. dial. vaišvōkšlis 1 ‘same’ (LKŽe), which presuppose a marginal group of hypercorrect forms of this phytonym (for these, see in greater detail Vitkauskas 1994: 107ff.; Urbutis 1998: 55, 2009: 146, 241; Kabašinskaitė 1998: 50).

The form of the phytonym with the root -ą- (resp. tautosyllabic *an, cf. Lith. dial. vanšas ‘vašas’ [LEW 1207]) apparently disappeared owing to the abundance of phonetic variants among the hypercorrect forms (in some Samogitian dialects also because of the alternation ą > ǭ, ū—which also caused initial v- to disappear [see Zinkevičius 1966: 178; LEW ibid.]), resulting in semantic neutralization of the original marginal base, which over time may have implied a folk-etymological association with the verb Lith. vešėti, vėša (vėši, -ėja), -ėjo ‘to grow well, thrive, etc.’ ~ noun Lith. dial. veša 4 ‘lushness, vigorous growth’ (↔ noun Lith. vašà 4 ‘thriving, flourishing, growth, etc.’ [LKŽe]) (cf. Kabašinskaitė 1998: 32); that is, the emergence of a marginal element in the verb (and noun) paradigm could have brought about the elimination of e -ą- (< an) (cf. Urbutis 1981: 102); cf. noun Lith. dial. ešōklė 2 (usually plural) ‘(bot.) vašoklis, currant (bush and berry) (Ribes rubrum)’ (LKŽe).

1. STRUCTURAL DISTRIBUTION OF MORPHOLOGICAL VARIANTS OF LATVIAN NAMES FOR RASPBERRY

The origin of Lith. avietė, avietė (dial. avėtė, avėtė, avietė) cannot be explained independently of Latvian dialectal contaminants reflecting the root aiv-⁶; cf. Latv. dial. aiviėkstenes in Vecpiebalga (LVDA 72; see also ME I 14) ← (*aiv-iet-es ‘raspberries’, cf. Latv. dial. aviėtes and others [see below]) *aiv- + suffix -iet- (see Endzelīns 1951: 389), through contamination with: 1. Latv. (dial.) av-enes ‘raspberries’ (with the suffix Latv. -enes [see Endzelīns

⁶Proponents of an animal-based motivation would apparently be inclined to derive it from Latv. àita ‘sheep’ (ME I 14), but no form with the dental root ending -t- is attested.

66

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Morphological development and the problem of etymological connections of the East Baltic phytonym avietė (rubus)

1951: 298]) and these two contaminants: 1a. Latv. dial. aviētenes (aviētenes, aviētenes, aviētenes² [LVDA 74]); 2. Latv. dial. aviškes ‘same’ (~ Latv. dial. aviškas [LVDA 74]) with the suffix Latv. -išk-ē- (< -iškiō- [cf. Endzelīns 1951: 365–368] and Latv. dial. aviškas [LVDA ibid.] -šk- > -šk- [see Endzelīns 1951: 186, 367; for one explanation of the etiology of this change, see Rudzīte 1993: 338]), 2a. Latv. dial. avīkšas ‘same’ (← Latv. dial. av-ie-kšas [LVDA 73] resp. -ie- > -ī- [see in greater detail Endzelīns 1951: 137–138; Rudzīte 1993: 243], reflecting metathesis of the structural elements -šk- > -kš- [cf. Endzelīns 1951: 234; see type I.2.1; see also ME III 524–525 (s. v. riksis)]); thus, three principal derivational patterns can be distinguished for the Latvian phytonym meaning ‘raspberry’ in the standard language and its dialects, which is especially characterized by phonological and morphological changes in the roots Latv. av- / aiv- (see also the diagram):

I. suff. la. -iet vediniai, plg. ē kam. (fem.): aviētes, aviētes, aviētes², avietes² / avītes (su -ī- < -ie- [žr. I.1.2. tipą]) (LVDA 74); įō kam. (masc.) (s.) la. (dial.) avieši (ME I 232; LVDA 74) (< la. *avietīs [žr. I.2.1.1. tipą] ~ lie. dial. avietỹs³ [sm.] ‘krūminis augalas saldžiomis uogomis (Rubus); jo uoga’ [LKŽe]) > ē / iā kam. (fem.) la. dial. aviečas², aviečes Žemgaloje (LVDA 73) su -tj- > -č- (žr. Rudzīte 1993: 288) ir jo variantai (kontaminantai):

I.1. Latv. suffix -iet- + Latv. suffix -ene; cf. Latv. dial. aviētenes, avietenes, aviētenes², avietenes / avitenes with the alternation -ie- > -ī- > -ī- (LVDA 74; see type I.1.2);

I.1.1. Latv. dial. suffix -et- (< Latv. suffix -iet- [LVDA 73]) + Latv. suffix -ene; cf. Latv. dial. avetenes (LVDA 73);

I.1.1.1. with absorption of the first -e- of the structural element; cf. Latv. dial. avtene (ME I 232; LVDA 74) ← Latv. dial. av-e-tene(s) (see type I.1.1);

I.1.1.2. with absorption of the structural element -iet-; cf. Latv. av(iet)enes (ME I 230);

I.1.2. Latv. dial. suffix -īt- (< Latv. suffix -iet- [cf. Rudzīte 1993: 243]) + Latv. suffix -ene; cf. Latv. dial. avitenes (LVDA 74) with the alternation -ī- < -ī- (cf. Rudzīte 1993: 128);

I.2. Latv. suffix -iet- + type III Latv. dial. suffix -išk- (> -išk- [see above]); cf. Latv. dial. aviēskas, aviēškas, aviēskas² / aviēški (LVDA 74) / aveškas (with -e- < -ie- [LVDA 73]) with absorption of -ti- (resp. *av-ie-[ti]-škī);

I.2.1. Latv. suffix -iet- + metathetic (due to absorption of -ti- [see type I.2]) -kš- (< -šk- [see above]); cf. Latv. dial. àiviēkšas², àiviēkšas² / aviēkšas, aviēkšas, aviēkšas², aviēkšas, aviēkšas², aviēkšes, aviēkšes², aviēkši, aviēkši² / Latv. dial. avēkša, avēkšas [ME I 232; LVDA 73] with -e- < ie- [see type I.1.1]) / Latv. dial. àivīkšas², avīkšas, avīkšas (LVDA 74) with -ī- < -ie- (cf. type I.1.2);

I.2.1.1. with the loss of -k-, cf. Latvian dialectal aviēšas, aviēšas² / aviēši, aviēši², avīši² [< with -ī- < alternating with -ie- (see type I.1.2)] [LVDA 73, 74] ← aviē-k-šas, aviē-k-šas² / aviē-k-ši, aviē-k-ši² [see types I.2.1, I.2.2.1; cf. Endzelīns 1951: 224–226, 230ff.; Rudzīte 1993: 338, 354]; however, Jānis Endzelīnas (1951: 389) linked Latvian avieši (masc.) with Lithuanian aviečiai (pl. masc.), i.e. he posited Proto-Latvian *aveitjō- ‘raspberry’ (masc.), although the aforementioned

Straipsniai / Articles

67

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

forms with –k- and without it are used side by side, cf. Latvian dialectal aviēkši Malta ↔ aviēši Kaunata (LVDA 73, 74); therefore, one may assume that there were two homophones: Latvian aviēši, also mentioned in old texts (cf. Aweeschi Madbeern XVI 325 [Fennell 1989: 10]), with the secondary suffix Latvian –ietiō-, and a dialectal formation with absorbed –k-, i.e. Latvian dialectal avie(k)ši (see type I.2.1);

I.2.1.2. with alternation of the structural elements –kš- > –ž- (for a fuller discussion, see Endzelīns 1951: 251), cf. Latvian dialectal aviēžas (LVDA 74) ← aviē-kš-as (see type I.2.1);

I.2.1.3. with epenthetic or non-etymological –r-, cf. Latvian dialectal aviērkšas, aviīrkšas (with –ī- < alternating with –ī- < –ie- [see type I.2.1]) (LVDA 73, 74);

I.2.2. Latvian suffix –iet- (> –īt- [with transposition of –t- and –k- and/or absorption of –t-]) + Latvian suffix –iskō- + Latvian suffix –ene (for the structuring of the triplex affix, see also Ambrazas 1993: 184), i.e. Latvian dialectal āiviekštenes, àiviekštenes, àiviekštenes², àiviekštenes², àiviekštenes² / aviēkstenes, aviēkstenes, aviēkstenes, aviēkstenes², aviēkstenes / avīks-tenes, avīks tenes² // àivēkstines², àivēkstines² / aviēkstines, aviēkstines, aviēkstines² / avēkšēnes, avīkšines (LVDA 72, 73, 74) with the suffix –ine < alternating with –ene (see Endzelīns 1951: 300; see type II.1) and –ie- > alternating with –ī- / –ie- > –e- and –šk- > –šk- (hence also š < s [cf. Rudzīte 1993: 291]) ← Latvian dialectal aviētenes, etc. / avītenes (see types I.1, I.1.2), by contamination with lexemes of type I.2.1;

I.2.2.1. with the structural element –šḳ- (< –stj- [for a fuller discussion, see Endzelīns 1951: 178–179; Rudzīte 1993: 286, 308]), cf. Latvian dialectal aviēkškenes (LVDA 73) ← Latvian dialectal aviēkstenes (see type I.2.2), with –kšk- by analogy with Latvian dialectal (gen. pl.)? *aviek-šku (cf. Rudzīte 1993: 309) ← Latvian dialectal aviēkstes, aviēkstes, aviēkstes, aviēkstes² (see type I.2.2.4.c);

I.2.2.2. with absorption of the structural element –k-, cf. Latvian dialectal àiviēstenes² / aviēstenes², aviēstenes ← Latvian dialectal aviē-k-stenes² (LVDA 73);

I.2.2.3. with absorption of the structural elements –k-, –t- and alternation of root –e- < –ie- (see type I.1.1), or without it, cf. Latvian dialectal avēsenes, avēsenes, avēsenes², avēsenes / avīēsenes, aviēsenes, aviēsenes², aviēsenes, aviēsenes² / aviēsenes, aviēsenes², avisenes (with –ī- < alternating with –ī- < –ie-) (ME I: 232; LVDA 73, 74) ← Latvian dialectal av-ie-k-s-t-enes (see type I.2.2);

I.2.2.4. with absorption of the structural element –ne-: a) formations of type I.2.2.3, cf. Latvian dialectal aviēses, aviēses², aviēses² ← Latvian dialectal avies-en-es (see type I.2.2.3); b) formations of type I.2.2.1, cf. Latvian dialectal avēkšḳes (LVDA 73) with –e- < –ie- (see type I.1.1) ← Latvian dialectal aviēkšḳe-ne-s (see type I.2.2.1); c) formations of type I.2.2, cf. Latvian dialectal àiviēkstes², àiviēkstes², àivīkstes² / aviēkstes, aviēkstes, aviēkstes, aviēkstes² (LVDA 72, 73) ← Latvian dialectal àiviēkst-en-es, àiviēkst-en-es² / aviēkst-en-es, aviēkst-en-es, aviēkst-en-es, aviēkst-en-es² (see type I.2.2);

I.2.2.5. with absorption of the structural element –e-: a) formations of type I.2.2.3, cf. Latvian dialectal aviesnes² ← Latvian dialectal avies-e-nes (see type I.2.2.3); b) formations of type I.2.2, cf. Latvian dialectal aviēkšnes (Apv) ↔ Latvian dialectal avekšenes (see type I.2.2);

68

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Rytų baltų fitonimo avietė (rubus) morfologinė raida ir etimologinių sąsajų problematika

S C H E M E. Distribution of changes in the derivational elements and phonotactic sequences of the Latvian phytonym “avietė”

I.2.2.6. with regressive dissimilation of the structural element -t- > -n-, cf. Latvian aviesnenes, avieksnenes (Lange 1773: 44; LVDA 74) ← Latvian dialectal aviès-t-enes² ← Latvian dialectal avieks-t-enes (see also type I.2.2.2);

I.2.2.7. with absorption of the structural elements -t- / -te-, cf. Latvian dialectal àviėkšines² (LVDA 73) ← Latvian dialectal àiviėks-t-ines², àiviėks-t-ines²; Latvian dialectal aviėksenes, aviėksenes (LVDA ibid.) ← Latvian dialectal aviėks-t-enes; Latvian dialectal aviėksnes (LVDA ibid.) ← Latvian dialectal aviėks-te-nes; Latvian dialectal aviėksnes (LVDA ibid.) ← Latvian dialectal aviėks-te-nes (see type I.2.2);

II. derivatives with the suffix Latvian -ene, cf. Latvian ē-stem (dialectal) avenes (fem.), aveņi (masc.) (LVDA 73) and its contaminative variants with the suffix -iet- (see above):

II.1. with alternation of the suffix -ene > -ine, cf. Latvian dialectal avines (LVDA 74; see type I.2.2);

III. derivatives in -iškē (on Latvian suffixes -iškō-, -iški̇̄ō- [< *-iškjō-], see also Ambrazas 2000: 183), cf. Latvian dialectal aviškas (with -šk- < -šḳ- [ME I 232]), aviškes, aviškas (LVDA 74); the view that these forms could derive from Latvian dialectal aviėškas, aviėškas, aviėškas² / aviėški (see type I.2) and, respectively, to imply the sequence: av-ī-škas ← *av-ī-škas ← *av-ie-škas (see types I.1.2 and I.2.2) is apparently precluded by the examples of type III.1:

III.1. with alternation of Latvian dialectal suffix -išk- > -ušk- (an Upper Latvian dialectal feature [see Endzelīns 1951: 366]), cf. Latvian dialectal avuoškas (LVDA 74), i.e. -ū-šk- > -ū-šk- (vowel-

Straipsniai / Articles

69

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

lengthening at the beginning of the word, characteristic of Latgalian dialects [see Breidaks I 371, II 243]) > -uo-šk- (cf. Breidaks II 325);

III.1.1. with Latvian suffix -ene, cf. Latvian dialectal auuoškenes (LVDA 74);

III.1.2. with absorption of the structural element -k-, cf. Latvian dialectal avuoši (masc.) or Awohschi (Depkin 1704 I: 89) ↔ Latvian dialectal avuõš-k-as (fem.) (see type III.1);

III.2. with absorption of the structural element -i-, cf. Latvian dialectal aûškenes (← *av-i-šḳ- + Latvian suffix -ene [ME I 230; LVDA 72]);

III.2.1. with epenthetic -k-, cf. Latvian dialectal aûkškenes (LVDA 73) ← Latvian dialectal aûškenes (this is an unusual change, since Upper Latvian dialects tend toward the loss of the first or second -kšk- -k- in the sequence [see Rudzīte 1993: 336]);

III.2.2. with metathesis of -šk- (< -šk- [see above]) > -kš-, cf. Latvian dialectal aûkškenes (LVDA 73) ← Latvian dialectal aû-šk-enes (see type III.2);

III.2.3. with absorption of -k-, cf. Latvian dialectal aušenes (ME I 230) ← Latvian dialectal aû-k-šenes (see type III.2.1).

The view that Latvian dialectal designations for “avietė” with the root aiv- are innovative or should be treated as reflexes of an epenthetic (non-etymological) -i- (cf. Lithuanian dialectal mé-i-linkas 1 ‘miller’ ↔ Lithuanian mėlninkas [–nykas] 1 [< Belarusian мельник ‘same’] ‘same’ and others [LKŽe]; Lithuanian dialectal place-name A-i-riógala ↔ Lithuanian place-name Ariógala ‘name of a town in Raseiniai District’ [Būga III 333; Zinkevičius 1966: 136; Kabašinskaitė 1998: 33–34]) is untenable not only because of the aforementioned positional restriction of the phonetic phenomenon (-i- is inserted in Lithuanian, as in Latvian, dialect words between a vowel and a nasal or liquid consonant [see Zinkevičius ibid.; Endzelīns 1951: 152–153]), but also because of its extremely limited geographical distribution. In Latvian dialects, forms with the root aiv- are recorded in many dialects of Vidzeme and Latgale (see LVDA 72–73). Therefore, there seems to be no reason to doubt their historical status.

Endzelīnas (1961: 7), mėgindamas nustatyti toponimų ir hidronimų la. aivieks-ta vs. Sāviena, àiviekste² vs., up. Meirāni, eivieksts up. Līvāni (pastarojo ei- < ai- resp. /ai/ su palataliniu elementu į [apie tokį kitimą plačiau žr. DI III¹ 534; Rudzīte 1993: 241]) kilmę, rekonstruoja prolytę *vai-viekst- ir abejodamas jos pirminę formą nurodo la. viēksta ‘gili upės vieta’ (ME IV 654–655). Tokiu spėjimu, žinoma, galima būtų tikėti be išlygų, jei juo būtų įvardijami tik hidronimai, bet tik toponimas (resp. be vandenvardinio alternanto) la. aivieksta vs. Sāviena gali reflektuoti ir la. dial. àiviekstes² ‘avietės’ Vīpe (šias šnektas skiria tik Mednių tarminis plotas). Vadinasi, minėtų latvių vandenvardžių denotatas gali būti *‘avietėmis apaugusi, užžėlusi vieta’ (jos dažnai veši upių šlaituose), plg. lie. Avietinė mėš. / b., Avietinė grv., Avietynė mėš. / b. ir kt., kildinamus iš lie. avietė, avietė (LVŽ I 242–243). Jei toks spėjimas teisingas, Endzelīno rekonstruota lytis *vai-viekst- suponuotų pradžios v- aferėzę (apie šį fenomeną plačiau žr. Vanagas 1981: 379).

70

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Rytų baltų fitonimo avietė (rubus) morfologinė raida ir etimologinių sąsajų problematika

2. ETYMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE EASTERN BALTIC PHYTONYM RUBUS

On the basis of the arguments set out in the introduction and Section 1, it may cautiously be surmised that Lithuanian avietė, avietė̃, Latvian dialectal avietes, etc. (see above) are associated not with the s e m a n t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d z o o n y m Lithuanian avis, Latvian avs, but with the p h y t o n y m s Lithuanian vaivóras 1 ‘(bot.) bog bilberry (Vaccinium uliginasum); its berry; bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus); crowberry (Empatr um nigrum); common borage (Borrago officinalis)’ / vaivóras 1 ‘(bot.) bog bilberry (Vaccinium uliginasum); its berry’ (LKŽe); Latvian vàivari², vaîvari², vaīvariņi, vàivariņi, vaivariņas, etc., ‘marsh tea (Ledum)’ (ME IV 444–445), formed from the same root (v)aiv- / (v)av- with the suffix Lithuanian -ora- (for further discussion of it, see Skardžius I 307; cf. LEŽ 714) and the Latvian suffix -ar- (see Endzelīns 1951: 339).

It is true that the phytonyms mentioned so far are traditionally classified as reduplicative formations (Būga II 323; Skardžius I 24; Endzelīns 1951: 265; Buivydienė 2006: 333), whose formation is argued for on the basis of an etymological association with Lithuanian vaivórykštis 1, vaivorykštis 1 ‘a multicoloured, bow-shaped band produced when sunlight is refracted in raindrops, rainbow’ and the like (LKŽe), derived either from Baltic dialectal *vār- / *ver- ‘blue, azure’, or from an Indo-European verbal form with an entirely different connotation (see below); cf. Lithuanian voverykštis 1 ‘rainbow’ (LKŽe; Būga II 323; Skardžius I 373, 404).

Endzelīns justifiably criticized the reconstruction of forms *vār- / *ver- (DI III¹ 495–496; see also LEŽDB), arguing that the ā ↔ e vowel alternation is difficult to prove. He therefore explains the origin of the Lithuanian names ‘bog bilberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) or bog bilberry’ and the Latvian ‘marsh tea’ mentioned above by the functional attribute supposedly shared by these plants, namely their causing dizziness; that is, he posits a reduplicant Latvian *vavar- and compares it with Czech uráv orati ‘to stagger, sway’ < Indo-European *u̯er- ‘to turn, bend’ (see also DI III¹ 494–496; LEW 1185; LEV II 486; Laumane 2005: 236). Unfortunately, this explanation is also questionable, since the functional connotation of bog bilberries is determined not by the property of this plant that supposedly causes intoxication (or makes one stagger after eating too many), but by the colour characteristics of its berries; cf. My hand is as blue as a vaivóras Varn; Blue eyes shone cheerfully like bilberries Žem (LKŽe; see s.v. vaivóras). The name ‘bog bilberry’ is likewise motivated by the same notion, ‘blue berry’, since people who drink have puffy, bluish faces; cf. (Drunkards) turn blue like vaivórai and die Rdn (LKŽe; see s.v. vaivóras). Probably because of this associative connotation and the fact that bilberries and marsh tea grow in the same places, the meaning of Latvian vàivari², vaîvari² ‘marsh tea’ (← *‘bog berry / bog bilberry’) also changed; cf. If you eat a lot of vaivórai, you’ll be like a drunk KIp ← You won’t get drunk on vaivórai alone if there isn’t any marsh tea nearby Trg; Vaivórai are covered (interwoven) with marsh tea Rsn (LKŽe; see s.v. vaivóras).

Indeed, Būga’s (RR II 322) attempt to associate Lithuanian vaivóras with Lithuanian vaivorykštis is probably entirely correct. However, the author of the hypothesis, having perceptively ruled out the adjective Lithuanian…

Straipsniai / Articles

71

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

vaĩvas, -à 4 ‘bright’, adverb Lithuanian vaivai ‘brightly’ as historical or, rather, having posited that it was an artificial word, failed to consider the possible use of an abbreviation⁷ (formed according to h y p o c o r i s t i c f o r m a t i o n m o d e l s⁸ [see also note 7]) as an associative form—namely, the existence of adjective Lithuanian *vaivas, an abbreviation posited for Lithuanian vaivorykštis, -ė, meaning *‘colourful; like a rainbow’; cf. the Lithuanian noun vovorākis, -ė 2 (substantivized) ‘a blue-eyed person’ NdŽ, N, [K], KŽ (LKŽe).

Such an assumption is possible, given the lack of cognates in other Indo-European languages for the Baltic dialectal forms *vār- / *ver- ‘blue, azure’ reconstructed by Būga (ibid.), and the implausibility to date of the etymology of Lithuanian vaivorykštis / vaivórykštė, which is based on expressive onomatopoeia (for further discussion, see Bopp 2009: 676, 730; Gamkrelidze, Ivanov I 224, II: 800; see also IEW 759; PEŽ III 194). This etymology is related etiologically to the expression of the Indo-European plural (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov I 265), rather than to empirical onomatopoeia (“visual onomatopoeia” [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov I 224, 225; see also Masica 1991: 78]), which is based on the imitation of sounds and movements, and on reduplication⁹. It has already been noted (see above) that Būga (RR II 323), who proposed the reduplicative model hypothesis, and Endzelīns (ME IV 484; DI III¹ 494–496), who supported him, cite the Lithuanian noun voverýkštis 1 (masc.) ‘a multicoloured, bow-shaped band produced when sunlight is refracted in raindrops, rainbow’ K. Būg, LV IV 483, FrnW, NdŽ, KŽ, LKA I 181 (Krtv), which is primarily comparable with the Lithuanian noun vоверýkštė 1 (fem.) LKA I 181 (Skd, Žd, Akm, Vgr, Lk), Ms, Brs, vóverykštė 1 ‘same’ LKA I 181 (Krn), Sut, PnmŽ (LKŽe). In addition to these lexemes, Būga (ibid.) also cites the Lithuanian noun vuovóras 1 (masc.) ‘bog bilberry (Vaccinium uliginasum); its berry’ K. Būg, LV IV 512, FrnW, NdŽ, KŽ, N (Rg), [K], Mit II 135 (Prk) (LKŽe) as one of his illustrative examples of indisputable partitive reduplication. This explanation would be plausible if its proponents had explained the origin of the reduplicant vai- in keeping with their hypothesis, as well as the structural features of the Lithuanian noun vovārykštė 1 (fem.) ‘rainbow’ LKA I 181 (Bt), noun voverýkštė 1 (fem.) LKA I 181 (Skd, Žd, Akm, Vgr, Lk), Ms, Brs, vóverykštė 1 ‘same’ LKA I 181 (Krn), Sut, PnmŽ, and the Lithuanian noun varvórykštė 1 (fem.) ‘same’ K. Būg (Btrm), NdŽ, KŽ (LKŽe).

⁷ Cf. the Lithuanian noun kiaũliabudė 1 ‘common milkcap (Lactarius trivialis); ugly milkcap (Lactarius turpis); blackening russula (Russula adusta)’ (LKŽe) ↔ Lithuanian noun kiaũlė 2 ‘a white mushroom resembling a russula, but larger and thicker; kiauliabudė’ (LKŽe; ZtŽ 289; ZŠT II: 213); Lithuanian noun meškāgrybis 1 (masc.) ‘a mushroom of this kind’ ↔ Lithuanian noun meškā 4 (fem.) ‘a poor-quality brown mushroom of this kind’; Lithuanian noun tramāžolė 1 (fem.) ‘(bot.) a perennial medicinal plant of the mint family (Glechoma)’ ↔ Lithuanian noun trāmas 4 (masc.) ‘same’; Lithuanian noun treĩniažolė 1 (fem.) ‘(bot.) a sedge growing in wet places (Carex panicea)’ ↔ Lithuanian noun treinys 4 (masc.), treĩnis 2 ‘same’; Lithuanian noun vilkalapis 1 (masc.) ‘burdock; its flower’ ↔ Lithuanian noun vìlkas 4 (masc.) ‘(bot.) burdock burr (Arctium)’ (LKŽe), and many others.

⁸ Apie juos žr. Kuryłowicz 1987: 213tt.; Szpyra-Kozłowska 2000: 59tt.

⁹ See also Brugmann 1895: 10–24; Gamkrelidze, Ivanov I 21, 23, 37, 87, 189–191, 260, II 441, 453, 459, 622; Beekes II 967; IEW 1166; PEŽ IV 234.

72

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Rytų baltų fitonimo avietė (rubus) morfologinė raida ir etimologinių sąsajų problematika

It may cautiously be conjectured that the forms identified by the aforementioned researchers as primary forms are in fact later remodelings, resulting from assimilatory processes of phonetic change in the dialects, i.e.: 1) Lith. noun vovó̄ras Rg ← Lith. vaivóras (with -ai- > *-a- > -o- owing to the monophthongization of diphthongs [including ai] characteristic of the Ragainė dialect [for a fuller discussion, see Zinkevičius 1966: 91, 2006: 187; Grinaveckis 1973: 221; see also Kregždys 2012: 39, 41–42]); 2) Lith. noun vovėrykštė / vóverykštė (with -e- < -a- owing to regressive assimilation or vocalic synharmonism) ← vovārykštė (with -a- < -ai-, or monophthongization of the diphthong owing to vocalic synharmonism [cf. Lith. dial. v-ei-vor-ý-kšt-ė [on this form, see below]], induced by structural change) ← *vovairykštė (with metathesis of -ai- and -o-) ← vaivórykštė; 3) Lith. noun varvórykštė ← vaivórykštė (with assimilatory alternation of the fricative /ž/ and sonorant r). Thus, it may be concluded that the initial syllable of the primary form denoting a blue berry and the rainbow reflects a diphthong, not a monophthong.

Despite the well-known fact that the structure of reduplicated word parts often varies (for a fuller discussion, see Bopp 2009: 657, 672), it would apparently be mistaken to assume that a reduplicant of more complex (in this case, three-mora) structure presupposes an ordinary (in this case, two-mora) root syllable, since, according to Franz Bopp (2009: 672), Baltic and Slavic are characterized by trivial (presupposed by the etymological principles of the type considered in this study [Bopp 2009: 674, 684, 716, 756, 767, 775; Kuryłowicz 1964: 70–71; Masica 1991: 79–80; Mallory, Adams 2006: 65]), rather than expanded by innovative elements (or reflecting phonological changes), reduplicated syllables.

The morphological segmentation of these forms proposed by Būga (RR III: 323) (followed by Pranas Skardžius [RR I 373], Fraenkel [LEW 1185], and Smoczyński [LEŽ 714]) into vaivór- and Lith. suffix -ykštis is highly implausible on semantic grounds, since no one sees vaivors in the sky; the referent is not Lith. vaivóras ‘bog bilberry (Vaccinium uliginasum)’, as Būga attempts to explain it (ibid.). Therefore, the origin of Lith. vaivórykštė 1, vaivorykštė 1 ‘a multicolored, bow-shaped band formed when sunlight is refracted in raindrops, the rainbow; a luminous halo shining around the sun or moon; a swath that has not been completely bound’ (LKŽe), and Latvian varavīksna, var(a)-vīksne, varavīksna, etc., ‘rainbow, etc.’ (ME IV 483–484), remains unexplained.

Galima atsargiai spėti, kad šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių plote užfiksuotas lie. dial. veivorykštė ‘t. p.’ Endriejavas (su -ei- < -ie- [žr. Zinkevičius 1966: 84]) reflektuoja archajiškiausią šaknies *vaiv- struktūrą, t. y. priešingai įsivyravusiai nuomonei apie denominatyvinio ar veiksmažodinio vedinio su suff. -ykštė kilmę (žr. anksčiau), lie. *viev- (> lie. dial. veiv-), matyt, suponuoja tatpuruṣa kompozitą lie. *viev-a-riš-ka- (-i̯ō-) / *veiv-a-riška- (-i̯ō-) (→ *vaiv-a-riška- [-i̯ō-] ‘dangaus spalvingumas / ryškumas’ su regresyvine struktūrinių elementų -ei-…-a-…-a- > -ai-…-a-…-a- kaita bei dviejų ankštumos v…r priebalsių asimiliaciniu poveikiu uždarumos d-, t. y.

Straipsniai / Articles

73

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

d-…-v-…-r- → v-…-v-…-r-) ← Lithuanian *diev-a-rišk- ‘the colorfulness, brightness of the sky’ < Baltic *deivas ‘sky; god’ (> Lithuanian dievas 4 ‘[myth.] one of the supreme beings possessing power over humans and nature’ and other meanings [LKŽe] / Latvian diēvs ‘sky; god’ [ME I 485–486; see also PEŽ I 192; Anttila 1969: 120] + the noun Lithuanian ryškis 2 ‘brightness, luminosity’ ↔ the adjective Lithuanian ryškùs, -ì 4 ‘very clear, distinct, readily noticeable; of a striking color, vivid, etc.’ [LKŽe]), with epenthetic -t- resulting from contamination with Lithuanian rýkš-t-ė 1 ‘a reflecting band’; compare the phrases Lithuanian dangaũs rýkštė ‘rainbow’, Diēvo rýkštė ‘same’ Pn (LKŽe), Latvian dieva rīkste ‘same’ (Laumane 2005: 239; see also Непокупный 1976: 65).

Latvian varavīksna, var(a)vīksne, varavīksna and other forms meaning ‘rainbow, etc.’, whose formation was entirely unclear to Būga (RR II 323), are derived by Karulis (LEV II 486), following Endzelīns’s conjecture, itself based on Būga’s hypothesis (Būga II 323; ME IV 484; DI III¹ 494–496), from the reduplicant *vavar- ‘? a twisting, bending’ + Latvian riksna ‘band’ (→? riksna ‘rainbow’ [ME III 525] ← Latvian driksna, driksna ‘the same’ [ME I 499, 500; see also Laumane 2005: 248] ~ Lith. dial. drignė 2, drignė 4 ‘a bright circle around the moon or sun; a rainbow’ [LKŽe]—an associative form derived from PIE verb *der- ‘to tear’ [ME I 500; LEV I 230])—apparently reflects the same root *vaiv-a- + Latvian noun rīksna ‘band’ → Latvian *vaiv-a-rīksna ‘band of the sky’ → Latvian *vai-r-a-v-ī-ksna ‘the same’ (with metathesis of v…r > r…v [ME ibid.]) → Latvian *va-r-a-vīksna ‘the same’ → Latvian va-r-avīksna / va-r-avīksna ‘the same’ (with secondary r̄, prompted by the popular-etymological association with Latvian varš ‘copper’ [ME IV 484; DI III¹ 494; LEV II 486; Laumane 2005: 235–236]).

The reconstruction of the abbreviated East Baltic adjective *vaiv- / *vav- ‘blue, red’ (see below) may also be supported by the origin of Lith. dial. vaivōras ‘blueberry’, whose -a- or -an- (cf. Lith. wanvoras ‘the same’ [Būga II 323]) may represent the abbreviation *vanu-, presupposed by Lith. v-an-garykštė 1 ‘rainbow’ / v-an-garykštis ‘the same’ (LKŽe), which arose through contamination (or folk etymology) with Lith. vingis 1 ‘a change of direction in the shape of a bow, a turn, a bend; a curved line, a winding, etc.’ (LKŽe) and the regressive alternation -in-…-a- > -an-…-a-, as its reflex.

Thus, Lith. vaivōras could be treated not as the primary derivational base of Lith. vaivorykštis / vaivorykštė (as regards this aspect; see Būga ibid.), but rather—given the referent ‘rainbow’ and its denotation ‘a multicolored arc whose outer side is red and inner side violet (with the other colors of the spectrum between them)’¹⁰ (LTE XII 10; see also LE XXXII 508)—a retrograde sequence may be posited: vaiv-(o)-(rykštis, -ė) ‘like a rainbow, or red- or violet-colored’ → vaiv-oras ‘the same’, etc.

¹⁰ Cf. forms with coloristic connotations: Latvian dial. varuotne ‘rainbow’ (ME IV 484) ↔ Latvian verb varuot ‘to gleam like copper’ (EH II 759; Laumane 2005: 247), Latvian dial. raudava ‘the same’ (ME III 482) ↔ Latvian adj. rauds ‘(dark) red; light brown’ (ME III 483; Laumane ibid.).

74

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Rytų baltų fitonimo avietė (rubus) morfologinė raida ir etimologinių sąsajų problematika

Various affixes were added to the abbreviation *vaiv- in Lithuanian and Latvian (see above), thus forming the phytonyms under discussion. In addition, folk etymology and assimilatory processes (see also Buivydienė 2006: 334ff.) gave rise to numerous phonetic variants: vaiv- / vanv- / varu- / vav-.

3. SUMMARY

On the basis of the arguments set out in subsections 1 and 2, it may cautiously be conjectured that Lithuanian avietė, avietė̃ and Latvian dialectal aviētes derive from the abbreviated adjectives East Baltic *(v)vaiv- / *(v)vav- ‘of such colors as the rainbow, or red / blue’ + the East Baltic suffix -eitē (with possessive connotations [see Skardžius I 360], although Endzelīns [1951: 389] interprets it as diminutive), with initial v- having undergone apheresis (cf. the loss of the first v- before -ie- in the Lithuanian toponym Viēvis ↔ Jewie [see Vanagas 1981: 379]). If this explanation of the origin of Lithuanian avietė, avietė̃ and Latvian dialectal aviētes is correct, the referent of these lexemes, ‘red-colored berry’, is de origine semantically distinct from the semantic extensional of the zoonym Lithuanian avis, Latvian avs.

4. CONCLUSIONS

1. Three main derivational patterns are distinguished for the phytonym ‘raspberry’ in standard Latvian and its dialects, which is characterized by particularly marked phonological and morphological changes in the roots Latvian av- / aiv-: a) derivatives with the Latvian suffix -iet- (-iet- / dialectal -īt- + a1. -ene, a2. dialectal -išk-, a3. -iskō- + -ene); b) derivatives with the Latvian suffix -ene; c) derivatives with the suffix -iškē (+ Latvian -ene).

2. Lithuanian avietė, avietė̃, Latvian dialectal aviētes, and others are etymologically related to the phytonyms Lithuanian vaivóras ‘bog bilberry (Vaccinium uliginasum); its berry; bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus); crowberry (Empatr um nigrum); common bugloss (Borrago officinalis)’ / Lithuanian vavóras 1 ‘bog bilberry (Vaccinium uliginasum); its berry’; Latvian vàivari⁽²⁾, vaivāri², vaivārini, vàivariņi, vaivariņas, etc., ‘marsh tea (Ledum)’; these reflect the abbreviated adjectives East Baltic *(v)aiv- / *(v)av- ‘*colorful; like a rainbow → blue, red’, with derivatives formed using the East Baltic suffix -eitē // the Lithuanian suffixes -ora- / -ar.

3. Latvian vàivari⁽²⁾, vaivāri², vaivārini, vàivariņi, vaivariņas, etc., ‘marsh tea (Ledum)’ exhibits a shift in meaning from ‘marsh tea’ ← *‘blueberry / bog bilberry’, prompted by the same vegetational habitat of these plants.

4. The abbreviated adjectives East Baltic *(v)aiv- / *(v)av- ‘of such colors as the rainbow, or red / blue’ are posited by Lithuanian vaivorykštis / vaivorykštė ‘multicolored rain-

Straipsniai / Articles

75

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

which has a red outer side and a violet inner side (with other colors of the spectrum in between), Latvian vaɾaūksna, vaɾ(a)ūksne, varavūksna, etc. ‘rainbow, etc.’.

5. The referent of the phytonyms Lithuanian aviētē, avietē and Latvian dialectal avietes, respectively, ‘a red-colored berry’, is de origine differentiated from the semantic extension of the zoonym Lithuanian avīs, Latvian avs.

LITERATŪRA

ALEW – Altlitauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hock, Mitarbeiter: Dr. Rainer Fecht, PD Dr. Anna Helene Feulner, PD Dr. Eugen Hill, PD Dr. Christiane Schiller, PD Dr. Dagmar S. Wodtko, Fördereinrichtung: DFG, 2007–2013 (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/indogermanistik/alew.php).

Apv – Latvijas Universitātes Latviešu valodas institūta apvidvārdu kartotēka.

Beekes I–II – B e e k e s R o b e r t. Etymological Dictionary of Greek 1–2. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2010.

Breidaks I–II – B r e i d a k s A n t o n s. Darbu izlase 1–2. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts, 2007.

Būga I–III – B ū g a K a z i m i e r a s. Rinktiniai raštai 1–3, sud. Zigmas Zinkevičius. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1958–1961.

DI I–IV^(1–2) – Jānis Endzelīns. Darbu izlase 1–4^(1–2). Rīga: Zinātne, 1971–1982.

DLKŽ⁵ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, elektroninis variantas, vyr. redaktorius Stasys Keinys. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

EH I–II – E n d z e l ī n s J ā n i s, H a u z e n b e r g a E d ī t e. Papildinājumi un labojumi K. Mūlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīcai 1–2. Rīgā: Kultūras fonds, 1934–1938 (sj. 1), 1938–1946 (sj. 2).

Gamkrelidze, Ivanov I–II – G a m k r e l i d z e T h o m a s V., I v a n o v V j a č e s l a v V. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture 1–2. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.

IEW – P o k o r n y J u l i u s. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Bern und München: A. Francke AG-Verlag, 1959–1969.

LE I–XXXVII – Lietuvių enciklopedija 1–37. Bostonas: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1953–1985.

LEV I–II – K a r u l i s K o n s t a n t ī n s. Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca 1–2. Rīga: Avots, 1992.

LEW – F r a e n k e l E r n s t. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Heidelberg: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962–1965.

76

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Rytų baltų fitonimo avietė (rubus) morfologinė raida ir etimologinių sąsajų problematika

LEŽ – Smoczyński Wojciech. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Wilno: Printer Polyglott, 2007.

LEŽDB – Lietuvių kalbos etimologinio žodyno duomenų bazė. Vilniaus universitetas: Baltistikos katedra. Prieiga internete: http://etimologija.baltnexus.lt/

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, antrasis elektroninis leidimas, red. kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė ir kt. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2013. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

LTE I–XIII – Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 1–13. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976–1985.

LVDA – Bušmane Brigita, Laumane Benita, Stafecka Anna. Latviešu valodas dialektu atlants. Leksika. Darba zin. vad. B. Laumane. Rīga: Zinātne, 1999.

LVŽ I... – Lietuvių vietovardžių žodynas 1 (A–B). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008...

ME I–IV – K. Mūlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīca 1–4, red. Jānis Endzelīns. Rīga: Izglītības ministerija (sj. 1); Kultūras fonds (sj. 2–4), 1923–1932.

PEŽ I–IV – Mažiulis Vytautas. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1–4. Vilnius: Mokslas (t. 1), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla (t. 2, 3), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas (t. 4), 1988–1997.

Skardžius I–VII – Skardžius Pranas. Rinktiniai raštai 1–7, par. Albertas Rosinas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996–2013.

ZŠT I–II – Zietelos šnektos tekstai 1–2, sud. Aloyzas Vidugiris, Danguolė Mikulėnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005–2010.

Ambrazas Saulius 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Ambrazas Saulius 2000: Daiktavardžių darybos raida II. Lietuvių kalbos vardažodiniai vediniai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Anttila Raimo 1969: Proto-Indo-European Schwebeablaut. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Blažek Václav 2010: On ‘horse’ in Slavic. – Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference: Los Angeles, October 30th and 31st, 2009, red. S. W. Jamison, H. C. Melchert, B. Vine. Bremen: Hempen, 13–25.

Bopp Franz 2009: A Comparative Grammar of the Sanscrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Sclavonic Languages (vol. 2), ed. by H. S. Wilson. Cambridge & Tokyo: Cambridge University Press.

Brugmann Karl 1895: A comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages (vol. 4, Morphology; part 3 [verbs]). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd.

Straipsniai / Articles

77

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

Buivy dienė Rūta 2006: Dėl keleto ret esnių liaudinių vaivorykštės pavadinimų. – Baltistica 41(2), 333–337.

Endzelīns Jānis 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.

Endzelīns Jānis 1961: Latvijas PSR vietvārdi. I daļa. 2 sējums (K–Ō). Rīga: Latvijas PSR zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.

Fennell Trevor Garth 1989: A Latvian-German Revision of G. Mancelius’ «Phraseologia Lettica» (1638). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee.

Frisch J. L. 1741: Teutsch-Lateinisches Wörter-Buch Darinnen Nicht nur die ursprünglichen, nebst denen davon hergeleiteten und zusammengesetzten allgemein gebräuchlichen Wörter; Sondern auch die bey den meisten Künsten und Handwerken, bey Berg- und Saltzwerken, Fischereyen, Jagd-, Forst- und Hauß-Wesen, u.a.m. gewöhnliche teutsche Benennungen befindlich... Mit allem Fleiß viel Jahr über zusammengetragen... Nebst einem Register der Lateinischen Wörter. Berlin: Georg Olms Verlag.

Grinaveckis Vladas 1973: Žemaičių tarmių istorija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Gritėnienė Aurelia 2006: Aug alų pavadinimų motyvacija šiaurės panevėžiškių patarmėje. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Hermodsson Lars 1990: Pflanzennamen und verschollenes Wortgut. Zur Deutung von Himbeere, Hirschbeere, Hindläufte, Hindlaub. – Studia Neophilologica 62(1). Stockholm: Routledge, 79–84.

Kabašinskaitė Birutė 1998: Lietuvių kalbos liaudies etimologija ir artimi reiškiniai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Kluge Friedrich 2002: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 24 Aufl. Bearb. von Elmar Seebold. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Kregždys Rolandas 2012: Baltų mitologemų etimologijos žodynas I: Kristburgo sutartis. Vilnius: Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas.

Kuryłowicz Jerzy 1964: The inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter & Universitätsverlag.

Kuryłowicz Jerzy 1987: O niektórych właściwościach imion skróconych. – Studia językoznawcze. Warszawa: PWN, 213–218.

Lange 1773: Lettisch-Deutscher Theil des vollständigen Lettischen Lexici, darinnen nicht nur sämtliche Stammwörter dieser Sprache samt ihren Abstämlingen, sondern auch die seltene, nur in gewißen Gegenden gebräuchliche Wörter, zum Nachschlagen, angezeigt werden. Schloß Ober// Pahlen.

Laumane Benita 2005: Smalki līja zelta lietus. Dabas parādību nosaukumi latviešu valodā 1. Liepāja: Liepājas Pedagoģijas akadēmija.

78

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Rytų baltų fitonimo avietė (rubus) morfologinė raida ir etimologinių sąsajų problematika

L o e w e R i c h a r d 1913: Germanische Pflanzennamen. Etymologische Untersuchungen über Hirschbeere, Hindebeere, Rehbockbeere und ihre Verwandten (Germanische Bibliothek, herausgegeben von W. Streitberg, II 6). Heidelberg: Winter.

M a c h e k V á c l a v 1961: Zum Wortschatz des Litauischen. Teil 2. – Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 29(2), 345–356.

M a l l o r y J a m e s P., A d a m s D o u g l a s Q. 2006: The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

M a s i c a C o l i n P. 1991: The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge & Sydney: Cambridge University Press.

P r o k o s c h E d u a r d 1916: [Review] Heinrich Marzell, Die Tiere in deutschen Pflanzennamen, Ein botanischer Beitrag zum deutschen Sprachschatze by Heinrich Marzell; Richard Loewe. Germanische Pflanzennamen. Etymologische Untersuchungen über Hirschbeere, Hindebeere, Rehbockbeere und ihreVerwandten. II 6 by Richard Loewe; W. Streitberg. – The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 15(2), 289–293.

R u d z ī t e M a r t a 1993: Latviešu valodas vēsturiskā fonētika. Rīga: Zvaigzne.

S z p y r a - K o z ł o w s k a J o l a n t a 2000: Słowotwórstwo bez morfemów czyli o morfologii prozodycznej i formach uciętych. – Bulletin de la société polonaise de linguistique, fasc. LVI. Kraków: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN, 59–78.

U r b u t i s V i n c a s 1981: Baltų etimologijos etiudai. Vilnius: Mokslas.

U r b u t i s V i n c a s 1998: Lie. pāšinas ir (trm.) pašaiža – bendrasakniai sinonimai. – Baltistica 33(1), 49–57.

U r b u t i s V i n c a s 2009: Baltų etimologijos etiudai 2. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

V a n a g a s A l e k s a n d r a s 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas.

V i t k a u s k a s V y t a u t a s 1994: Senųjų an (> ą), en (> ę), in (> į), un (> ų) variantai tam tikrų žodžių šaknyse ir formose. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 34, 107–111.

W o d t k o D a g m a r S., I r s l i n g e r B r i t t a, S c h n e i d e r C a r o l i n 2008: Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1984: Lietuvių kalbos kilmė. Lietuvių kalbos istorija 1. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1987: Iki pirmųjų raštų. Lietuvių kalbos istorija 2. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Непокупный Анатолий Павлович 1976: Балто-севернославянские языковые связи. Киев: Наукова думка.

Straipsniai / Articles

79

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

East Baltic names of the raspberry (Rubus): morphological analysis, retrieval of the etymological links of the phytonym

SUMMARY

The article deals with derivation and development peculiarities of the East Baltic names of the phytonym Rubus. Etymological analysis of the apparent morphological or semantic equivalents, for example, Lith. dial. aš(v)óklė ‘currant’, Latv. dial. aitu uōgas ‘raspberries resp. berries of the sheep’, is also presented.

Due to the analysis suggested here the following conclusions are proposed:

1. 3 prime derivational models of the roots Latv. av- / aiv- meaning raspberry with outstanding multitude of structural variation are to be distinguished: a) derivatives with the suffix -iet- (–iet- / dial. –īt– + a1. –ene, a2. dial. –išk–, a3. –iskō- + –ene); b) derivatives with the suff. –ene; c) derivatives with the suff. –iškē (+ –ene).

2. Lith. aviētė, avietė, Latv. dial. aviētes et al., etymologically related to Lith. vaivóras ‘blueberry (Vaccinium uliginasum); whortleberry (Vaccinium myrtillus); heathberry (Empatrum nigrum); borage (Borrago officinalis)’ / Lith. vavóras 1 ‘blueberry (Vaccinium uliginasum)’; la. vāivari⁽²⁾, vāivari², vāivariņi, vàivariņi, vaivariņas et al. ‘Labrador tea (Ledum)’, presuppose derivational model of the clipping type, i.e. adj. EastBalt. *(v)aiv- / *(v)av- ‘colourful; iridescent → blue, red’ + suff. EastBalt. –eitē // suff. Lith. –ora- / suff. Latv. –ar.

3. Semantic innovation resp. alternation of the semantemes ‘Labrador tea’ ← *‘blueberry / whortleberry’ of the Latv. vāivari⁽²⁾, vāivari², vāivariņi, vàivariņi, vaivariņas et al. ‘Labrador tea (Ledum)’ is determined by the growing localization of the plants.

4. Roots of the clipping type of adj. EastBalt. *(v)aiv- / *(v)av- ‘iridescent resp. blue / red’ are to be derived from subst. Lith. vaivorýkštis / vaivórykštė ‘polychrome arc colored in red from the outside and violet from inside (with the other dyes of the spectrum between them)’, Latv. vaŗavīksna, vaŗ(a)vīksne, varavīksna et al. ‘rainbow et al.’.

5. Referent “berry of the red colour” of the plant names Lith. aviētė, avietė, Latv. dial. aviētes has nothing in common with the semantic extensional of the zoonyms Lith. avis ‘sheep’, Latv. avs ‘ditto’, which is different de origine.

Įteikta 2013 m. gruodžio 30 d.

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, Vilnius LT-10308, Lietuva

[email protected]

80

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX