“Būdvardžių darybos raida. The Development of Adjective Formation”

WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG The Pennsylvania State University Fields of research: Indo-European studies, Baltic, especially Old Prussian, Slavic languages. BŪDVARDŽIŲ DARYBOS RAIDA. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADJECTIVE FORMATION Saulius Ambrazas; sudarytoja Danguolė Mikulėnienė Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2011, 274 p. ISBN 978-609-411-066-5 With this monograph the author has completed his three-part work on the development of the formation of Lithuanian substantives. The first part “Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai” devoted to the development of the nouns (verbal derivatives) appeared in 1993 and the second part “Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Lietuvių kalbos vardažodiniai vediniai” devoted to the development of nouns (nominal derivatives) appeared in 2000. Sadly enough the author passed away before he could prepare for publication the final version of the third part of his work. This monograph was prepared on the basis of his manuscripts and articles published in Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian linguistic journals. It is divided into publications in three different languages. The major portion consists of six chapters in Lithuanian devoted to adjectival formation (pp. 7–155) followed by a section in English entitled ‘Some Indo-European Features of the Baltic Adjectives’ (pp. 156–180). The concluding text is an article translated into French by Daniel Petit entitled ‘Baltique oriental et baltique occidental, baltique et slav: le problème de leurs relations anciennes du point de vue de la formation des mots’ which was originally published in the journal Histoire Épistémologie Langage 26/II (2004): 43–79 (pp. 181–211). Following this are the abbreviations (pp. 212–213), references (pp. 214–239), an index of Lithuanian words (pp. 240–266) and an index of names (pp. 267–272). In chapter 1 the author writes that one can find important information about the formation of adjectives already in the earliest Lithuanian grammars, the grammars of Daniel Klein (1653 – Grammatica Litvanica; 1654 – Compendium Litvanico-Germanicum) and Kristupas Sapūnas and Theophylus Gottlieb Schultz (1673 – Com- Recenzijos / Reviews 161 W I L L I A M R . S C H M A L S T I E G pendium Grammaticae Lithuanicae). Both these grammars emphasize that diminutives retain both the gender and endings of the root word, e.g., juodas ‘black’ has the diminutive juodokas ‘blackish’ whereas saldus ‘sweet’ has the diminutive saldokus ‘sweetish’. This feature, however, is apparently not an ancient derivational technique, but rather an innovation found particularly in eastern dialects. Another diminutive suffix is -intelis(-ė). Thus in the aforementioned earliest grammars one encounters silpnintelis ‘a bit weak’ as well as silpnokas ‘id’. The first grammars also register the adjectival suffixes -iškas and -inis, cf., e.g., kūniškas ‘corporal, corporeal’ and geležinis ‘iron’. In Klein’s grammar there are some numerical adjectives with the suffixes –(i)okas(–a)) and –(i)opas(–a)), e.g., vienokas and vieneropas ‘the same, similar’ although in Sapūnas and Schultz’ grammar we encounter only the suffix -opas, e.g., vieneropas. The grammars of August Schleicher (1856) and Friedrich Kurschat (1876) are mentioned as well as the works of other scholars such as August Leskien, who was the first to investigate Lithuanian nominal suffixes on the background of Indo-European word-formation. The work of Pranas Skardžius, Kazimieras Būga, Pranas Kniūkšta, Jan Otrębski, Jan Endzelin and others is discussed and the chapter ends with Adelė Valeckienė’s classification of six categories of adjectives: 1) adjectives denoting strengthening or quantity; here the most important are diminutives with the suffix –(i)okas(–a)); 2) adjectives denoting inherent characteristics; belonging to this category are derivatives with the suffix -ingas(–a) and also the extremely productive verbal adjectives with the suffix –us(–i) denoting the characteristic property deriving from the corresponding action (state), e.g., apdairūs(–i) ‘circumspect’, atsargūs(–i) ‘careful’, etc.; 3) adjectives denoting external properties –(i)uotas(–a) , –(i)otas(–a)), –ėtas(–a); 4) adjectives denoting similar or characteristic qualities, for the most part formed with the suffix -iškas(–a); 5) adjectives denoting characteristic features; to this category belong the productive derivatives with –inis; 6) adjectives denoting the resulting characteristics; these are for the most part verbal derivatives with the suffix –us(–i), e.g., aptakūs(–i) ‘streamlined’, išlaidūs(–i) ‘extravagant’. Still as Ambrazas remarks the boundary lines between the categories are not always completely clear. Chapter 2 is devoted to the categories of adjective formation from the historical point of view. Like the nouns, the adjectives can be divided into verbal and nominal categories. Verbal adjectives usually denote characteristics deriving from actions (or states) and are usually formed with the suffix –us(–i), e.g., platūs(–i) ‘wide’, našūs(–i) ‘productive’. This ancient word formation type became very productive and spread at the expense of other types. Lithuanian has also inherited from Indo-European other rarer suffixes with a similar function: *–no–, *–lo–, *–ro–, *–to–, *–uo–. These are represented by old derivatives with cognates in a number of related languages, e.g., pilnas ‘full’, tūlas ‘many’, aštras ‘sharp’, stãtas and statūs ‘steep, vertical’, gyvas ‘alive’. The suffixes *–to– and *–no– have ancient semantic 162 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI Būdvardžių darybos raida The Development of Adjective Formation connections, cf. bál-tas ‘white’, and bál-nas ‘white-backed’. The –t– suffix came to be used for the passive participle in Baltic, where, differently from Slavic, the –n– suffix did not adopt this function. Lithuanian nominal adjectives have several types of productive formations. They have a greater semantic differentiation, but if we examine them historically we find connections between earlier semantic relationships and the types of formation which at first glance are quite different. Already Pranas Skardžius noted that adjectives with the suffixes –(i)otas(–a), –(i)uotas(–a), –ėtas(–a) denote not only exterior, superficial characteristics, but internal characteristics (like derivatives with the suffix –ingas(–a)). The age of the semantic derivatives of this type is confirmed by such cognates as Lith. barzdótas ‘bearded’ which corresponds well to OCS *bradatъ, Pol. brodaty, Russ. borodatyj, Lat. barbātus. At the same time the derivatives with the same suffix may denote an inner quality, e.g., Lith. dievótas ‘devout, pious’, Latv. dievuots ‘good, splendid’, OP deiwuts ‘blessed, saved’ just like OCS *bogatъ ‘rich’ and Latin fortūnātus ‘id’. The diminutives form a special category of nominal adjectives. They generally denote a greater or smaller amount of the quality and have a nuance of endearment, e.g. gerókas ‘fair, considerable’, didókas ‘pretty big’. These are closely connected to the derivatives of numerals, e. g., vienókas(–a) ‘the same, homogeneous’, dvejókas ‘of two kinds’ (cf. OCS двоjakъ) which already in the 16th century were being replaced by derivatives in –(i)opas(–a). Therefore in the history of the derivation of the Lithuanian adjectives we would have to distinguish three categories: 1) adjectives denoting action and the result of that action; 2) adjectives denoting attribution; 3) diminutive adjectives. These categories were most likely inherited from the later Indo-European proto-language but from ancient times they were closely bound up with each other. Chapter 3 is a discussion of the derivational suffixes of adjectives denoting action or the result. The most widespread of these is the *–u– stem suffix –us(–i), an old derivational type. Thus Lith. platùs(–i) ‘wide’ differs only in ablaut grade from OI pr̥thú- and Avestan parəθu-, Gk. πλατύς ‘wide’. In Lithuanian this derivational type became very productive and frequently derivatives come from secondary as well as from primary verbs, e.g., skalùs ‘easily split’ from skáldyti ‘to split’ and sometimes with ablaut variation, e.g., marùs ‘easily dying’ from mìrti ‘to die’. It seems that the lack of OP and Latv. *–u– stem adjectives would be evidence that its productivity in Lithuanian is recent. There is a rather large number of deverbal *–no– derivatives in the Baltic as well as in other Indo-European languages, e.g., Lith. pìlnas(–à), Latv. pìlns, OP pilnan, Slavic *pъlnъ / pъlnъ, Germanic fulna, Old Irish lān, Skt. pūrṇá, Avestan parəna- ‘full’. There are many such derivatives in Lithuanian, e.g., drėgnas ‘damp’ (cf. drėkti ‘to become damp’), etc. In the LKŽ there are 105 examples, of which 73 have *–u– stem doublets, e.g., kìlnas(–à) ‘noble’ and kìlnus(–ì). Derivatives with *–no– frequently have doublets in *–lo–, cf., krėsnas ‘heavy-set, with a solid Recenzijos / Reviews 163 W I L L I A M R. S C H M A L S T I E G build’ and krēslas. Verbal adjectives with the suffix *-ino-, created from a small number of verbs, are characteristic of western dialects. Some of these derived from transitive verbs, are close to participles in meaning, e.g. nėšinas(-ā) ‘carrying’. In general verbal adjectives with derivative suffixes from *-no- are no longer productive in the Baltic and related languages. Verbal adjectives with the suffix -tinas(-ā) generally have the meaning of necessity and are frequently called ‘participles of necessity’, thus nėštinas(-ā) ‘which must be carried’. Similarly to the suffix -tinas the suffix -tinis is derived from passive participles in *-to- but these are more recent, arose only in Lithuanian and are encountered mostly in Sirvydas’ dictionaries, e.g., abejotinis ‘wątpliwy (doubtful)’. Some of the Lithuanian verbal adjectives in *-lo- have deep historical roots. Thus the derivative tūlas(-ā) ‘many’ from the synchronic point of view can no longer be separated into its constituents tū-las(-ā). From the IE verb *teu-/tu-/tū- ‘to swell, to increase’ we also have Lith. tù-mtas, tu-ñtas / tù-ntas ‘big crowd, regiment’, tù-mstas, tū́kstantis ‘thousand’. In a few cases we encounter the alternation of the three suffixes -lo-, -ro- and -no- with the same root, cf. kiblūs(-i) ‘hanging on to, sticking to’, kibnùs ‘hanging on to’, kibrùs(-i) ‘curious’. The suffix -lus(-i) has become quite productive and here the u-stem forms has been replacing the o-stem forms. Thus the older adjective gāilas(-ā) ‘sad, sorrowful’ has been replaced by the u-stem form gailùs (-i). The suffix -lus(-i) also has the variants -slus(-i) and -šlus(-i), thus, e.g., bailus ‘fearful, cowardly’ and baislùs, and tuklùs ‘obese’ and tukšlùs–(i) ‘soft’. The suffix *-mo- has been used from the earliest times to form adjectives from verbs. The Indo-European forms *kai-ma- / *kei-ma- have supplied Lith. káimas, OP caimis ‘village’, Lith. kiēmas ‘courtyard’ and Latv. ciems ‘village’. (Ambrazas’ reference PKEŽ III 76tt. should be corrected to PKEŽ II 76tt.). Ambrazas notes that the suffix -mas(-ā), is also encountered with the –u– stem variant -mus(-i), e.g., both the variants lai-mas(-ā) ‘fortunate’ and lai-mus(-i) are attested. The majority of the verbal adjectives with the suffix *-mo- in the Baltic languages have become passive participles, although a few of them even now seem to be more akin to adjectives, e.g., Lith. gāl imas ‘possible’, įmā no mas ‘imaginable’, ištikimas ‘faithful’, etc. Interestingly enough Germanic *werma- ‘warm’ has the same adjectival suffix. On the basis of derivatives with the suffix *-mo- the derived suffix *-imo/ -īmo was created, which forms not only adjectives, but nouns denoting actions and qualities, e.g., gyvėnimas ‘life’, rāšymas ‘writing’. Verbal adjectives with the suffix *-to- have been known in the Indo-European languages since the earliest times, e.g., Lith. stā́tas, Lat. status, Gk. στατός, Skt. sthi-tá ‘standing’. The majority of the verbal adjectives with this suffix have become in Lithuanian (as in many other IE languages) passive participles. Only a portion of them (mostly derivatives of intransitive verbs) have retained the original adjectival meaning, e.g., Lith. 164 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI Būdvardžių darybos raida The Development of Adjective Formation báltas(–à) ‘white’, keĩstas(–à) ‘strange’, etc. Ambr azas notes writes that most likely the suffix *–uo– was already an independent formative affix and was closely connected to the suffixes *–no–, *–to–, *–mo–. Particularly old are Lith. gyvas, Latv. dzīvs, Slavic živъ, Lat. vīvus, OI jívá- ‘alive’ < IE *gʷei–/*gʷī–. Ambrazas suggests that Lith. kliėpas, and Latv. klāips ‘bread’ derive from the Indo-European root *kʷlei– ‘to bow, to bend’ and gives a reference to Otkupščikov 2001b (a misprint for 2001a). Ambrazas does not mention the opinions of Būga and Alminauskis who suggest that the Lithuanian word derives from Old Icelandic hleifr nor the opinion of my own teacher, Alfred Senn, that the word derives from Belorussian chlėb or Pol. chleb (see LEW 271). Chapter 4 is a discussion of nominal derivatives. In the ancient Indo-European proto-language derivatives with the affix *–(i)io–/–eiio– predominated, e.g., Lat. patrius, Gk. πάτριος, OI pítriya- ‘father’s, fatherly’. In Lithuanian relatively few derivatives with the suffix *–(i)io– have remained. These would be adjectives in –ias(–ia), e.g., apsčias ‘plentiful’, šlāpias ‘wet’, etc. Lithuanian has somewhat more adjectives with the suffix –is, –ys(–ė) also deriving from *–(i)i–, e.g., kairỹs(–ė) ‘located at the left’, etc. Alongside the *–io–/–iio– stem derivatives in Lithuanian there are also corresponding *–o– stem derivatives, e.g., beside apsčias(–ia) ‘plentiful’, one encounters also ápstas(–à). This phenomenon is rather ancient, cf. the Lith. *–io–stem naũjas ‘new’ with the OP *–o–stem (acc. pl.) nawans ‘id’. In general the data lead to the conclusion that in the Eastern Baltic area the adjectives with the suffix –(i)io remained productive slightly longer than in other Baltic dialect areas. Chapter 5 takes up the general characteristics of the formation of old Indo-European adjectives in Baltic. In the Baltic languages we encounter archaic verbal adjectives denoting the qualities deriving from a verbal action or state. These are *–no–, *–ro–, *–lo–, *–to–, *–uo–, and the derivative endings *–u– and *–o–. Examples are pil-nas ‘full’, ãš-t-ras ‘sharp’, tū-las ‘many’, stā-tas ‘vertical’, gý-vas ‘alive’, plat-ùs ‘wide’, sēn-as ‘old’. Ambrazas notes that a number of earlier scholars have connected the alternation of the root suffixes l, n, r with an earlier heteroclitic declension. There is a certain number of such alternations attested in Lithuanian and related languages, e.g., Lith. leĩ-las ‘thin’, Old Icelandic linr ‘soft, weak’, Gk. λει-ρός. The apparent Greek cognate is, however, doubtful. According to Frisk (1970: 101) ‘Wie lat. līlium stammt auch λείριον aus einer östlichen Mittelmeersprache... Auch das poetische λειριός und λειρός als Beiwörter der Haut und der Stimme dürften als Ableitungen von λείριον verständlich sein (‘lilien weiss, -zart’)...’ More convincing are, however, the Latvian examples kūr-ls and kūr-ns ‘deaf’. Chapter 6 discusses Baltic ethnogenesis in the light of word formation. The author remarks that formational affixes travel more easily from one dialect or language to another than do inflections. Therefore word formational data can be used to help solve the difficult problems of Baltic ethnogenesis. Many common Recenzijos / Reviews 165 WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG types of Baltic word formation are inherited from Common Baltic or earlier times. Nevertheless the Lithuanian, Latvian and Old Prussian word formation processes are quite different. These differences and their relationships allow one to examine some of the processes which took place in the distant Baltic past. Nomina actionis and adjectives denoting action and result have long been created in Lithuanian and Latvian by forms with the suffix *-mo- and in this respect the East Baltic languages correspond with the more distant Slavic, Albanian and Hittite languages. On the other hand in Old Prussian the suffix *-mo- is encountered only in numerals and adjectives and personal names deriving from the latter. There are, however, rare exceptions. The Elbing Vocabulary (39) supplies us with dumis (Rouch), cf. Lith. dūmas, Latv. dūmi, Slavic *dymъ, Lat. fūmus, OI dhūmá- ‘smoke’ and the Greek abstract θυμός ‘soul’. In Lithuanian nouns of action with the suffixes *-i-mo-/-īmo- (e.g., nešìmas ‘carrying’, rãšymas ‘writing’) have been created, whereas in Latvian as in Old Prussian there exist only adjectives with this structure. One notes that differently from Lithuanian where the suffix -mo- is commonly used, in Latvian the adjectival suffixes *-no- is encountered in the form -šana (<*-s-jo-nā), cf., e.g., mir̃šana ‘death’. The closest suffix to this is not in Lithuanian, but in Old Prussian where we encounter the suffix -sna, cf. OP billīsnā ‘sayings’. Ambrazas notes that when one talks about the ethnogenesis of the Lithuanians one must keep in mind that a number of word-formation isoglosses connect the Lithuanians with the Prussians and separate them from the Latvians. For example, Lith. šeimýna ‘family’ corresponds with OP seimīns ‘domestic servants’. Collective formations with the suffix *-īno- are encountered also in the Slavic languages (cf. Lith. beržýnas ‘birch grove’ and Slavic *beržina-). In Latvian, however, one encounters only the ablaut variant *-ei-no-/-oi-no-, cf. Lith. eglýnas ‘fir grove’ vs. Latv. egliene, eglien̄s ‘id’. Since IE *-ei- also gives Proto-Slavic *-ī- it is impossible to determine whether the Slavic reconstruction *berzina is the earliest form or not. One could just as well reconstruct an early Proto-Slavic *berzeina- in which case the suffix would correspond with the Latvian rather than the Lithuanian form of the suffix. The section entitled ‘Some Old Indo-European Features of the Formation of Baltic Adjectives’ (pp. 156–180) is essentially an English translation of chapter 5 Senieji indoeuropietiškieji baltų kalbų būdvardžių darybos bruožai. The English translation is excellent, but I was unable to locate an explanation as to why just this section was translated into English or the name of the author of the translation. In the final article (in French) Ambrazas concentrates on the fact that Lithuanian and Latvian show numerous structural differences particularly in the formation of nouns of action, collective nouns and the formation of diminutives. One is struck by the fact that the suffix *-imo/-īmo known in such Lithuanian nouns as nešìmas ‘carrying’ and rãšymas ‘writing’ is encountered in Latvian and Old Prussian only 166 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI Būdvardžių darybos raida The Development of Adjective Formation in adjectives, e.g., Latv. dialect tālīms ‘distant’, cf. Lith. tólimas, tólymas ‘id’. One notes that differently from Lithuanian where the suffix –mo- is commonly used, in Latvian the adjectival suffix *–no- is encountered in the form –šana (<*–s–io–nā), cf., e.g., miršana ‘death’. (A misprint on p. 126 gives us nomina actinis for nomina actionis.) The closest suffix to this is not in Lithuanian, but in Old Prussian where we encounter the suffix –sna, cf. OP billīšna ‘sayings’. Lithuanian and Latvian differ also in the way of forming diminutives, Lithuanian usually using the suffix *–elio- frequently accompanied by palatalization of the preceding consonant. Nevertheless this suffix is occasionally encountered in Latvian, e.g., maišelis (diminutive of maiss ‘bag’), cf. Lith. maišėlis ‘id’. There is very little evidence for this suffix in Old Prussian, e.g., (EV 179) patowelis ‘step-father’ and perhaps the Basel Epigram word tewelyse ‘little father’ and a few personal names. The usual Latvian diminutive, on the other hand is formed with the suffixes *–inio- and *–ītio-, e.g., dê,liņš from dê.Is ‘son’ and brālītis from brālis ‘brother’. In Lithuanian the diminutives in *–ītio- are much less common than in Latvian, although we do encounter Lith. brolýtis derived from brólis ‘brother’. On the other hand a different ablaut grade of the same suffix, viz. *–oitio- is widely used in Lithuanian, e.g., broláitis from brólis. This suffix is not known in Latvian. Collective nouns denoting a group of humans or living beings have disappeared in Latvian whereas in Lithuanian the category has survived, cf. Lith. brolija ‘brothers and sisters’, Slavic *bratrьja ‘brothers’, Gk. φρατρία ‘tribe, clan’. Latvian dialects do have numerous derivatives denoting a group of plants or objects located in a single place, e.g., the suffix *–ā-io-, cf. Latv. dialect ālksnājs ‘alder-grove’, whereas Lithuanian has álksna, alksnà ‘id’. The most abundantly represented Lithuanian suffix denoting a group of plants or objects located in one spot is *–ī-no, (cf. Lith. šeimýna, OP seimīns ‘domestic servants’. Some eastern and western High Lithuanian dialects have collective nouns in –ytė, cf. Lith. alksnytė ‘alder-grove’, eglýtė ‘pine forest’, karklýtė ‘willow grove’, (misprinted here (p. 190) as karklýlė). This suffix must have existed in Latvian also at one time as one can see from the place names Apsīte, Kalmīte, etc., but at present an ablaut derivative is encountered in Latvian, cf., bē,rzaite beside Lith. beržytė ‘forest of young birch trees’. Ambrazas discusses the suffix –ysta (also more commonly –ystė for nouns denoting quality) and writes that Lith. krikščionystà ‘Christianity’ corresponds exactly to OP (EV 794) cristion-isto (here (p. 192) misprinted as cristiomsto), see PKEŽ II 280. In addition to nouns in –ulis(-ė) denoting the possessor of a characteristic the Lithuanian language also has nouns in –uõlis(-ė), e.g., bičiùlis and bičiùolis ‘friend’. Old Prussian and eastern Lithuanian dialects have the suffix –ena which denotes the hide or skin of an animal, e.g., Lith. arklenà ‘horse leather’, OP (EV 498) nognan ‘Leder, leather’ if the word is derived from *nōgenan. On the other hand Latvian does not have the suffix in this form, although we do encounter the suffix *–enio-, e.g., vecenis ‘old man’, rītenis Recenzijos / Reviews 167 WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG ‘east wind’. Lithuanian only has a few such derivatives, e.g., bergždėnis(-ė) ‘barren animal’. The most important Lithuanian suffix denoting the possessor of a characteristic -inykas has an exact counterpart in Old Prussian, but not in Latvian, cf., e.g., Lith. laukinỹkas ‘inhabitant of the fields’, OP (EV 407) laukinikis ‘Leman, tenant’, but Latv. laučinieks ‘peasant’. Ambrazas writes that the nouns in *-iniko-/*-ineiko- denoting the possessor of a quality are likewise productive in Slavic and that they are frequently derivatives of adjectives in *-ino-, cf., e.g., grěšьnikъ ‘sinner’ < grěšьnъ ‘sinful’. It seems, however, that one could also understand grěšьnikъ as an agent noun (see Vaillant 1964: 211) . Thus are we to understand a sinner as possessing the quality of sin or an agent (capable of) producing sin)? This seems to be a theological question, perhaps, rather than a linguistic question. According to Ambrazas nouns with the suffix *-iko- have been common in Western High Lithuanian dialects, although in the Eastern High Lithuanian dialects they are less frequently attested. This suffix had its origin in the diminutive suffix *-iko- which is well attested in Old Prussian, cf. malnījikix ‘Kindlein, small child’. Ambrazas writes that the Slavic languages probably got the agentive suffixes *-tā-io- and *-ē-io- from Baltic, cf. Lith. artójas ‘plowman’, Latv. arājs < *artājs, OP (EV 236) artoys ‘Ackermann, plowman’ which is cognate with Proto-Slavic *ortajь ‘id’. Whereas the adjectival suffix *-(i)i̯o-) is productive in Slavic (e.g., člověčь ‘human’), Greek (e.g., ἵππιος ‘rich in horses’), Indic (cf. Vedic áśo(i)ya- (here misprinted as áśviya-) ‘belonging to (or coming from) horses’). This type of adjective is not well represented in Baltic, although such adjectives do exist, cf. Lith. šlāpias ‘damp’, Latv. slapjš. Ambrazas notes that the archaism of the Baltic languages is well known but there are cases where the Slavic languages have preserved a more ancient state than the Baltic. Thus Slavic has preserved the ancient suffix *-tel-, whereas in Baltic this suffix has been completely eliminated and replaced by the suffixes *-tāio- and *-io-. Certain innovations in the area of word formation unite the Balts, Slavs and the Germans, e.g., the possessive adjectives in *-isko-, cf., e.g. OCS božьskъ, Gothic gudisk s, Lith. dieviškas ‘divine’. In addition to the few misprints already mentioned I shall mention a few more here. The date in the reference ‘Vanags 1951’ (p. 18) is surely a misprint, since he was born in 1962. On p. 116 and in the English translation on p. 166 we encounter Gk. ἅγιος ‘holy, sacred’ with the spiritus lenis instead of the correct ἅγιος with the spiritus asper; on p. 194 we find ankštuõlis for aukštuõlis; on p. 211 exlusive for exclusive. On p. 113, fn. 8 the OInd kṛṣṇasá ‘blackish’ is transcribed correctly but in the English translation fn. 7 on p. 163, the letter -ṣ- was omitted to give us kṛṇasá. Although I have expressed very minor criticisms in this review, in sum it seems to me that all Balticists should be grateful to Prof. Mikulėnienė for putting together and making easily available the writings of this talented, but untimely de- 168 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI Būdvardžių darybos raida The Development of Adjective Formation ceased linguist, a man whose depth of knowledge and keen insights have led to important and interesting conclusions. To get some idea of the loss we have suffered I advise people to read the obituary of Saulius Ambrazas written by Grasilda Bl ažienė (2010). I was particularly struck by the comment made by Saulius’ father: ‘Nemėgstu, kai mane aplenkia’ (Blažienė 2010: 203). Balticists of my generation may share that sentiment. ABBREVIATIONS Gk. – Greek Latv. – Latvian OCS – Old Church Slavic Pol. – Polish IE – Indo-European Lith. – Lithuanian OI – Old Indic Russ. – Russian Lat. – Latin OP – Old Prussian REFERENCES Blažienė Grasilda 2010: Išėjęs, kad pasiliktų. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 62–63, 201–204. EV – Elbing Vocabulary. LEW – Fraenkel Ernst. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1955–1965. LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 1941–2004. PKEŽ I-IV – Mažiulis Vytautas. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1–4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1988–1997. Vaillant André 1964: Manuel du vieux slave 1. Paris: Institut d’études slaves. Įteikta 2011 m. gruodžio 19 d. WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG The Pennsylvania State University 814 Cornwall Road State College PA 16803, U.S.A. [email protected] Recenzijos / Reviews 169