M. Stryikowskio veikalo „Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi“ teonimai: „Chaurirari“

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: comparative grammar of Baltic and other Indo-European languages, Baltic religion and mythology, and source studies. THEONYMS IN M. STRYJKOWSKI’S WORK KRONIKA POLSKA, LITEWSKA, ŻMÓDZKA I WSZYSTKIEJ RUSI: CHAURIRARI Theonyms in M. Stryjkowski’s work Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi: Chaurirari A B S T R A C T The study analyzes the etymology of the theonym Chaurirari, mentioned in Motiejus Stryjkowski’s work Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi (1582), and the development of this deity’s functions. To date, the only account of the origin of this god’s name based on scholarly argumentation has been provided by Vladimir Toporov. Unfortunately, Toporov’s reconstruction *Kaur-aris ‘a reddish-colored horse deity (an element of fire symbolism)’, based on the working model of a tatpuruṣa compound, is conjectural because of the reconstructed gender of the second component, Baltic *aris ‘horse’, which is unattested in any written Baltic source. This interpretation also raises serious doubts about its mythological motivation, since the religious systems of neither the Balts nor the Slavs are known to include the cult of a horse as a deity (!!!) (apart from rudimentary remnants of totemism). On the basis of a new etymology of the theonym and an analysis of the deity’s functions, it is argued that the deity’s name Chaurirari is not a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, as has been thought until now. It may be that this theonym reflects the nomen proprium (theonym) Kaukarius ‘mountain god’, recorded in several works by eighteenth-century lexicographers and cultural figures of Lithuania Minor (the dictionaries of Jokūbas Brodovskis and Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus). In addition to analyzing the aforementioned theonym, the article also offers etymological accounts of several other lexemes that, it seems, have hitherto been erroneously associated with Chaurirari: noun, Russian dialectal kaýp ‘wooden mallet for stunning fish’; verb, Russian dialectal kaýpитъся ‘to be angry; to frown, to be gloomy or sullen; to be proud; to be stubborn’. K E Y W O R D S: tatpuruṣa compound, ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; progressive assimilation, regressive assimilation; morphophonetic transposition, theonym. K E Y W O R D S: tatpuruṣa compound, ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; progressive, regressive assimilation; morphophonetic transposition, theonym. 50 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari A N N O T A T I O N The study deals with the topics of etymological analysis and brief nasc ence (consequently, a hierarchical position in the Baltic pantheon) of the theonym Chaurirari mentioned in Maciej Stryikowski’s work Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi (1582). The one and only scientific examination of the issue was carried out by Vladimir Toporov. It must be stated with many regrets that tatpuruṣa composite Lith. *Kaur-aris ‘tawny tint (element of fire symbolism) horse deity’, reconstructed by the author of the hypothesis, is not acceptable due to reconstruction motivation of unauthenticated (in any written source of Baltic mythology and religion) Balt. *aris ‘horse’. Providing that non-existence of a horse-deity cult in Baltic and Slavic religious systems, save totemic vestiges, such an interpretation is doubtful in relation to mythological motivation. Being based on the new theonym etymology and analysis of the deity functions, a proposition has been made that Chaurirari could not be interpreted as ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The lexeme may be correlated with nomen proprium (theonym) Kaukarius ‘ghats God’, which is mentioned in several Lithuania Minor lexicographical lexicons of the 18th century (Brodowski’s and Milke’s thesauruses). Save the mythologeme, the study presents an analysis of Russ. dial. кау́р ‘mallet used to knock out a fish’ and Russ. dial. кау́риться ‘to sulk; to wince, to gloom; to stand tall; to recalcitrate’, which were wrongly classed as Baltisms. “[…] even the interpretation of a name has a point when you turn it into ridicule, which is why someone is called that […]” (Cicero De oratore 257) The Lithuanian and Samogitian deity Chaurirari is first mentioned in written sources by Motiejus Stryikowskis in his work Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi (Stryikowski 1582: 144): “Chaurirari końłki Bog, temu pietuchy rolłe, cerłtwe, rożney barwy ofiarowali, aby łę też konie takie mnożyły, á kiedy go o pokoy prołili od ich nieprzyjaciół [bo go też mieli za Boga woyny] iak Grekowie y Rzymianie Marła, tedy za piecem na łiodłach liedząc ofiary y modły mu czynili.” Dominykas Urbas (BRMŠ II 546) translates this sentence as follows: “Chaurirari, the god of horses; they sacrificed to him cocks, large, strong, of various colors, so that horses, too, would breed like these,” Straipsniai / Articles 51 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS “and when they begged him for peace, that their enemies might not attack (for they also regarded him as a god of war), as the Greeks and Romans did Mars, then, sitting on saddles behind the stove, they prayed to him and made sacrifices.” Wilhelm Mannhardt (1936: 330) had previously translated this sentence identically into German, and Vladimir Toporov (Топоров 2000: 173) into Russian. Unfortunately, Urbas translates the beginning of the sentence rather freely (Pol. temu ‘therefore’ (Linde V 616) is changed to ‘to him’, which can be understood as the dative case of the demonstrative pronoun Lith. tas), while he interprets the ending dubiously, since he supplies information that Stryikowskis does not even mention—thus distorting the usual meaning of this mythologeme: I. He says nothing about any “behind the stove,” that is, a space behind a stove, since neither Lithuanians nor Samogitians in Stryikowskis’s lifetime—the sixteenth century—built any stoves one could crawl behind to make offerings there (Rimantas Balsys (2006: 176) had previously drawn attention to this very important fact1); rather, they piled up, in a certain way, a heap of unbonded stones (krušni; such stoves were used not only in living quarters but also in bathhouses and threshing barns) in a pit or on the floor, or simply kept a fire burning in the hearth of a house or cottage (in open firepits; for more details, see LE V 234). Stone stoves began to be replaced by rammed-earth and brick stoves only in the mid-nineteenth century (LE XIII 223–225). Janas Długoszas (Longinus) also mentions the same facts, that is, a smoky cottage without any stoves. Describing Lithuanian domestic life, he states that Lithuanians lived together with their livestock in smoke-filled cottages: “Nulius illi stubarum aut aedificiorum nobilium, sed tantummodo tugurii unius usus [...]. In ea domo se, uxores, pignora, servos, ancillas, pecus, armentum, frumentum et omnem supellectilem condunt [...]” (BRMŠ I 560–561) (see also Łowmiański 1989: 82). Philip Callimachus also describes a smoky cottage: “[...] ignis in medio tugurii, circa quem accubitus ac discubitus sine loci alicuius electione aut observantia, neque ullius rei domesticae ordo aut disciplina” (BRMŠ I 601). According to Johannes Boemus Aubietis, the Lithuanians have no proper dwelling houses: “Vaporaria seu stubas habent nullas” (BRMŠ II 358). Sigismund von Herberstein provides similar information: “In humilibus casis, iisque oblongioribus vitam ducunt, in quibus ignis in medio conservatur [...]. Solent enim sub eodem, quo ipsi habitant, tecto, sine ullo interstitio pecora habere” (BRMŠ II 393). Janas Łasickis also describes a smoky dwelling (‘dugout’): “Mapalia, quae turres appellant, sursum angusta, atque qua fumus et foetor exeat, aperta, ex tignis, asseribus, stramine, corticibus faciunt, in his homines cum omni peculio, in pauimento tabulato stante, habitant” (BRMŠ II 579). 1 Balsys (2006: 314) lygina Urbo pateikto vertimo informaciją su Łasickio veikale De Diis Samagitarum [...] neva panašiu mitologiniu faktu – dievo Pesseias slėpimusi už židinio tarp ką tik atsivesto prieauglio. Deja, Striykowskis nemini jokio židinio (žr. toliau), o Pesseias (šio teonimo kilmei skirtinas atskiras darbas) slepiasi ne tarp ką tik atsivesto prieauglio, mat lo. pullos reiškia visai kitą sememą (plg. Łasickis 1969: 42) – ją galima teisingai interpretuoti, tik tinkamai aprašius minėto teonimo kilmę (dar žr. Kregždys 2010: 51–52). 52 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 52 2011.06.17 08:23:50 M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari Tiesa, Henrikas Łowmiańskis (1935: 43) teigia, kad diduomenės gyvenamieji pastatai (curiae, villae) labai skyrėsi nuo dūminėse pirkiose gyvenusiųjų. Deja, itin patikimų duomenų apie senuosius buitinius baltų pastatus nėra išlikę, išskyrus pasakojimus apie religinio pobūdžio statinius ir gyvenvietes (plačiau žr. Kregždys 2009: 131–133, 150–152). II. BRMŠ gives an incorrect translation of the Polish phrase za piecem liedząç, since Polish za piecem siedzieć means not ‘to sit behind the stove’, as BRMŠ indicates (“sitting [...] behind the stove”), but ‘to sit quietly = to behave calmly’ (Linde IV 676). Moreover, the prepositional construction na fjodłach means not ‘sitting on saddles’ but ‘on horseback’; cf. Polish siodło (metonymically) ‘for riding’ (Linde V 243). Thus, Stryikowskis emphasizes that the god was worshipped in silence, or rather, in a calm manner. Thus, the translation of Stryikowskis’ text describing the deity Chaurirari, presented by Urbo in Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniuose, should be regarded as in need of correction: “Chaurirari, the god of horses; therefore they sacrificed large, strong roosters of various colors so that horses, too, would breed in this way; and when they asked him to save them from enemies (for they also considered him a god of war), like the Greeks and Romans [did] Mars, then, calm and on horseback, they prayed to him and made sacrifices.” The mention of ancient motifs implies the claim that Stryikowskis presents not authentic information but fabrications, since Greek and Roman rites for Ares and Mars, respectively, were performed noisily (cf. the dances of the Salii priests (for more, see Zieliński 1999: 229; CM 505)); that is, the functional (and also intrinsic) connotations of these gods were associated with movement, noise, passion (which also determined human fertility), and so on (cf. Нильссон 1998: 154; Taxo-Годи 1999: 92, 112, 136, 151, 205, 229, 261, 289, 299, 526, 530, 596–597, 656; Zieliński 1999, 113, 115, 118–119, 354). Moreover, one should not ignore the long-known fact that Ares is a Thracian, not Greek, 2deity (Taxo-Годи 1999: 289), whose vitality is already ridiculed in the Iliad. One may cautiously surmise that Stryikowskis tried to interpret the theonym of unclear meaning by associating it with similar-sounding Lithuanian words—perhaps Lithuanian kãras ‘war’, as did later authors who followed him (see below). The information he mentions about calm sacrifice is apparently the author’s own fabrication, characteristic of adherents of the new faith, who associated pagan rites with Christian tradition (on this, see Kregždys 2009, 141–142, 165–166). Stryikowskis’ claim about the deity’s military function, comparing it with that of the Greek Ares and Roman Mars, should therefore apparently be treated as essayistic-literary. Thus, one may cautiously assert that two facts are authentic: 1) the deity’s name is Chaurirari; 2) Chaurirari is ‘the god of horses’. 2 It should be noted that the name of this deity is attested in written monuments from the Cretan and Mycenaean cultural period (Казанскене, Казанский 1986: 140–141), so the word’s morphological structure may be Hellenic, but the characteristics of the cult continue to be regarded as superstratal, resulting from the influence of the peoples of Asia Minor. Straipsniai / Articles 53 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Balsys (2006: 134, 152, 154), aptardamas galimas Chaurirari skirtas apeigas, itin daug dėmesio skiria gaidžio aukojimui aprašyti. Jis taip pat išvardija beveik visus mėginimus paaiškinti teonimo kilmę: Dionizas Poška (LM I 41) jį suvokia kaip Szaurirar; Simonas Stanevičius (LM I 95) dėl lietuvių kalbai nebūdingos tokios fonetinės ir morfologinės struktūros lyties apskritai abejoja jos autentiškumu; Mannhardtas (1936: 339) atsargiai spėja, kad teonimą galima būtų skaityti kaip karorius ir sieti jį su lie. kàras „Krieg“. Algirdas Julius Greimas (1990: 418) vardo kilmės neaiškina, tik pripažįsta, kad iki šiol niekam nepavyko to padaryti, nors neatmeta galimybės mitologemą aiškinti kaip vieną Velino epitetą, t. y. anot jo, ši „karo žirgo [...] epifanija apibūdina neabejotinai vieną svarbiausių Velino funkcijų.“ Yra ir daugiau mėginimų atskleisti Chaurirari kilmę, tačiau jie nepagrįsti lingvistiškai, todėl ir nevertintini. Na, o Jonas Balys konstatuoja, kad šio teonimo reikšmės „sveiku protu jau niekas nebegalės išspręsti“ (JBR II 56). Tokio teiginio svarumu, žinoma, reikėtų labai abejoti, mat „[...] имя в своей тайне превышает способности «среднего» человека, находящегося вне пространства, в котором можно уразуметь тайну имени и именословия“ (Топоров 2004: 373). Toporov, who attempted to provide the last and only account of the morphological development of this deity’s name based on scholarly arguments (Топоров 2000: 172–174; 2006: 190–194), proposed a new but entirely implausible hypothesis about the word’s origin3. Of course, one must agree with his well-argued claim (supported by examples from Prussian and Lithuanian: Prussian chelmo ‘hat’ GrA 61 ↔ Prussian kelmo ‘same’ GrG 40 (cf. PEŽ II 160), etc.) that initial Ch- was pronounced as K- (Топоров 2000: 174; 2006: 190); however, the etymological analysis of the theonym is casuistic. Claiming that Chaurirari represents a lapsus calami (cf. “[...] the second half of the name (-rari) is the result of a very widespread graphic error involving the doubling of a syllable [...]” (Топоров 2000: 174–175; 2006: 190)), he reconstructs the form *Kaur-aris ‘a tawny-colored (an element of fire symbolism) horse deity’, supposedly implying a twofold derivational pattern: 1) a Lithuanian suffixed derivative *kaur- + suff. -ar-is ← Lithuanian noun kàuras ‘mould, moss, crust’ BŽ 371, J, Kl; ‘hardened crust of grease from unwashed dishes’ (LKŽe), or Lithuanian noun kàuras ‘hair, shaggy hair’ J, Jnš, VoL 327 (LKŽe)—hence the mythologeme reflects a color-based denotation ‘grayness, hoariness, tawny color’; 2) a Lithuanian compound *kaur- ‘mould-colored object’ + Lithuanian *arīs ‘horse’ (~ Church Slavonic opь ‘stallion’, Russian opь ‘horse’, Czech oř, etc.), hydronymic Polish Orz ‘a tributary of the Narew River’, Orzyc ‘same’, Old Polish orz (see also Фасмер III 155)). Toporov’s first hypothesis is difficult to justify semantically, since the suffixed derivative in -ar-, *Kaur-aris, on the basis of the derivational correspondences of this suffix in Lithuanian se- 3 Until then, this researcher had confined himself to a neutral definition of this mythologeme: “[...] the enigmatic horse god Chaurirari of Stryykowski [...]” (ПЯ I 136). 54 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari mantic expression must reflect the referent’s denotation and its connotative value; that is, one should reconstruct the protosememe *‘a mouldy object ↔ something like mould’ or *‘a hairy (overgrown) subject’ ~ Lithuanian noun stābaras ‘a dry, sturdy stem’ Ds, ‘some useless object’ Sb ← Lithuanian noun stābas ‘a statue or some object regarded as a god and worshipped’ DŽ, KB II 53, etc.; ‘statue’ S. Dauk.; ‘pillar’ M, L, Rtr, etc.; ‘shape, form’ TlŽ; ‘paralysis, apoplexy’ SD 241, B, etc. (LKŽe); Lithuanian noun ùmaras ‘whirlwind, storm’ Q 496, K 474 ← Lithuanian adjective ùmas ‘sudden’⁴; Lithuanian noun žābaras ‘a twig, rod’ Rsn, etc., ‘small branches, saplings, shrubs’ Jrb, ‘gravel, coarse pebbles’ Nms, Vkv ← Lithuanian žābas ‘a twig, rod, small branch’ LV IV 677, etc.; ‘stem, stalk’ Kpr, Mžš, etc.; ‘switch (for beating)’ T, Š, etc.; ‘bush, thicket’ RtŽ, A. Baran., etc.; ‘a small branch used to propagate a bush or plant’ Šmn, Sur; ‘bit’ K. Būg., etc. (LKŽe) (for more examples, see Skardžius 1996: 302–304). Moreover, if one accepts Toporov’s conjecture, one would have to reconstruct the protosememe *‘god of mould-colored horses’. On the basis of this hypothesis, one would have to suppose that the Baltic pantheon also included horse deities of other colors. Unfortunately, there is no such evidence in sources on Baltic religion and mythology, so this conjecture should be considered illogical. The second hypothesis is morphologically impossible (and therefore etymologically impossible as well—the inseparable connection between these two levels has repeatedly been emphasized in recent scholarship (cf. PEŽ III 13; Откупщиков 2006: 216)), since its author adduces the derivational analysis of the Lithuanian noun arklys ‘a domestic ungulate used for work, transport, and riding (Equus caballus)’ R, K, Kp, Jnš, Jnšk, Gs, Rm, SD 30, B, Sk, etc. (LKŽe)—notably, an incorrect account of the lexeme’s structural development. Toporov argues that Lithuanian arklỹs and Latvian ārkls ‘horse’⁵ (ME I 141) are formed with the suffix -kl-, used to form names of instruments (nomina instrumenti), and Lithuanian *aris ‘horse’. (Cf. Latvian ārkls and Latvian dialectal ārkls ‘plough’ (see ME ibid.; Breidaks 2006: 118).) Unfortunately, this conjecture is fundamentally mistaken, since Lithuanian arklỹs is a nomen qualitatis (as is the Lithuanian noun pirklỹs (see below)) and derives not from Lithuanian *aris ‘horse’, which never existed in the Baltic languages (see below), nor from the Lithuanian verb árt i ‘to work, loosen the soil with a horse and plough’ SD 229, R, etc.; ‘to tear up, root around’ LTR (An); ‘to hold under one’s control, oppress, exploit’ Arm, Vvr, Lp; ‘to disagree, quarrel’ Tvr, Drs (LKŽe) (this mistaken explanation is given by Pranas Skardžius (1996: 196), and Toporov apparently followed him), but from Lithuanian ārklas ‘an implement for ploughing the soil, a plough, a colter’ K, J, etc. (LKŽe) (cf. Ambrazas 1993: 153); that is, it presupposes the protosememe *‘one who pulls a plough’, cf. Lithuanian pìrklas ‘purchase’ SD 4 It is possible that the base form of this derivative was not the Lithuanian adjective ūmas ‘sudden’ but the Lithuanian noun ūmas NdŽ, ūmas Dgl ‘suddenness, urgency, rapidity, speed’ Jnš, Lk, etc. (LKŽe). 5 This Latvian ārkls ‘horse’ reflects a shift at the semantic level, in which one of the referent’s connotations gives rise to a secondary denotation, i.e., ‘plough’ → ‘horse’ (for more on this kind of shift, see Kregždys 2010a: 24–25). Straipsniai / Articles 55 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 55 2011.06.17 08:23:50 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS 123 et al.; ‘payment for a purchase’ SP II 203–204 (LKŽe) (← Lith. verb. pirkti ‘to acquire for money’ H, Pb et al.; ‘to commission special services for money’ Žem, Rm, Rdn; ‘to acquire, win in a certain way’ SP I 227, II 203 et al.; ‘to manage, get by through paying with something’ Žd et al. (LKŽe) (cf. Skardžius 1996: 193 – Ambrazas (1993: 98) explains the formation of this word differently)) → Lith. subst. pirklỹs, -ė ‘one who engages in buying and selling goods’ Š, NdŽ, Sim, Tsk (LKŽe), that is, these lexemes should be treated as inflectional derivatives – denominatives (!!!). An extralinguistic factor that presupposes the invalidity of Toporov’s hypothesis—the identification of the horse with the draught animal—must also be discussed. Every farmer knows perfectly well that not only is it impossible to plow with a horse, i.e. a stallion, but riding one is extremely dangerous; this is why horse taming was devised, that is, transforming a horse into a draught, working animal. Much earlier, Max Vasmer drew attention to the incompatibility of the semantemes ‘horse’ and ‘to plow’ (Фасмер III 155). Unfortunately, he does not support his assertion with arguments, merely stating that the attempt to connect Russ. subst. орь ‘horse’ with Russ. verb. opáть ‘to plow’ is unsuccessful. Vasmer’s assertion can be accepted only in part: he is entirely right, apparently, in discerning the semantic incompatibility of these words, but he is mistaken in identifying the derivational base. There is no doubt that Russ. опь ‘horse’ is a thematic-format derivative in s. sl. *i of Russ. verb. opáть (for more on this, see Хабургаев 1974: 194)—such verbal derivatives are particularly numerous in Russian: Russ. subst. вонь ‘bad smell’ ← Russ. verb. вонять ‘to stink’ (Даль I 240), Russ. subst. хворь ‘pain, illness, infirmity, sadness, etc.’ ← Russ. verb. хворать ‘to hurt, weaken, be ill, etc.’ (Даль IV 545–546), Russ. subst. копь ‘mine shaft; place where ore, coal, or salt is mined’ ← Russ. verb. копать ‘to dig, excavate, etc.’ (Даль II 157) (the deverbal origin of these examples can be argued not only from the aforementioned semantic connotation of Russ. копь, i.e. reference to a completed action, but also from the sememe Russ. subst. ломь ‘that which is broken’ ← Russ. verb. ломать ‘to break apart by force, to break’ (Даль II 264–265)), and so on. The semantic genesis of Russ. subst. опь ‘horse’ is entirely clear. It reflects the dialectal sememe of Russ. verb. opáть ‘to speak hoarsely, lie, talk nonsense, etc.’, ‘to neigh (to produce sounds characteristic of a horse)’ (cf. CPHF XXIII 330). Thus, it can be argued that Russ. subst. опь ‘horse’ is a deverbal form characteristic not of Baltic and Slavic, but only of Slavic languages; therefore, the reconstruction of Lith. *aris ‘horse’ is untenable. Toporov’s reconstructed tatpuruṣa-type compound *Kaur-aris ‘a russet-colored horse deity (an element of fire symbolism)’ is highly doubtful also on grounds of mythological motivation, since neither Baltic nor Slavic religious systems attest to a cult of the horse as a deity (!!!) (except for rudimentary remnants of totemism, which Andrei Prokhorov (Прохоров 2002: 423–424, 433, 437) tends to interpret as episodes of horse deification, although he provides no reliable arguments for such a bold conjecture; some of this researcher’s claims are simply astonishing: in his desperate effort to prove the existence of zoomorphic-object worship in western Slavic lands, he indi- 56 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari do savo sukurtą čekų mito interpretaciją (Прохоров 2002: 427), neturinčią visiškai nieko bendra su gyvulio kultu, mat vieną karžygio atributų – arklį – kažkodėl interpretuoja kaip dieviškumo simbolį (plačiau žr. Крегждис 2009: 265–266)6. Be to, rašytiniuose baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniuose užsimenama apie baltų, o ne rusvų ar rausvų (ar dar kitokios spalvos) arklių svarbą prūsų kulto apeigose (o gal ir šių gyvūnų garbinimą), plg. Petro Dusburgiečio (BRMŠ I 335–336, 346) ir Simono Grünavo (BRMŠ II 80, 116–117) duomenis (dar žr. Beresnevičius 2006) (baltas arklys Rigvedoje simbolizuoja Indros žirgą, plg. jo epitetą s. i. haryā́çva ‚raitelis ant balto arklio‘ (RV VII 32, 14–15)). Taigi Toporovo hipotezė apie šios dievybės pirminę arklių globos funkciją taip pat koreguotina, mat mitologemos etiologinė ir etimologinė raida suponuoja šią funkciją esant antrinę (žr. toliau). On the basis of the analysis conducted, it can be argued that the approaches proposed by Toporov to explaining the origin of the Lithuanian deity Chaurirari require fundamental revision. In analyzing the morphological development of theonyms, it is necessary to take account of the specific word-formation features characteristic of religious-cult lexemes, reflected not only in Stryikows- 6 Toporov’s (ПЯ I 136) claim that drinking mare’s milk during religious rites (an element of the Baltic death cult) and burying a horse together with the deceased should be associated with the Prussian horse cult has some basis, since its author links the deity’s attributes to the deity itself. Following this methodology, one would also have to posit the worship of a bee goddess, since during those same (burial—see Kregždys 2010b: 13–14) rites the poor drank not mare’s milk but mead made from bee honey: Wulfstan’s account of the voyage from Hedeby (Schleswig) to Truso (East Prussia), as recounted in the travel narrative (for more, see Kregždys 2011), describes highly significant facts about the production and consumption of beverages at West Baltic funerals: 1) and se cyning and þa ricostan men drincað myran meolc, and þa unspedigan and þa þeowan drincað medo (SRP I 733) ‘and the king and the richest men drink mare’s milk, while the poor and slaves drink mead’; 2) and ne bið þær nænig ealo gebrowen mid Éstum, ac þær bið medo genōh ‘and the Estonians brew no beer at all, but there is plenty of mead there’ (SRP ibd.). It should be emphasized that Vyacheslav Ivanov (Иванов 1974: 75–138), who described in great detail the Indo-European mythologem of the horse (including the importance of horses in funeral rites; it is clear that many claims listed in this work are now debatable (e.g. the interpretation of the sacrificial sequence human → horse → bull; the meaning of the sacrifice of a woman; the meaning of covering the face with a layer of fat of a goddess, rather than an ordinary girl, as Ivanov claims (a subject Ivanov does not discuss at all, although this motif is crucial); the interpretation of the twins mythologem; the importance of the right-hand horse in a team for sacrifice and its significance, and many other motifs)), does not mention any instances of horse deification. Thus, this discussion by Toporov should apparently be regarded as requiring revision, although there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the ethnographic motifs mentioned (for the bibliography, see ПЯ I 136); compare a possible cultural parallel in the West Slavic Lechitic area: the drinking of mare’s milk is also mentioned in Kashubian death-cult rites. However, Aleksander Gura (Гура 1997: 550), who described these rites without delving into Baltic mythology, translates the Kashubian lexical phrase pjic kobělim donotę as ‘to drink mare’s whey’, although the Kashubian word donotę, unclear to Gura (the translation of the phrase ends with a question mark), should apparently be explained as a substantivized adjective: Kashubian donota ‘milk’ ← Kashubian *do-j(e)n-ota ‘milking; milk’ (< suffix -ota, cf. Polish wilg-ota ‘moderate moisture, dampness’ (Linde VI 235), Polish mork-ota ‘moisture’ (Linde III 135); for the meaning, cf. OInd. dóha ‘milking; milk’) < adj. West Slavic *doj(b)nъ ‘milked’ (< subst. West Slavic *doja ‘milking’ (< subst. Proto-Slavic *doja ‘the same’ < verb. Proto-Slavic *dojiti ‘to milk, suckle’ (ЭССЯ V 53–54, 57)) → Czech důje ‘the same’ (ЭССЯ V 52)) → Old Polish dojny ‘milking’ (1452), Polish dojny ‘(arch.) relating to milking; milked’ (ЭССЯ V 56). Straipsniai / Articles 57 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS of the Chaurirari under discussion, but also in the structure of many other verb roots of this special lexical layer⁷. One of the principal factors determining the morphological structure of the members of the lexical-semantic group under examination is the phenomenon of taboo, disregard of which ⁷ In discussing the origin of the sacred-sphere lexicon of various Indo-European peoples, it is essential to take account of morphophonetic changes in word structure at the level of reconstruction (also caused by the phenomenon of taboo), which gave rise to unusual morphotactic sequences (for more detail, see Маковский 1998: 155, 158–160). Ignoring these changes—that is, applying an atomistic method of analysis—leads to numerous errors; compare the hitherto proposed etymologies of Стрибог, a deity in the East Slavic Kyiv pantheon, which have absolutely nothing to do either with the description of the deity’s functions or with the morphological structure of the theonym (for more detail, see Крегждис 2010: 212–215): forms that never existed are invented and supposedly assigned to the Indo-European proto-language lexicon, although their morphological structure is impossible not only because of the phonotactic grouping of segments but also because of their semantic implausibility. For example, unable to explain the origin of Russian стрый (arch. стрый, стрый) ‘father’s brother, uncle (father’s brother)’, which is associated with this deity, Viacheslav Ivanov and Tamaz Gamkrelidze, endorsing Marc Vey’s hypothesis (1931: 65–66; Вей 1958: 96) about Slavic stri- < Indo-European *pətri-, ‘father’, reconstruct an implausibly constructed kinship term allegedly used in the Indo-European proto-language, *–pʰ|h|h|r– // *pʰ|H|tʰ|h|r– (Гамкрелидзе, Иванов 1984: 538, 765, 777, 791), whose form, it seems, even the most skilled phonology specialist could neither pronounce nor explain the motivation for. Analysis of these lexemes has shown that their origin is in no way connected with kinship terminology, and that Russian cmpūй (arch. cmpūй, cmpūй) and Стрибог, hitherto considered exceptionally ancient words, reflect late morphophonetic changes in Old Russian (for more detail, see Крегждис 2010: 214, 216). The greatest influence on the emergence of the aforementioned fundamentally revisable conjectures was Oleg Trubachev’s endorsement (Трубачев 2006: 20, 28, 49, 53, 201 (first edition 1959)) of the French linguist Vey’s conjecture about the origin of the radical str-, drawing on Bulgarian пасторок, пастрок ‘stepfather’ < *po-p(ə)tor (← *pātor, *pster ‘father’). Oswald Szemerényi (Семереньи 1967: 15) categorically rejected the possibility of deriving Lithuanian tėvas ‘pater’ from *ptē-vas, whose radical *ptē Jozef Mikkola (1908–1909: 124) claims to be a variant of Indo-European *patēr; meanwhile, Russian cmpūй ‘father’s brother, uncle (father’s brother)’ is derived from Indo-European *ptr- (< *ttr-). This etymological claim was developed in the works of the aforementioned Vey, André Vaillant (1950: 82), and Georgij Shevelov (1964: 191), but was sharply criticized by Christian Stang and others (for more detail, see Семереньи 1967: 15). Trubachev rejects the entirely correct and well-founded doubts expressed by Szemerényi (1977: 7) about deriving Slavic *stryjb from Indo-European *pater, and offers the following rationale: I. «[...] совсем упускает из виду еще один вероятный славянский его континуант – болг. пастрок ‘отчим’ < и.-е. *pō-pətor-.» (Трубачев 2006: 201); II. «Этимологически прозрачно болг. пастрок ‘отчим’ < *po-ptor. Несколько затруднителен вопрос о развитии значения ‘пасынок’. Образование с суффиксом -ъkъ вряд ли восходит здесь к глубокой древности, ср. др.-чешск. pastore и болг. пастроче с суффиксом -е-, -ent-. Здесь не исключено первоначальное значение принадлежности (‘отчимов, неродной сын’ = ‘пасынок’). Обращает на себя внимание отсутствие pastorkъ в восточнославянских языках. Единичное др.-русск. посторъкъ, вероятно, заимствовано. Из южнославянских языков происходит алб. pasterk ‘пасынок’» (Трубачев 2006: 49); III. «С префиксом pa-: русск. паотец (В. И. Даль: ‘неродной отец, воспитатель приемыша’), ср. литовск. patevis ‘отчим’ – tevas ‘отец’. Сюда же, возможно, относится болг. пастрок, пастрокор ‘отчим’ < *popator» (Трубачев 2006: 27–28). Unfortunately, all these claims by Trubachev apparently need revision, not only because their author offers no reliable account of the origin of Bulgarian пасторок, пастрок ‘stepfather’ based on linguistic arguments rather than Vey’s conjectures, but also because he compares lexemes with entirely different etymologies (see below). First to be rejected is the claim, resulting from atomistic analysis, that Lithuanian patėvis, patėvis ‘stepfather, the mother’s second husband to the children of her first husband’ K, SInt, etc. (LKŽe) is cognate with Russian нао́мець ‘stepfather, foster-father of an adopted child; second father’ (Даль III: 16) and Bulgarian пастрок, пастрок ‘stepfather’ (< Indo-European *popator). The origins of all these words are different: 1) Lithuanian patėvis, patėvis ‘stepfather, the mother’s second husband to the children of her first 58 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryjowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari gives rise to a priori erroneous theories of word origins. The atomistic method, which to this day is often predisposed to prevail in onomastic research, leads to an extremely negative assessment of the object of this branch of linguistics (and especially of its etymological analysis): husband’s children’ ← prefix pa- + noun Lithuanian tėvas ‘father, a man (usually married) to his child’ Lex 90, SD 1104, etc.; ‘one of the parents’ Mžš; ‘a woman’s spouse, husband’ Šts, etc.; ‘father-in-law’ LKA I 195; ‘older man, elderly person (as a form of address)’ NdŽ, Jdr, Plv; ‘founder, creator’ A 1884, 244, DP 534, etc.; ‘herdsman’ rš.; ‘title for a clergyman or monk’ NdŽ, rš.; ‘title of a cult servant’ NdŽ, J. Marc.; ‘one who has earned respect through devotion to the church, to faith’ P, DP 5, etc.; ‘epithet of God’ WP 146, PK 16, etc.; ‘God’ Mž 105, etc.; ‘queen bee’ LKA I 172 (LKŽe); this prefix pa- ≤ Lithuanian prefix po-, ‘(function) expressing a relation of succession’ (see Kregždys 2010a: 222 (footnote 190)); compare Lithuanian pósūnis ‘stepson, son of one’s wife or husband from an earlier marriage’ Lex84, SD242, Q507, R, etc.; ‘axillary shoot, offshoot’ Kb ↔ Lithuanian dialectal pãšūnis ‘stepson’ Pb (LKŽe); Lithuanian pódūkra, ‘stepdaughter’, a daughter born of an earlier marriage (for the spouse who later joined that family), stepdaughter’ Krtv, Alk, Brs, Ds, etc. ↔ Lithuanian dialectal padukra ‘stepdaughter’ Q 507 (LKŽe); Lithuanian pamergė ‘bridesmaid in traditional weddings’ Grž, Jnšk, etc.; ‘(derog.) of a vain, lazy girl’ Lkš ↔ Lithuanian dialectal póm ergė, pomergė ‘bridesmaid’ Št, etc. (LKŽe), etc.; whereas Russian ná-отец ‘stepfather, foster-father of an adopted child; second father’ reflects a calque (for more detail on morphological and semantic calques in Russian from Greek, see Шанский 1959: 201–203) of Greek πάππος ‘grandfather (father’s or mother’s father); the lower part of the seeds of certain plants; the first whiskers (downy hairs); a small bird in whose nest a cuckoo lays an egg’ (Liddell, Scott 1882: 1302); ‘grandfather’ (Late // Byzantine) (Lampe 1961: 1006)—the sememe ‘a small bird in whose nest a cuckoo lays an egg’ gave rise to the meaning ‘(step-/foster-)father’ (i.e., ‘a bird raising another bird’s chick’ → ‘a person raising another person’s child’). Over time, homophony led to contamination with Greek πάπας (πάππας, παπᾶς) ‘father; respectful form of address for a priest (and bishop) in the churches of Rome and Alexandria’ (Late // Byzantine) (Lampe 1961: 1006; Дьяченко 1993: 406) → Greek *παπαδίτης (Late // Byzantine) ‘a boy raised by a priest’ (Lampe ibid.) (< Greek πάπας ‘priest’ + Greek διαζάω ‘live, sustain vital functions’ (+ –της (agent-noun suffix)) → Russian dialectal nána ‘grandfather; godfather’ (СРНГ XXV 203). Thus, the first component of Russian ná-отец ‘stepfather, foster-father of an adopted child; second father’ is a direct reflex of a Greek ecclesiastical term (a noun, not a prefix (!!!)) and therefore cannot in any way be compared with Lithuanian equivalents (derivatives of the Lithuanian prefix po-); accordingly, reconstruction of Indo-European *po-p(ə)tor ‘stepfather’ is impossible (!!!). This is not Trubachev’s first error in evaluating Slavic loanwords from Greek (for more detail, see Семереньи 1967: 20). Oswald Szemerényi (Семереньи 1967: 19) correctly observed that «Наиболее серьезная ошибка заключается в том, что даже для признанных заимствований очень часто рассматривается лишь ближайший источник, тогда как не менее важно обнаружить и наиболее отдаленный, который может дать правильный этимон, «первичное значение»» (this statement may also be understood as emphasizing the need to identify the direct, i.e. substrate, element); 2) Trubačiovo postulatas „Этимологически прозрачно болг. пастрок ‘отчим’ < *ро-pator.“, matyt, vertintinas kaip pokštas, mat ši pietų slavų leksema su ide. giminystės terminų raida neturi absoliučiai nieko bendra: a) bulg. náстpok, nacтopok,patėvis‘ (masc.) negali būti nagrinėjamas atskirai nuo bulg. náстроче,posūnis, podukra‘ (neutr.) (su suff. -ък-, -че (pastarasis reflektuoja pirminę bulgarų palatalizaciją – žr. Маслов 1981: 55)) – jų kilmė ta pati, t. y. adj. bulg. nбcтър, –pa, –po, –пу,margas; nevienodas, sudarytas iš skirtingų elementų‘ (Бернштейн 1953: 650) (su –ъ– ↔ –а– // –а– ↔ –ъ– (nekirčiuotu (kirčio vieta senuosiuose bulgarų tekstuose ir dabartinėje kalboje dažnai skiriasi – Маслов 1981: 46)), plg. bulg. настърва,margumas‘ (Бернштейн 1953: 520)) (verb. bulg. nбcтр я, –их,marguliuoti, (išsi-)skirti‘ (Бернштейн 1953: 650) // настъря,marguliuoti, raibuliuoti‘ (Бернштейн 1953: 649)) + suff. –áк– (nomina qualitatis darybinis modelis (!!!) – žr. Маслов 1981: 77); b) bulg. пастрок (< *nбcт–b–pok (su –b– absorbcija dėl nekirčiuotumo resp. „gyvosios“ balsiokaitos – Straipsniai / Articles 59 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 59 2011.06.17 08:23:51 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS In the opinion of Radoslav Katičić (Katičić I 48), many accounts of the origins of onomastic lexemes are based on the principles of folk etymology, while Aleksandra Superanskaja (Суперанская 1986: 78) states that such studies are always of a hypothetical nat- žr. Маслов 1981: 135)), насторок kilmę iš verb. bulg. пъстрѣя ‘marguliuoti, raibuliuoti‘ patvirtina -о- ↔ -е- kaita – labai senos bulgarų balsiko kaitos refleksija, plg. verb. bulg. лежа́ ‘gulėti; kalėti‘ ↔ subst. bulg. ло́же ‘patalynė‘ (plačiau žr. Маслов 1981: 53), t. y. adj. bulg. пъстр ‘nevienodas, sudarytas iš skirtingų elementų‘ + suff. -ъk- (↔-áк-) > subst. bulg. *пъстрък, ‘ne tos pačios giminystės žmogus ⇒ ne vienos motinos ir//ar tėvo vaikas resp. (pa-,į-)tėvis‘ > bulg. náстрок, насторок ‘patėvis‘ // bulg. náстроче ‘posūnis, podukra‘ (su radialinio -о-↔-у- // a ↔ъ // b↔ у- (bulgarų fonologinių kitimų ypatybės – plačiau žr. Маслов 1981: 37, 44)). On the basis of this analysis, Trubačov’s claims can be refuted concerning: I. the possibility of reconstructing PIE *po-p(a)tor (← *pator, *pster ‘father’—such forms never existed and could not have existed in the PIE proto-language (PIE languages have not so far been assigned to the Semitic language group, which is characterized by non-vocalic phonotactic sequences of three or more consonant phonemes (!!!)); II. the origin of Russ. стрий (arch. строй, стрый), ‘father’s brother, uncle (father’s brother)’ as follows: through contamination of the hypocoristic Russ. dial. ся ‘sister’ in Tver (Даль IV 383) and the Russ. dial. subst. тятя ‘father; sister’ in Ryazan (Даль IV 456), the adj. Russ. *се(я)стриной ‘belonging to the father’ > and subst. Russ. *се(я)стрина ‘that which belongs to the father’ could have arisen in Russian (for suff. *-īn- see Хабургаев 1974: 203–204) (→ Russ. subst. сестренцынь ‘all that is theirs, that belongs to them personally’ (Даль IV 179)—a derivation with the suffixes *-īn- + *-īk- (for more on this derivational model, see Хабургаев 1974: 201)) ⇒ Russ. subst. *(ся)стр(ин)ой ‘father’s brother, uncle’ (with ся- apheresis, prompted by the repetition of c-...c-; cf. Lith. overė, ‘squirrel’ = voverė, likewise’; English óm /aim/ ← I am (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 12); also compare the Ukrainian personal name Ле́ра ← Ба-ле́рий (Скрипник, Дзятківська 2005: 45 (for more on the formation of Russian personal-name hypocoristics, see Суслова, Суперанская 1991: 99, 111, 115–116)) and absorption of suff. -ин- (for more on such phonetic changes, see Крегждис 2009, 281 (footnote 37)) → Russ. (arch.) строй ‘likewise’. The emergence of Russ. стрий ‘father’s brother, uncle’ is also related to the morphological changes in this form, but its development is much simpler: Russ. subst. *се(я)стрия ‘that which belongs to the father’ (nomen collect.) (cf. OCS а́даѝть ‘brotherhood’ (nomen collect.)) → Russ. subst. *се(я) стрий ‘father’s brother, uncle’ (by analogy with Russ. céстрия ‘female cousin’ and with the change of the inflectional feminine gender marker *-ā to masculine gender -ъ, by analogy with Russ. бραтний ‘belonging to him (i.e., to the brother—R. K.), characteristic of him’ (Даль I 124)) → Russ. subst. стрий ‘likewise’ (with се(я)- apheresis) (see Крегждис 2010: 214 for details); III. O.Russ. Стри-богъ ← (*C-mp-u- ← *-втриС) ← *Сирть-богъ (? anagrammatic stem transposition with metathesis of initial C- owing to the absence of the phonotactic sequence TPИС- in Russian (the cluster СТРИ- is quite common in this East Slavic language: Russ. стрúба ‘horse’ (in games); стрикъ ‘strip, boundary, etc.’; стрий (arch. строй, стрый) ‘father’s brother, uncle (father’s brother)’ (Даль IV 340)) ← Russ. (arch.) срть ‘whirlpool, water hole, whirlwind, etc.’ (Даль IV 188), i.e. the first member of a karmadhāraya compound reflects transposition of the root morpheme (for more on this type of word formation in Proto-Slavic, see Хабургаев 1974: 192; for details, see Крегждис 2010: 216). Dėmesys atkreiptinas ir į dar vieną Trubačiovo (Трубачев 2006: 49) nurodomą kalbinį faktą – s. sl. пасторъкъ ‘πρόγονος; prigvinuš‘, kuris nefiksuojamas pagrindiniame senosios slavų leksikos sąvade (ССЯ III 18–19 (jame surinktos visos IX–XII a. šios kalbos leksemos)), o s. r. посторокъ немниман autoritetingiausiuose bažnytinės slavų kalbos rinkiniuose (ЦСЦ III 171; СЦРЯ III 162, 394), išskyrus Grigorijaus Djačenko leidinį (Дьяченко 1993: 409), kuriame minimi ir tie žodžiai, kurie yra seni tik autoriaus nuomone (žr. s. v. баба-яга), t. y. jie pateikiami be šaltinio nuorodos (!!!). Panašių keistos žodžių interpretacijos pavyzdžių pasitaiko ir Emilio Benvenisto veikaluose (žr. Бенвенист 1995: 177): r. dial. стрий ‘dėdė‘ aiškinamas kaip senosios slavų kalbos žodis (!!!) (plg. „[...] ст.-сл. stryjь ‘брат отца‘ (общеславянский термин, который отсутствует, однако, в русском [...]“ (Бенвенист 1995: 179)), nors šios kalbos pagrindiniame sąvade tokia lytis nenurodoma (žr. ССЯ IV 181–190), bet pateikiama bažnytinės slavų kalbos žodynuose reikšmė ‘tėvo / motinos brolis‘ (ЦС IV 179; СЦРЯ IV 239), 60 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 60 2011.06.17 08:23:51 M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari forms, based on highly improbable arguments. Yuri Otkupshchikov (Откупщиков 1988; 2006: 216), seeking to refute this established view, formulated a methodology for studying onomastic forms based on detailed derivational rather than semantic or phonetic analysis of lexemes, an approach advocated by Antoine Meillet (see Мейе 1954: 40 for details). It should be noted that Vytautas Mažiulis also repeatedly emphasized the importance of morphological analysis in describing a word’s origin (cf. PEŽ III 13). Nevertheless, when etymologizing theonyms and other mythologemes, relying solely on this method, whose importance is no doubt considerable, is insufficient. Compare the sound of the Eastern Aukštaitian taboo names for plants which, according to Eugenija Šimkūnaitė (2001: 30, 71), are “unclean names—means of encryption, and at the same time a bogey to ward off illness; verbal magic; the disclosure of knowledge”⁸—they all reflect not only a wholly altered morphological structure of the underlying (substrate) word (the lexeme is replaced by a phraseological expression: “devil’s radish” ↔ Lith. dial. šunbuilė ‘spotted hemlock’ (Jasiūnaitė 2010: 286)), but also a change in reference. The same structural discrepancies between substrate forms and forms recorded in written sources also characterize the theonyms mentioned in the work De Diis Samagitarum Cæterorumque Sarmatarum, & falforum Chriſtianorum. Item de religione Armeniorum (1582) by Łasicki, a cultural figure of the same period in which Stryikowski lived (for more on him, see LE XIV 181–183; BRMŠ II 577–579; Łasickis 1969); compare Salaus9, Klamals10, Atlaibos11, Tawals12, and others (Kregždys 2010: 51–52). These theonyms, then, that is, the lexeme is not an Old Church Slavonic inheritance but a Russian dialectal form, known from Count Karamzin’s История Государства Российскаго and Кормчая книга II 209 (a collection of Russian ecclesiastical canons from a late period) (see СЦСРЯ ibd.). 8 Cf. ‘sheep’s droppings’ = alder cones, bistort, meadowsweet; ‘red toadstools’ = rootstocks of burnet saxifrage; ‘a girl’s or boy’s urine’ = maple or birch sap; ‘black toadstools’ = birch polypore; ‘mouse-eaters’ = ergot; ‘Sun in white veils’ = chamomile; ‘pink bunnies in the stubble field’ = pine buds (see Šimkūnaitė 2001: 31, 74–75 for details). Also compare ‘devil’s radish’ = poison hemlock; ‘devil’s berry’ = herb-paris (Jasiūnaitė 2010: 286, 292). 9 Salaus ← (morphotactically authentic dialectal form) Salius < *Sáulius (with -áu- > -a.- (a feature of the Ragnit dialect)) ← Lith. saulė ‘sun’. 10 Klamals < *kalmal(i)s ‘bone-grinder’ (a type of close metathesis; the phonotactic structure of the second morpheme of the same stem is altered, i.e. AXBY → AB(XY)) ↔ *‘one who grinds bones, i.e. a deity of bone or joint diseases’ < *kaula-malis ‘likewise’ < (a tatpuruṣa compound) *kaula-malūnis ‘likewise’; cf. Lith. subst. malūnis ‘mill manager, milling specialist’ ~ Lith. subst. malūninis ‘mill manager, milling specialist’ ← Lith. adj. malūninis ‘related to mills’ (see also Kregždys 2009b: 121). 11 Atlaibos < *lai-ta-bas (pirmųjų dviejų skiemenų metatezinis tipas, t. y. AB → BA) < subst. lie. laitas ‚plūktinė kluono ar gryčios asla, padas‘; ‚krosnies apačia, padas‘ ir kt. + subst. lie. lãbas ‚gerovė, nauda‘, ‚geris‘, ‚turtas, lobis, gerybė‘ ir kt. ⇒ (tatpuruṣa kompozitas) *Laitalabas // *Laitalabis ‚laito turtas ↔ ant plūktinės (matyt, jaujos) pilamų grūdų dievybė ↔ jaujunis‘. 12 Tawals is a Prussianism reflecting Lith. dial. subst. (MLiet.) tãvas ‘father’ (< Pr. taws, likewise) ↔ *Taval-lis ‘dear little father’ (a euphemism (?) due to taboo) → Tavolas ‘likewise’. Straipsniai / Articles 61 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Even researchers who have studied all the other divine names listed by Łasicki and attempted to provide accounts of their origins explain them as distorted or even invented, although all the nomina propria mentioned by this author reflect authentic Baltic lexical material—sometimes even highly archaic. The main reason for the erroneous analyses of the origins of mythologemes by Łasicki, Stryikowskis, and other authors to date is the already-mentioned indiscriminate application of the atomistic method. When examining onomastic forms, it is forgotten that the names of gods (both uranian and chthonic) must first be analyzed using the reconstructive method, since terms belonging to the sacred sphere (especially divine names) are distorted and transposed because of taboo, so that only reconstruction can restore their original form. Possible functions of deities are of little use in determining the origin of a theonym, since they are often invented and sometimes entirely unknown (see Крегждис 2009: 257–259 for more detail). Tendencies toward changes in the morphemic structure of tabooed theonyms are characteristic not only of Baltic theonyms, but also of the sacred lexicon of Slavic and other Indo-European (and non-Indo-European) peoples (cf. Russian dialectal анчу́тка ‘devil, evil spirit’ (Oryol, Simbirsk, Tula, Ryazan, etc.) < Russian dialectal анчу́т ‘devil’ < *анчуд, same meaning’ (morphological transmission; cf. also sporadic -д- ↔ -м- alternation: Russian чудо́къ ↔ чуто́къ ‘a little, just a tiny bit; a glass of wine’ (Даль IV 613)) ~ Russian dialectal анчибо́д, same meaning’ (Топоров 1973: 31) < Russian dialectal *начуд, same meaning’ (morphophonetic transposition due to taboo) ← Russian verb начудить (начудесить, начудотворить) ‘to play pranks; to astonish through strange behavior’ (see also Kregždys 2009, a21); Russian dialectal у͡дага́нка ‘witch’ (Kolyma) (see Власова 2008: 499) < *yagdanка ← Russian verb yagdyvatь ‘to guess, figure out; to learn through unusual signs (indications), etc.’ (Даль IV 464–465)¹³; the Slavic thunder god Perun, used in the southern Slavic… 13 Šio žodžio kilmės aprašas, pateiktas Aleksandro Anikino (Аникин 2000: 580), yra motyvuotas liaudies etimologijos metodika (daugybė tokio nagrinėjimo pavyzdžių pateikiama Platono Lukaševičiaus veikale (žr. Лукашевич 1847)), mat aptariamą leksemą priskyręs skoliniams iš jakutų удаган ‚šamanė, ragana, burtininkė‘, o pastarąjį – iš mongolų удаган ‚šamanė‘, hipotezės autorius pamiršo nurodyti: I. pirminį skolinimosi šaltinį (!!!), mat sieti jį su Anikino nurodomu tiurkų *iduk ‚šventas‘ nepatikima ne tik dėl tokios formos vartosenos stokos gyvojoje kalboje (tai, matyt, vienas pagrindinių kazuistikos bruožų, kai pateikiama neva autentiška prolytė, paremta vieninteliu argumentu – asterisku (!!!); be to, toks skolinys nenurodomas rusų kalbos tiurkizmų sąvade (Шипова 1976: 342–343)), bet ir morfofonetinio skolinio ir substratinės formos neatitikimo (!!!); II. morfologinių kitimų grandi – visiškai neaišku, (a) kodėl jakutų удаган ‚šamanė, ragana, burtininkė‘, suponuojantis moteriškosios giminės referentą, rusų kalboje vartojamas su suff. r. -ка; (b) jei spėtume, kad toks morfologinis kitimas nulemtas kontaminacijos su r. dial. шаманка ‚keiksmažodis‘ (apie šio žodžio kilmę plačiau žr. Фасмер IV 401; Аникин 2000: 688), reikėtų paaiškinti, kaip rusų kalbos Sibiro dialekte galėjo būti pradėtas vartoti skolinys, savo morfologine struktūra neatitinkantis morfotaktinės šios kalbos sistemos. Be to, vienas pagrindinių argumentų, suponuojančių Anikino hipotezės klaidingumą – šioje rytų slavų kalboje ir jos Sibiro dialekte plačiai vartojamas jau minėtas tos pačios semantinės vertės skolinys r. шаманъ, шаман́ка ‚laukinų Sibiro genčių apgavikų kasta, kurių atstovai, besiverčiantys burtininkavimu, apgaudinėja žmones‘ (CAP VI 850), шаман, шаманка ‚kulto tarnautojai, bendraujantys su dvasiomis; burtininkas, žiniuonis, gebantis sukelti ekstazės būseną‘ (БТСРЯ 1489), t. y. Anikino „hipotezė“ neatitinka visuotinų superstatinės 62 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari a morphemic transposition (metathesis) brought about by Slavic taboo: Bulgarian неперуна, неперуда, непнепуда, нпеперуда (MC 431); the name of the Slavic deity of wealth and cattle Волос, altered according to an anagrammatic transposition pattern, cf. Russian Соловей-разбойник ← Волос (read from left to right) (see MC 496)). The East Slavic theonym Стрибог, mentioned in the oldest chronicle of Kievan Rus (more precisely, in its copies), Мокошь, and others belong to the same group (see Крегждис 2010: 211–213 for more detail). This phenomenon was also applied, and continues to be observed, when pronouncing the tetragrammaton-form name YHWH of the non-Indo-European supreme Jewish deity, who was originally the god of a single pastoral tribe (the tribe of Judah) (MC 633). Analysis of the four theonyms mentioned in Łasicki’s work showed that two (Salaus, Tavvals) reflect morphotactically authentic dialect forms, while two—were foisted… postulates concerning the emergence of lexical items: loanword – “the use of the lexical resources of other languages to express new concepts, to further differentiate those already in existence, and to designate previously unknown objects (often, these concepts and objects themselves become known to speakers of the language in question only as a result of contact with the peoples from whose languages the corresponding words are borrowed).” (Ахманова 1969: 150–151); “Adoption of a linguistic expression from one language into another language, usually when no term exists for the new object, concept, or state of affairs” (Bussmann 2006:139). A questionable feature of Anikin’s methodology for determining the origin of this word is the complete absence of synchronic analysis. Anikin neither analyzes nor details the lexical characteristics of Russian, but instead undertakes to reconstruct changes in non-Indo-European languages (see also Аникин 2009: 155 (this researcher not only explains Russian inherited words as Turkic borrowings—of course, without presenting the results of either morphological or semantic analysis, since he performs none—but also undertakes the “Finnicization” of Baltic vocabulary: according to Anikin, Lithuanian odą, jūrą, kadagys, etc., are the clearest borrowings from Finnic languages (Аникин 2009: 155); strange as it may seem, when assessing Wojciech Smoczyński’s work and reproaching him for citing too few works written in Cyrillic, the reviewer himself, while discussing hypotheses on the origin of Baltic vocabulary, ignores the most important works in Baltic studies written in the Latin alphabet, in which such “claims” were refuted long ago (Būga II 273; PEŽ II 65, 55–56; LEW 516, etc.))), although the deverbal origin of Russian удаганка ‘witch (term of abuse)’ (see above), rather than its status as a loanword, is beyond doubt (moreover, the Turkic-language examples mentioned should be considered borrowings from Russian, not vice versa (!!!)): Russian dialectal зад ‘clairvoyant’ in Olonets Governorate (1846), Vologda, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Perm, western Russia; ‘мяслюс, a person who guesses (or guesses at) something’ in Yaroslavl (1853); ‘wise man’ in Vologda and Perm (CPHF VI 90), Russian dialectal задь ‘wise man; sorceress, priestess’ in western Russia (Даль I 339) ← Russian dialectal *задан ‘same meaning’ (with apocope of the suffix -ан due to contamination with Russian зад ‘snake’ (CPHF VI 89)—a term from the sacred sphere (!!!) (~ cf. the morphological nomina agentia structure) Russian молчанъ ‘a dog that bites but does not bark’ (← Russian verb молчать ‘to be silent, remain calm, etc.’) (Даль II 343) (for more examples, see Зализняк 1980: 494–496)) ↔ Russian зада́нка ‘female fortune-teller’ in the Urals (1963) (CPHF VI 90). Failure to take structural changes into account led to lexemes of entirely different origins and/or formations—homophones Russian зад ‘snake’ and Russian dialectal зад ‘clairvoyant, etc.’—being linked into a single lexical-semantic nest (CPHF VI 89–90). One of the main pieces of evidence for the deverbal origin of Russian удаганка ‘witch (term of abuse)’ (< *уагаданка ‘witch, clairvoyant’) is its Ukrainian lexical-semantic counterpart (in both derivational and semantic terms), Ukrainian угадник (вгадник) ‘clairvoyant’ ↔ угадниця (вгадниця), same meaning (fem.)’ ← Ukrainian verb угадуватися (вгадуватися) ‘to predict, intuit, be superstitious; 2. to guess, make a guess; 3. to find out’ (→ Ukrainian угадництво (вгадництво) ‘the ability to guess’ (see СУМ 371). Straipsniai / Articles 63 ALL_62_63 maketas.indd 63 2011.06.17 08:23:51 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS … forms, whose structural variation is to be explained by: I. the type of adjacent metathesis, in which the phonotactic structure of the second morpheme of the same stem is changed, i.e., AXBY → AB(XY) (Klamals); II. the metathesis of the first two syllables14, or the adjacent (of syllables located next to each other) type of metathesis, in which the first morpheme of the same stem is replaced by the second, i.e., AB → BA (Atlaibos) (see notes 7–10). On the basis of these arguments, and given the morphophonetic structure of the deity’s name under consideration, which is atypical of Lithuanian, a new hypothesis for the origin of the theonym Chaurirari may be formulated: it is likely to reflect type II morphotactic variation: Lith. *Kauriraris ‘god of horses’ < ← Lith. noun *kaurikaris ‘same’ (r...r < r...k (regressive assimilation at close range)) ↔ Lith. noun *kaurikanis (r...r < r...n (regressive assimilation at a distance)) < ← Lith. noun *kaukarinis ‘same’ (morphotactic metathesis due to taboo (?) (for more detail, see Kregždys 2010: 51–52; 2010₍: 88) < ← Lith. adjective *kaukarinis ‘belonging to Kaukarius’ (cf. mythologemes: Lith. noun rugìnis ‘such a fairy-tale creature’ Mš; ‘autumn month, September’ S. Dauk (LKŽe) ← Lith. adjective rugìnis, -ė ‘made or produced from rye’ SD 463, etc.; ‘belonging to rye’ N, Nmč, Aps, Ps, Pb, Vžns, Dv, L. Paukš., Švn; ‘related to rye’ Lz; ‘suitable for growing rye (of land)’ KzR, Krsn, Alk, Smn; ‘ripening at the same time as rye’ Skr, Stak, Lkv, Ggr, Rt; ‘sung while cutting rye’ Švnč, etc.; ‘spreading, parasitic on or among rye’ LBŽ, F; ‘being or living among rye’ LKK XIII 140 (Grv) (LKŽe); Lith. noun jaũrinis 14Cf. examples of metathesis, presumably caused by the taboo phenomenon: 1) Lithuanian dialectal vilbãtas ‘(myth.) a person able to turn into a wolf or be turned into one by others’ BŽ 305, etc.; ‘(fig.) said of a frightening, cruel person’ Ant, Ut (LKŽe) < *viltakas ‘werewolf’ < vilk-takas Š; a similar change also occurred in Latvian (which only confirms the possible operation of a taboo phenomenon—a common Baltic mythological-religious motif): Latvian vilkata Latvju dainas 19392, 2; vilkate 19424; vilkatis 19392 (cf. Būga I 221); 2) Latvian klemu (māte) (with affricated c- (< *k-) > k- due to its position before a consonant (!!!) (for more detail, see Endzelynas 1957: 40)) ← Latvian ceļmu māte ‘mother of stumps ↔ mother of devils ↔ she-devil’, owing to the devil’s localization associated with a “stump”; cf. Lithuanian dialectal (Samogitian) kėlmas ‘a curse used to avoid mentioning the devil’ Dr, Užv (i.e., a euphemistic address for the devil ~ to go under the stumps ‘to disappear, perish’ Dr → ‘to go to the devil’, cf. užskas išėję puõ_kelmų Dr; Lithuanian adjective (Samogitian) kėlmiškas, -ė ‘very bad, devilish’ (see DūnŽ 128) (this conjecture may also be supported by the mention of a bluko(-io) (a Latvianism) // a block of wood, a log, i.e., a stump (part of a log), during Shrovetide (cf. LE XXXII 368), which apparently symbolized the devil; according to Baltic mythological data, the devil is associated with an underground dwelling where it was cold (JBR I 9)—hence, during this festival, the cold and winter are driven away (!!!). The same meaning of this rite was apparently also characteristic of the Christmas log-dragging rite (for more detail, see Vaicekauskas 2005: 75–76)). Further cf. sporadic metathetic changes in the Baltic languages caused by extralinguistic factors: Lithuanian verb to wave, swing ‘to wave, swing, gesticulate’ A. Vien. ~ to swing, sway Gl; ‘to move while hanging, dangle, flutter’ Dkš, Dbk, etc.; ‘to tremble’ Er; move, sway, wave’ Vd, Sb, etc.; ‘to do something, work with waving hand movements’ Dbk, etc.; ‘to walk hurriedly’ Ds, etc.; ‘to travel, go (usually for no reason)’ Er, Pc; ‘to wag one’s tongue, chatter’ Dbk, Dgl, Ut; to frolic, run wild Rm; ‘to dress strangely, adorn oneself, put on airs’ Rm (LKŽe) (for more examples, see Būga II 410); 3) Old Prussian wubri ‘eyelash’ E 82 ← Old Prussian *bruwi ‘eyebrow’ (due to contamination with German wimpro ‘Wimper’ (PEŽ IV 266)). 64 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 64 2011.06.17 08:23:52 M. Stryjkowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari ‘devil’ (Vėlius 1987: 40) ← Lith. adjective jáujinis, -ė, jaujos; dried in a threshing barn (before threshing); threshed in a threshing barn; beaten in a threshing barn’ Ggr, etc. (LKŽe); Lith. noun javinė ‘goddess of grain’ [K] ↔ Lith. noun javinis ‘keeper of a grain store, recorder of grain stocks’ [K]; Lex 55, etc. ← Lith. adjective javinis, -ė ‘of grain’ K I 537, etc. (LKŽe), etc. (see also Крегждис 2009: 305)) ← nomen proprium (theonym) Lith. Kaukarus 59812 (Kaukarius) ‘god of mountains; Berg Gott’, mentioned by Jokūbas Brodovskis (JBŽ II 175; III 364) (Kristijonas Gotlibas Milkus later also drew on this source (cf. LKE 417; JBR II 158)), reflecting a very ancient, or primary, protosememe of this deity (!!!) (see below). According to Toporov, the presence—or, more precisely, recurrence—of such mythopoetic parallels in works by authors from different periods “is no accident, no exception, but a necessity and regularity, determined by a mysterious and profound meaning” (Топоров 2007: 112), that is, one of the principal arguments for the authenticity of a lexical unit not only in its formal aspect but also in its semantic and cultural aspect (cf. Old Prussian Curche ‘deity of horned cattle’, mentioned in the thirteenth-century Treaty of Christburg, and the deity Karwaitis ‘god of calves’ cited by seventeenth-century author Matas Pretorijus (BRMŠ III 261) (see Крегждис 2009: 286, 305, 319)). To establish the derivational base of Lith. Kaukarus, its analysis should perhaps begin with a discussion of the inflectional format -ius, since derivatives with the suffix *-ių- ordinarily imply verbal abstracts; cf. Lith. noun gýrius ‘praise, honor’ DP 150, 320, etc. (Skardžius 1996: 76). Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that forms of *-i̯ō- and *-i̯ū-stems with the same meaning are used very frequently in Lithuanian dialects (cf. Lith. dėdžius ‘uncle’ Vlkv, Sasnava ↔ Lith. dialectal dėdis Jrb, Skr—a rather old phenomenon (cf. Kazlauskas 1959: 41; Zinkevičius 1966: 255)); moreover, forms of *-i̯ō-stems occur alongside counterparts of the ē-stem (cf. Lith. dialectal pasáulė Krtn ‘world’ ↔ Lith. personal names Sáulīs Brš, Ob, Rk, Saulis Kn, Mdž, etc.; Saulỹs Pn, Švnčl, Trgn; Saũlius Alv, etc. (Zinkevičius 1966: 219)). The reason for this variation was clearly described by Kazimieras Būga (RR II 665; see also Zinkevičius 1966: 224), who argued that the causes of stem variation must be sought in the declensional system’s mixing of different stems—especially in Samogitian areas and neighboring western Aukštaitian dialects; that is, here, owing to the shortening of unstressed inflectional formatives (primarily, of course, in coastal Samogitian dialects), (gen. sg. of the i̯ā-stem) -ās > -es // -ēs (ē-stem) → i̯ā-stem ↔ ē-stem, and i̯ā-stem ↔ *-i̯ū-stem; cf. Karliáučia ‘Karaliaučius’ (Gerullis, Stang 1933: 18), for the same reason that the *-i̯ū-stem shifted to the *-i̯ō-stem, namely, the declensional leveling (morphological neutralization) of the nom. pl. forms of these stem types; cf. (nom. pl.) Lith. vaišius ‘fruit’, (nom. pl.) vaišiai ↔ Lith. sėnys ‘palace, splendid house’ SD⁵ 48 ~ (acc. pl.) fienius ŽCh 139₁₄ (< *sieniai) (for details, see Būga II 554–555; see also Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 291). Straipsniai / Articles 65 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Thus, it may be conjectured that the proper name Lith. Kaukarius ‘god of the mountains’ may have arisen by analogy15 with the personal name Lith. Šaulius Krš (LPŽ II 683) (← *saulius ‘sun’ < *saulia ‘id.’ < (ē-stem) Lith. saulė ‘id.’), implying an -iō-stem form *Kaukaris ‘id.’ (~ personal names Lith. Šaulis, Saulìs, Saulỹs ← *saulis, -ys) ↔ noun Lith. kaũkoris ‘mound, heap’ Klvr (LKŽe; see also Ambrazas 1993: 138; 2000, 116), which in turn derives from the ō-stem Lith. *Kaukaras16 ‘id.’ < (lexical metonymy), noun Lith. kaũkaras ‘hillock, hill, mound’ B, R, MŽ² 118, etc.; ‘mountaintop’ M, S. Dauk., RB 4 Moz 23,9; ‘rise in the ground, clod, grave mound’ B, J; ‘forehead, back of the head’ Kair (LKŽe) (cf. also Lith. kaũkoras, while 73 has ‘mandrake’ (CGL I 75); that is, the ‘fertility’ sememe is reflected (LE XVII 225), which is associated with one of the principal functions of a chthonic deity—successful reproduction, i.e. abundance of offspring). It has already been mentioned that the sememe ‘god of the mountains’ is apparently primary, and it is therefore necessary to determine how the meaning ‘deity of horses’ cited by Stryikowskis arose. This problem can be resolved only by carrying out a morphological (and thus etymological) analysis of noun Lith. kaũkaras ‘hillock, hill, mound’, etc. To date, this Lithuanian word has been explained as a derivative of noun Lith. kaukas with the suffix -ara- (Skardžius 1996: 303). Fraenkel (LEW I 230) derives it from noun Lith. kaũkas ‘boil, abscess, carbuncle’ K, J, LsB 194, N (LKŽe). This comparison is entirely understandable and clear, since both lexemes imply the referent ‘protuberance; that which protrudes, sticks out’. Nevertheless, the semantic relationship between these words and noun Lith. kaũkas ‘house spirit that brings wealth, aitvaras’ B, R, etc.; ‘soul of an unbaptized child’ K, C I 1059, J; ‘devil’ Lš; ‘an old, shrivelled, unkempt-haired person; an old-fashioned, superstitious person’ Mrj; ‘orchis’ Kp; ‘dwarf, short person’ K (LKŽe) is entirely unclear. Accordingly, the origin of the latter word is also unclear, although it was precisely the associations with this mythological figure and Lith. *Kaukaras or deity *Kaukarinis that led to the emergence of Stryikowskis’s cited meaning ‘deity of horses’: on the basis of folklore evidence, it has been established that kaukai, like aitvarai, look after horses (LE XI 186; (this is also characteristic of Slavic devils, which even call horses “black devils”); cf. Vėlius 1977: 124, 126; (kaukai) 184, 186–189, 193). It should be noted here that the comparison of kaukai with aitvarai is likewise not accidental (this problem, of course, requires separate study)—their functional connotations are often identical (JBR II 158; LE ibd.). Cf. Lith. aitvaras ‘mythical creature that brings wealth to people’ SD 129, 15 A similar analogical process is implied by tendencies toward shifts in the declensional types of other Lithuanian lexemes; cf. ō-stem Lith. žvyras Varn, Krž, žvyras (3) Škt ‘mixture of sand, gravel, and pebbles’ J, etc.; ‘earth, soil containing much gravel’ Jrb, etc.; ‘gravel pebble’ Pv, Akm, Krž, Jrb, Skdv; ‘sediment, sand formed in the body’ Škt (LKŽe) ~ iū-stem dialectal Lith. žvȳrius (2) NdŽ, etc., žvȳrius (4) Alv, etc., ‘id.’ (cf. We hauled a large heap of gravel LTR, see s.v. kaũpas—LKŽe). 16 This mythological figure apparently gave rise to the pejorative noun Lith. kaukaras ‘drunkard’ Q 22, Mit I 227 (LKŽe), since the tavern is a customary haunt of the devil (Vėlius 1987: 53–54, 94) (according to Russian folklore, all drunkards are in the devil’s power (!!!)—Власова 2008: 542–543, 547). 66 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Žmódzka i wszystkie Rusí teonimai: Chaurirari N, J, etc.; ‘toy that children send into the air on a string, kite’ J. Jabl.; ‘restless person, rascal’ Slnt, Krn, Tj (LKŽe); ‘horse collar (part of a horse’s harness)’ (Vėlius 1977: 174)). It is true that, according to Lithuanian folklore evidence (LTR 1583/51), the origin of the kaukai is associated with parts of horses’ bodies: they are hatched from the eggs of a black hedgehog (for details, see Vėlius 1977: 183). Mažiulis (PEŽ II 148–150), analyzing the genetic connections between the aforementioned East Baltic lexemes and noun Old Prussian cawx ‘devil’ E 11, attributed to the Prussian word a connotative sememe, unattested in any written source or folklore and supposedly characteristic of this deity: ‘one who is bent, hunched over, etc.’ (PEŽ II 149). Mažiulis’s claim cannot be accepted for a very simple reason: neither noun Old Prussian cawx ‘devil’ nor noun Lith. kaũkaras ‘hillock, hill, mound’ can derive from Balto-Slavic adjective *kauka- ‘bent, hunched over’ < Indo-European adjective *kouko-(: *keuko-) ‘bending (yielding, bent) so as to cover’ / ‘covering (covered) so as to bend (yield, be bent)’ < Indo-European verb *(s)keuk- / *(s)kouk- / *(s)kūk- ‘cover(oneself) in a bending (yielding) manner / bend (yield) so as to cover’ (PEŽ II 150), since these words imply connotations not of ‘bending’ but of ‘protruding, jutting out, being elevated’ (cf. Urbutis 1981: 77)—their semantic connotation is differential (for more on the referential value of these forms, see Paulauskas 1987: 64–65, 86). Similar conclusions are suggested by the illustrative Indo-European examples? *keuk- ‘to bend’ presented in LIV (I 319), i.e. examples meaning ‘to yield, stoop, (hunch) over’: verb Sanskrit (Vedic) ut-kucant- ‘to writhe; hunch over; bend’, Vedic n-gwč- ‘to bow’, Irish cúar ‘crooked’, Serbo-Croatian kûka ‘hook’, Lith. kaũkas ‘pine cone’ (incidentally, this meaning is not listed in LKŽ (!!!)). That is, no attention is paid to the crucial fact that a depression, i.e. ‘hollow’, is not a protrusion, i.e. ‘hill’. Thus, the origin of these words is entirely different from that proposed in the works of Fraenkel (LEW ibd.) and Mažiulis (PEŽ ibd.); Liubovė Kurkina follows them, linking Lith. kaũkaras with Slavic *čukorb—cf. Куркина 1992: 164)¹⁷. One of the arguments Mažiulis uses to support his conjecture about the possible reconstruction of Balto-Slavic adjective *kauka- ‘bent, hunched over’ is the erroneous claim made by the authors of the Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Languages (see ЭССЯ XIII 86–87, 94) that noun Russian kyka ‘fist, clenched hand’ (for more on its origin, see Фасмер II 404) can be compared with dialectal Russian kyka ‘wood spirit who lives in a bathhouse’ (cf. CPHH XVI 30)—the two are presented as members of a single lexical-semantic set. Unfortunately, these words have entirely different origins: dialectal Russian kyka ‘wood spirit who lives in a bathhouse’ (ЭССЯ XIII 87) is a lalwort (apparently arising from the onomatopoeic bu-bu, an imitation of the sounds of a great horned owl or an owl, and contaminated with the pejorative Russian káka ‘ugh; filth, evil, dirt, excrement’ (Даль II 75), which is also a lalwort), reflecting regressive assimilation (concerning the language 17 This interpretation is repeated in the most recent works devoted to Prussian lexicology as well (for more, see Brazaitis 2010: 150). Straipsniai / Articles 67 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 67 2011.06.17 08:23:52 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS the user’s (child’s (!!!)) poor articulation: k…κ ← 6…κ) r. бу́ка ‘devil; mythical being’, etc. (CPHF III 262), ‘a monster (bogeyman) with which sensible caretakers frighten children; superhuman being; bear; an evil, cruel, intractable person’ (Даль I 138). Another relative of Prussian caws ‘devil’, cited by Mažiulis, is Latvian kaūcens ‘common toad; frog’ (ME II 172), which likewise has an entirely different origin from the one proposed by the author of the conjecture. It should be treated as the noun Latvian kauca ‘howling, shouting, bellowing’ (ME ibd.) and a derivative with the suffix -ęn-s (~ Latvian meita ‘daughter; girl, young woman, maid’ → meitēns ‘little girl; lass’, Latvian māsa ‘sister’ → Latvian māsēns ‘cousin, nephew’ (Endzelīns 1951: 303); further compare the noun Lithuanian tylā ‘absence of noise or sounds; quiet, composure, peace, calm’ FrnW, KŽ, etc.; ‘silence’ SD 151, etc.; ‘calm weather, a lull’ NdŽ, GTŽ, DŽ; ‘a quiet place, a quiet corner’ Vd; ‘a taciturn person, a quiet one’ NdŽ, K (LKŽe) → tylēnis, -ē ‘a quiet person, a quiet one’ DŽ, NdŽ, etc.; ‘a person who does not express their views publicly’ DŽ (LKŽe); Lithuanian gárbanà ‘curly hair, wool, or plants’ K, etc. (LKŽe) → Lithuanian dialectal gerbēnis, -ē ‘one whose hair is curly’ Pc, Sml, etc. (LKŽe) (see also Skardžius 1996: 235), and others); Latvian kauca, however, is a deverbal noun, derivable from the Latvian verb kàukt ‘to wail, roar, lament; to cry, sob; make a noise; whistle (of the wind); crackle, creak; (of the ear) ring with a piercing sound18 (ME II173), compare Latvian kaūkuris ‘whistling whirlwind’ (ME ibd.). Thus, Mažiulis’s account of the origin of Prussian caws and, respectively, Lithuanian kaūkas needs to be revised. The problem of determining the origins of the Lithuanian kaūkaras, Lithuanian kaūkas, and Prussian cawx ‘devil’ is easily resolved by relying on the semantic and genetic connection between these lexemes and the word for ‘toad’—the ancient Baltic household deity—correctly identified by Mažiulis (the conjecture author’s interpretation of the mythologeme is highly doubtful (see below)). Contrary to Mažiulis (PEŽ II 148), however, the words mentioned above are linked not with Latvian kaūcens, which is of onomatopoeic origin, but with the Latvian noun kaupis ‘toad’ (EH I 594), Latvian kaūpiņš ‘toad, frog; a mushroom protruding above the ground’, Latvian kàupenis2 ‘toad’, and Latvian kaūpītis ‘toad, frog’ (ME II 177). These point not to some mysterious mythological referent, a “household deity”—so there is no need to reconstruct a Latvian form *kaūk-ena ‘pertaining to a kaukas, belonging to the kaukai (household deities)’ (PEŽ ibd.), a form that never existed—but to the sememe ‘a protuberance, something jutting out of the ground’19, which is easily justified etymologically ↔ Latvian kau-pis ‘shell’ (ME ibd.). The origins of the different accentual forms, whose particular significance Mažiulis emphasizes (PEŽ ibd.), are readily explained by Lithuanian correspondences, reflect- 18 The onomatopoeic origin of Latvian kaūcens can also be supported by Latvian kauķis ‘toad’ (ME II 357) < and the Latvian verb kaukstēt ‘to make a “kiau kiau” sound, yelp, and the like’ <; (onomatopoeic) Latvian kàuku ‘kiau kiau’ (ME ibd.). 19 Latvian kaūpiņš ‘a derogatory designation for a lowly person or animal’ (EH I 594) indicates that the word’s meaning originated as a common noun, apparently owing to the pejorative connotation of its referent, ‘toad’ or ‘frog’. 68 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Žmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari ting the proto-forms underlying these genders: Lithuanian noun kaūpas, káupas ‘rise, mound, heap’ K, etc.; ‘potatoes or vegetables piled up, covered with straw and buried in earth; cellar’ Brt, etc.; ‘excess over a measure, surplus’ R, SD 398, etc.; ‘that which exceeds the norm, more than necessary, the top’ Kt, Slk, etc.; ‘crown of the head’ Ds (LKŽe). It should be emphasized that historically the root of these forms is a weak base, while the emergence of acute-accented forms was caused by the collective-forming suffix *-ā (for details, see Kregždys 2010a: 29–31); compare the Lithuanian noun káupa ‘mound’ ↔ Lithuanian dialectal káupas ‘the same’ (likewise South-Croatian kùpa ‘heap’ ↔ kùp ‘the same’ (see Būga II 442); Būga (I 441) regards the masculine form as an innovation), Latvian kuõpa ‘heap, bundle (a sheaf of grain), stack’, adverbial Latvian dialectal kuõpā ‘together’ ↔ Lithuanian dialectal kuopa ‘haystack, cone-shaped pile, stack’ (cf. Būga II 355) < noun Baltic *kaupa- ‘accumulation’ < adjective Baltic *kaupa- ‘piled up’ (cf. PEŽ II 151) < verb Balto-Slavic *kaup-/*kūp- ‘to pile up; to protrude’ (< Indo-European *keup- ‘the same’ (Pokorny’s reconstructed sememe (IEW 591) ‘to bend, incline, etc.’ is wholly unsuitable for explaining the semantic development of the lexemes mentioned above and should therefore be revised)) > Lithuanian verb kaũpti ‘to dig into a heap, make a mound’ K, J; ‘to mound earth around the stem of a plant or something else, to bank up’ K, N, Krsn, Ktk, J; ‘to collect, gather, concentrate’ Mrs; ‘to hoard, seize for oneself’ J (LKŽe). Thus, it may be conjectured that Lithuanian kaũkaras, Lithuanian kaũkas, and Prussian caux reflect a phonetic change in the word’s structure brought about by progressive assimilation (k…p > k…k): Baltic noun *kaupa- ‘accumulation’ (→ derivatives with the suffix -(a)ra-) Lithuanian kauprà ‘hill’, kaũparas ‘mound’ V1 (Būga I 447); Latvian kaupra ‘hill’ (EH I 595), Latvian kàupre2 ‘small hill; ridge’ (ME II 177), Latvian kàupris2 ‘ridge; back of the head’ (EH I 595)) ⇒ *kauka- ‘the same’; compare the Lithuanian proper name Kaũkas ‘collects all sorts of things and carries them home’ Tv (Butkus 1995: 255) (in the Kaunas area, Lithuanian kaũkas is understood only as a miserly person who drags everything home (!!!) – R. K.) ↔ Lithuanian verb kaũpti ‘to hoard, seize for oneself’ (see above). This change apparently already occurred in Proto-Balto-Slavic²⁰; compare South-Croatian kùpa ‘heap, mound; group of trees or people; haystack; pile’ // kùp ‘the same’, hydronym Kùpa ‘a river in Croatia; Κόλαπις (mentioned by Strabo)’ (RHS 789, 791; see also Būga II 442) ↔ Slovenian kúk ‘hill’ (cf. PEŽ II 150), Croatian kùk ‘(anatomy) the upper (protruding) part of the human and animal thighbone; top of a stone’ (RHJ: 517; RHS: 20 The assumption that this process arose early is also supported by examples from Prussian toponymy and hydronymy, which reflect the existence of possible place-name variants with root –p- and –k-: South Prussian toponym Kaukenynen 1400 (Gerullis 1922: 58; Blažienė 2005: 271), Prussian toponyms Kaucaliskis 1331, Kaukelawke 1394 (Gerullis ibd.), Prussian toponyms Koken 1755, Nūwe Kuckendorff 1380, etc. (Przybytek 1993: 102–103, 315) ~ Prussian hydronym (river) Caupeaps 1395, Prussian toponym Kaupsitten 1343 (Gerullis ibd.). Such a cautious assumption is warranted by the abundant Latvian toponymic material (with root –p-) and the existence of clear phonetic alternants in this East Baltic language: Latvian toponyms Kaupa, Kaũpas, Kaũpes ~ Lithuanian toponym Káupos; Latvian toponyms Kàupari2, Kauper-kalns; Kaũpes-kalns ↔ Latvian toponyms Kaukuri, Kaũkure, Kauk̦u kalns, and others (for further examples, see Endzelīns 1961: 63, 67–68). Therefore, it is possible to conjecture—very cautiously—that some Prussian and Lithuanian place-names and hydronyms with the root kauk- are associated not with the referential connotation of ‘kaukas’ or ‘devil’, but with that of ‘hill’ or ‘mountain’ (!!!). Straipsniai / Articles 69 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 69 2011.06.17 08:23:52 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS 753), S.-Croatian kùk (kūk), kūka ‘huge stone, boulder’, place-name (in Bosnia) Kùk // Kūk ‘large hill’ (RHS ibid.)21. This conjecture can also be supported mythologically, since it is known that “the kaukas, like the Russian дворовой, Swedish ritomte, Norwegian Nisse, Finnish tanh(u)an haltija, tallitonttu, riihenhaltija and other beings, is more closely associated with the threshing barn and stable than with human dwellings—it carries grain and hay, looks after horses, and so on” (Vėlius 1977: 188), that is, the kaukas piles things up or accumulates them; compare the meanings of the Lithuanian verb already mentioned, kaũpti, namely ‘to heap up, make a pile’ and ‘to collect, gather, concentrate’ (LKŽe). Thus it becomes clear that both Fraenkelis and Mažiulis assigned words of entirely different origins and meanings—phonetic homonyms (homophones)—to a single lexical-semantic set: noun Lithuanian kaũkas ‘a household spirit that brings wealth, an aitvaras’, ‘the soul of an unbaptized child’, ‘the devil’, ‘an old, withered person with matted hair; an old-fashioned, superstitious person’, ‘a fungus growing on tree trunks’, ‘a dwarf, a small person’ (LKŽe) < Indo-European *keup- ‘to pile up; to protrude’ (this sememe is not distinguished in IEW 591; explained differently in PEŽ II 61) ≠ noun Lithuanian kaũkas ‘a fishing implement—a wooden hook or bow used to turn a pole that does not run straight beneath the ice’ Vdšk, Srj, Klt, Ign, Rš, Švnč, Lkm, Plš, Nmn; ‘a pole for tightening a load on a cart, a clamp’ Dglš (LKŽe) < verb Indo-European *keuk- ‘to bend (with, out of)’ (IEW 588–589) (see also PEŽ II 150). On the basis of the analysis conducted, it can be stated with confidence that the sememe ‘mountain god’ of the nomen prop. (theonym) Kaukarius mentioned in the dictionaries of Brodovskis and Milkū is primary, whereas Stryikowskis’s 21 Petar Skok connects S.-Croatian kùk, gen. kùka ‘upper part of the thighbone, etc.’ with S.-Croatian kàlk (< Proto-Slavic *klьkbъ), ‘thigh; coxa, femur’, and derives it from Indo-European *kl̥k- ‘to bend (with)’ (Skok II 225); however, the place-name Kùk (Milna, Brač), which he himself cites, ‘a high-altitude area with a snowy hill’, implies a referent of “protrusion,” not “bending” (!!!); that is, it is connected not with S.-Croatian kàlk ‘thigh’, but with S.-Croatian kùk (kūk), kūka ‘huge stone, boulder’ (RHS 753), and the latter with S.-Croatian küp (Vuk, Kosmet, ŽK) ‘pile, heap; group of trees or people; haystack; bundle’, kúpa (Vuk) ‘pile, acervus; bundle of reeds’, comparable with Lithuanian kaũpas (cf. Skok II 225, 236–237). Skok also recognized genetic connections among these lexemes, identifying the differences between the proto-forms Indo-European *queu-p ↔ Indo-European *queu-k- solely as an alternation between the different formatives *-k- and *-p- (Skok II 237). Such a dismissive assessment of these words led to the splitting of lexemes of the same origin (reflecting progressive assimilation: k…p → k…k) into separate lexical-semantic sets; that is, the proto-form of these words is Proto-Slavic *kupъ ‘pile, heap’ > Old Church Slavonic εὔιυ, σωρός, acervus, Bulgarian куп ‘pile; abundance, multitude’, etc. (for more detail, see ЭССЯ XIII 114). Also worth mentioning here is Oleg Trubachov’s entirely implausible conjecture (ЭССЯ XIII 115) that the accentual mismatch between S.-Croatian kȕp and Lithuanian kaũpas should be explained by reconstructing different proto-forms: Indo-European *kou-p-o- ↔ Indo-European *kou-ə-p-o-. For some reason, the author of this conjecture ignores Būga’s (I 441) statement that S.-Croatian kȕp (gen. masc.) should be regarded as an innovation, that is, this form arose from S.-Croatian kȕpa, whose acute accent was apparently prompted by the collective suffix Indo-European *-ā (for more detail, see Kregždys 2010a: 31–41). Būga’s hypothesis can also be supported by the development of the grammatical category nomina collectiva → gen. masculinum found in Indo-European languages (see Kregždys 2010a: 54–55). Consequently, one may hypothesize that the lexical-semantic pair kȕpa ‘pile, heap; group of trees or people; haystack; bundle’ // kȗp ‘the same’ used in Serbian and Croatian, following Būga’s conjecture, is late; therefore, the acute accent in S.-Croatian kȕp arose by analogy with gen. fem. kȗpa (for more on this form, see ЭССЯ XIII 107–108), and does not reflect Indo-European *kou-ə-p-o-, which apparently never existed. 70 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veakalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkieji Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari *Kaukarinis ‘horse deity’ is secondary, prompted by the functional connotation of the deity; that is, Lithuanian kaũkas implies the protosememe ‘a deity dwelling on a hill, where it piles = accumulates wealth’. Thus, contrary to Balius (JBR II 158), it can confidently be asserted that this theonym should be treated as one of Velinas’s epithets. In addition to analyzing the aforementioned theonym, it is necessary to discuss the origin of several Russian lexemes that Toporov apparently, and incorrectly, connected with Chaurirari (Топоров 2000: 184; 2006: 200): 1. Dialectal Russian kaýp ‘a long-handled wooden mallet for stunning fish’ (used in the Urals, Siberia, and the Ob River basin (western Siberia)) (CPHI XIII 138), which Toporov identifies as a Balticism (Топоров ibid.), allegedly reflecting Lithuanian noun kaũras ‘a long pole for stirring tar while it boils’ (LKŽe). This conjecture cannot be credited not only because of the distribution of the Russian lexeme—that is, it is attested in a territory never inhabited by the Balts (unless it was a place of exile; admittedly, data on the word’s use were collected in 1908)—but also because of the origin of the Lithuanian word in question: Lithuanian kaũras is an adapted Slavic loanword, connected with Russian *ковыр ‘a tool denoting a slow stirring process’ ↔ Russian ковы́рка ‘that with which one digs, carves, cuts out, (inter)weaves; a bast-fibre or birch-bark tie used to tighten a bast shoe; a blow; an ugly, slow-witted person’ (CPHI XIV 38) (← Russian verb ковыря́ть ‘to fidget, turn, row, do something slowly and clumsily’ (CPHI XIV 39–40; Даль II 129)) ~ Russian копу́шка ‘a slow person; a loser’ ↔ kóna ‘the same’; Russian копа́ло ‘tusk’ ↔ копа́лка ‘any digging tool’ (Даль II 157). Regarding the origin of dialectal Russian kaýp ‘a long-handled wooden mallet for stunning fish’, one may hypothesize that it is genetically related to Russian коварный ‘one who forges fittings, chains, and shackles’ (Даль II 127) < Russian noun коварь ‘blacksmith’ (Даль ibid.) < Russian verb кова́ть ‘to work metal with a hammer, give metal any shape; to strike rhythmically with a hammer as if on an anvil’ (Даль ibid.); that is, graphically it should be treated as an example of phonetic codification reflecting an assimilated form (without root -v-, cf. Russian кавунь ‘watermelon, pumpkin’ ↔ dialectal Russian kaýп ‘the same’ (Даль II 71)), which presupposed the form *kaur ← *koar (a change in phonetic root structure due to the -oa- phonotactic sequence, which is unusual in Russian). The semantic shift referent ⇕ connotation ⇒ referent can be explained on the basis of the principle of internal semantic change (for more detail, see Kregždys 2010a: 24–25): Straipsniai / Articles 71 ALL_62_63 maketas.indd 71 2011.06.17 08:24:01 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS 2. Verb. Russian dialect. kaýputься ‘to be angry; to frown, to be gloomy or sullen; to be proud; to be stubborn’ (Даль II 98; see also CPНГ XIII 138) is likewise not a Balticism, contrary to Toporov’s claim, since it is a denominal formation borrowed from Turkish kovur ‘brown’, Kazakh konur ‘light bay, pale dun, sorrel; dark bay (with a black tail and mane)’ (Фасмер II 211). The following semantic development of this verb is likely: ‘brown, dark bay’ ↔ ‘browned, darkened’ ↔ ‘darkened, browned (dark in color), hence also sullen’ ↔ ‘angry’ ↔ ‘frowning because angry’ ↔ ‘sullen, hence also frowning’. Conclusions 1) The theonym Chaurirari reflects metathesis of the first two syllables, or the adjacent (between neighboring syllables) type of metathesis, involving the replacement of the first morpheme of the same stem by the second. The following morphotactic development may be posited: Lithuanian *Kauriraris ‘god of horses’ < from Lithuanian noun *kaurikaris ‘the same’ (r...r < r...k (adjacent progressive assimilation)) ↔ Lithuanian noun *kaurikanis (r...r < r...n (distant progressive assimilation)) < from Lithuanian noun *kaukarinis ‘the same’ (morphotactic metathesis due to taboo) < from Lithuanian adjective *kaukarinis ‘belonging to Kaukarius’; 2) The deity’s name Chaurirari is not a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. It is associated with the nomen proprium (theonym) Kaukarius ‘god of mountains’, attested in several works by eighteenth-century lexicographers and cultural figures of Lithuania Minor; 3) Lithuanian kaũkaras, Lithuanian kaũkas, and Old Prussian cawx reflect a change in the phonetic structure of the word caused by progressive assimilation (k...p > k...k): Baltic *kaupa- ‘a heap’ > Lithuanian kaũpas, kãupas ‘a rise, mound, heap’ (→ derivatives with suffix –(a)ra–: Lithuanian kauprà ‘hill’, kãuparas ‘mound’; Latvian kaupra ‘hill’, Latvian kàupre² ‘small hill; ridge’, Latvian kàupr̃is² ‘ridge; back of the head’) ⇒ *kauka– ‘the same’; 4) The sememe ‘god of mountains’ of the nom. propr. (theonym) Kaukarius mentioned in Brodovskis’s and Milkus’s dictionaries is primary, whereas Stryjkowski’s *Kaukarinis ‘deity of horses’ is secondary, prompted by the functional connotation of a deity; 5) Noun, Russian dialect kaýp ‘wooden mallet for stunning fish’ and verb, Russian dialect kaýputься ‘to be angry; to frown, to be gloomy or sullen; to be proud; to be stubborn’ are not Balticisms. LITERATŪRA BRMŠ I–IV – Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai, sud. Norbertas Vėlius. 1–2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996–2001; 3–4. Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003–2005. 72 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari Būga I–III – Būga Kazimieras. Rinktiniai raštai 1–3, sud. Zigmas Zinkevičius. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1958–1961. CGL I – Clavis Germanico-Lithvana. Rankraštinis XVII amžiaus vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas A–E. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995. DūnŽ – Vitkauskas Vytautas. Šiaurės rytų dünininkų šnektų žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. EH I–II – Endzelīns Jānis, Hauzenberga Edite. Papildinājumi un labojumi K. Mīlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīcai 1–2. Rīgā: Kultūras fonda izdevums, 1934–1946. IEW I–II – Pokorny Julius. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Bern und München: Francke Verlag, 1959–1969. JBR I–V – Balys Jonas. Raštai 1–5, par. Rita Repšienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998–2004. JBŽ I–III – Brodovskis Jokūbas. Lexicon Germanico=Lithvanicum et Lithvanico=Germanicum. Rankraštinis XVIII amžiaus žodynas, 1–3, parengė Vincentas Drotvinas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2009. Katičić I–II – Katičić Radoslav. Ancient Languages of the Balkans 1–2. The Hague & Paris: Cambridge University Press, 1976. LE I–XXXVII – Lietuvių enciklopedija 1–37. Bostonas: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1953–1985. LEW I–II – Fraenkel Ernst. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Heidelberg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962–1965. Linde I–VI – Linde M. Samuil Bogumil. Słownik języka polskiego 1–6. Warszawa: w Drukarni Xieży Pijarów, 1807–1814. LIV – Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1998. LKE – Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, red. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1999. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, elektroninis variantas, redaktorių kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Rიტutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008. www.lkz.lt. LM I–III – Lietuvių mitologija 1–3. Vilnius: Mintis, 1995–2003. LPŽ I–II – Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 1–2, red. Aleksandras Vanagas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985–1989. ME I–IV – Mūlenbachs Kārlis. Latviešu valodas vārdnīca 1–4, red. Jānis Endzelīns. Rīga: Izglītības ministerija, Kultūras fonds, 1923–1932. Straipsniai / Articles 73 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 73 2011.06.17 08:24:01 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS PEŽ I–IV – Mažiulis Vytautas. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988; 2–3. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993–1996; 4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1997. RHJ – Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža i Školska knjiga, 2000. RHS – Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika 1–5, red. Tomislav Maretić. Zagreb: Knjižarnici jugoslavenske akademije, 1898–1903. RV – R̥gvedaSaṃhitā. Skok II – Skok Petar. Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika 2. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 1972. SRP I – Scriptores rerum Prussicarum: Die Geschichtsquellen der Preussischen Vorzeit bis zum Untergange der Ordensherrschaft, hrsg. von Theodor Hirsch, Max Töppen und Ernst Strehlke, Bd 1. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1861. БТСРЯ – Большой толковый словарь русского языка, ред. С. А. Кузнецов. Санкт Петербург: Норинт, 2000. Даль I–IV – Даль Владимир. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка 1–4. Москва: Русский язык, 1989–1991. ПЯ I – Топоров Владимир Николаевич. Прусский язык: Словарь A–D. Москва: Наука, 1975. САР VI – Словарь Академии Россійской 6. Санктпетербургъ: Императорская Академія Наукъ, 1794. СМ – Славянская мифология. Энциклопедический словарь. Москва: Международные отношения, 2002. СРНГ I–XLIII – Словарь русских народных говоров 1–43. Ленинград: Наука, 1965–2009. ССЯ I–IV – Словарь старославянского языка 1–4. Санкт Петербург: Издательство Санкт-Петербургского университета, 2006. СУМ – Словник української мови X. Київ: Наукова думка, 1979. ЦЦСЯ I–IV – Словарь церковно-славянскаго и русскаго языка 1–4. СанктПетербургъ: типографія Императорской Академіи Наукъ, 1847. Фасмер I–IV – Фасмер Макс. Этимологический словарь русского языка 1–4. Москва: Прогресс, 1986–1987. ЦС I–V – Пётръ Алексьевъ. Церковный словарь 1–5. Санкт Петербургъ: типографія Ивана Глазунова, 1817–1819. 74 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari ЭССЯ – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Отв. ред. О. Н. Трубачёв. Москва: Наука, 1974–. Kiti sutrumpinimai kaip LKŽe (žr. www.lkz.lt). Ambrazas Saulius 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Ambrazas Saulius 2000: Daiktavardžių darybos raida 2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Balsys Rimantas 2006: Lietuvių ir prūsų dievai, deivės, dvasios: nuo apeigos iki prietaro. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla. Beresnevičius Gintaras 2006: M. Strijkovskio „Kronikos“ lietuvių dievų sąrašas (2). http://www.tekstai.lt/zurnalas-metai/394-gintaras-beresneviius-m-strijkovskio-kronikos-lietuvi-diev-sraas-2.html?catid=123%3A2006-nr-89-rugpjūtisrugsėjis. Blažienė Grasil da 2005: Baltische Ortsnamen in Ostpreußen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Brazaitis Kristina 2010: Johannes Bobrowski Pruzzische Vokabeln. Dunedin: University of Otago. Breidaks Antons 2006: Darbu izlase 1. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts. Bussmann Hadumod 2006: Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge. Butkus Alvydas 1995: Lietuvių praardės. Kaunas: Æsti. Endzelīns Jānis 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība. Endzelīns Jānis 1961: Latvijas PSR vietvārdi 2. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība. Endzelīnas Janis 1957: Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Gerullis Georg 1922: Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Gerullis Georg, Stang Christian 1933: Das Fischerlitauisch in Preussen. Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos knygų leidimo komisijos leidinys. Girdenis Aleksas, Girdenienė Danutė 1997: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ indeksas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Greimas Algirdas Julius 1990: Tautos atminties beieškant. Vilnius & Chicago: Mokslas. Straipsniai / Articles 75 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 75 2011.06.17 08:24:02 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Jasiūnaitė Birutė 2010: Šventieji ir nelabieji frazeologijoje ir liaudies kultūroje. Vilnius: VU leidykla. Kazlauskas Jonas 1959: Daiktavardžių (i)u linksniavimo nykimas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 2, 17–45. Kregždys Rolandas 2009: Pr. Romow pagal Petro Dusburgiečio „Prūsijos žemės kroniką“ ir kitos istorinės interpretacijos iki mūsų laikų (toponimo etimologinė analizė, lokalizacija). – Senovės baltų kultūra 8. Vilnius: Kronta, 120–184. Kregždys Rolandas 2009a: Iš baltizmų leksikografinės problematikos: dial. r. ančūm-ka. – Liutkevičienė Danutė & Zabarskaitė Jolanta. Nuo Konstantino Sirvydo iki Didžiojo žodyno. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 21. Kregždys Rolandas 2009b: Ide. suff. *-ko- semantinė sklaida baltų kalbose. – Res humanitariae 6, 112–132. Kregždys Rolandas 2010: Baltiškųjų teonimų perteikimo ir dievų funkcijų nustatymo problematika Jano Łasickio veikale „De Diis Samagitarvm Cæterorvmque Sarmatarum, & falſorum Chriſtianorum. Item de religione Arme-niorum“: Salaus, Klamals, Atlaibos, Ta-wals. – Perspectives of Baltic Philology. International conference abstracts. Poznań: Uniwer-sytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 51–52. Kregždys Rolandas 2010a: Baltų kalbų leksinės semantinės gretybės (paveldėtieji ō/ā kamienų kūno dalių pavadinimai). Vilnius: Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas. Kregždys Rolandas 2010b: Velionio išlydėjimo papročio, aprašyto Sūduvių knygelėje, verificavimo klausimu. – Etnologija: istorija, dabartis ir perspektyvos. Tarptautinės konferencijos tezės. Vilnius: LII leidykla; 13–14. Kregždys Rolandas 2010c: Motiejaus Strijkovskio veikale „Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi“ paminėto teonimo Chaurirari kilmė, dievybės funkcijos. – XI tarptautiska baltistu kongresa „Baltu valodu pagātne, tagatne un nākotne“ referātu tēzes. Riga: Latvijas Universitāte un Latvijas Universitātes Latviešu valodas institūts, 88–89. Kregždys Rolandas 2011: Baltų metempsichozė: velionio išlydėjimo papročio, aprašyto P. Orozijaus kronikos Wulfstano intarpe ir Sūduvių knygelėje, verificavimo klausimu. – Res humanitariae 8 (studija spausdinama). Lampe Geoffrey W. H. 1961: A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Łasickis Jonas 1969: Apie žemaičių, kitų sarmatų bei netikrų krikščionių dievus. Vilnius: Vaga. Liddell Henry George, Scott Robert 1882: A Greek-English Lexicon. New York, Cincinnati: American book company. Łowmiański Henryk 1935: Prusy pogańskie. Toruń: Instytut popierania nauki. 76 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63 maketas.indd 76 2011.06.17 08:24:02 M. Stryjkowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari Łowmiański Henryk 1989: Prusy – Litwa – Krzyżaci. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Mannhardt Wilhelm 1936: Letto-Preussische Götterlehre. Riga: Herausgegeben von der Lettisch-Literärischen Gesellschaft. Mikkola Jooseppi Julius 1908–1909: Zur slavischen Etymologie. – Indogermanische Forschungen 23(1–2), 124–138. Monier-Williams Monier A. 1872: A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Paulauskas Jonas 1987: Sisteminis lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Przybytek Rozalia 1993: Ortsnamen baltischer Herkunft im südlichen Teil Ostpreußens. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Shevelov George Y. 1964: A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common Slavic. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Skardžius Pranas 1996: Rinktiniai raštai 1; par. Albertas Rosinas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Stryjkowski Maciej Osostevicius 1582: Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi. Krolewen. Szemerényi Oswald 1977: Studies in the kinship terminology of the Indo-European languages with special reference to Indian, Iranian, Greek and Latin (Acta Iranica 16. Textes et mémoires 7). Leiden: E. J. Brill; Téhéran-Liége: Bibliothèque Pahlavi. Šewc-Schuster Hinc 1984: Gramatika hornjo-serbskeje rěče. Budyšin: Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina. Šimkūnaitė Eugenija 2001: Gyvenimo receptai. Vilnius: Žuvėdra. Urbutis Vincas 1981: Baltų etimologijos etiudai. Vilnius: Mokslas. Vaicekauskas Arūnas 2005: Lietuvių žiemos šventės. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla. Vaillant André 1950: Grammaire comparée des langues slaves 1. Lyon-Paris. Vey Marc 1931: Slave st- provenant d’i.-e. *pt-. – Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 32(1), 65–66. Vėlius Norbertas 1977: Mitinės lietuvių sakmių būtybės. Vilnius: Vaga. Vėlius Norbertas 1987: Chtoniškasis lietuvių mitologijos pasaulis. Vilnius: Vaga. Zieliński Tadeusz 1999: Religia Cesarstwa Rzymskiego. Toruń: Adam Marszałek. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Straipsniai / Articles 77 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 77 2011.06.17 08:24:02 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS А н и к и н А л е к с а н д р Е в г е н ь е в и ч 2000: Этимологический словарь русских диалектов Сибири. Москва-Новосибирск: Наука. А н и к и н А л е к с а н д р Е в г е н ь е в и ч 2009: (rec.) W. Smoczyński. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. 789 s.; Indeks wyrazów litewskich. 308 s. Wilno: Printer Polyglott, Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a. Main, 2007. – Вопросы языкознания 2009 (4), 152–156. А х м а н о в а О л ь г а С е р г е е в н а 1969: Словарь лингвистических терминов. Москва: Советская энциклопедия. Б е н в е н и с т Э м и л ь 1995: Словарь индоевропейских социальных терминов. Москва: Прогресс. Б е р н ш т е й н С а м у и л Б о р и с о в и ч 1953: Болгарско-русский словарь. Москва: Государственное издательство иностранных и национальных словарей. В е й М а р к 1958: К этимологии древнерусского ‘Стриbog’. Вопросы языкознания 3, 96–99. В л а с о в а М а р и н а Н и к и т и ч н а 2008: Энциклопедия русских суеверий. Санкт-Петербург: Издательский Дом „Азбука-классика“. Г а м к р е л и д з е Т а м а з В а л е р и а н о в и ч, И в а н о в В я ч е с л а в В с е в о л о д о в и ч 1984: Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы 1–2. Тбилисси: Universiteta. Г у р а А л е к с а н д р В и к т о р о в и ч 1997: Символика животных в славянской народной традиции. Москва: Индрик. Д ь я ч е н к о Г р и г о р и й 1993: Полный церковно-славянский словарь (со внесением въ него важнѣйшихъ древне-русскихъ словъ и выраженій). Москва: Издательский отдел Московского Патриархата. З а л и з н я к А н д р е й А н а т о л ь е в и ч 1980: Грамматический словарь русского языка. Словоизменение. Москва: Русский язык. И в а н о в В я ч е с л а в В с е в о л о д о в и ч 1974: Опыт истолкования древнеиндийских ритуальных и мифологических терминов, образованных от. aśva- «конь» (жертвоприношение коня и дерево aśvattha в древней Индии). – Проблемы истории языков и культуры народов Индии. Москва: Наука, 75–138. К а з а н с к е н е В а н д а П е т р о в н а, К а з а н с к и й Н и к о л а й Н и к о л а е в и ч 1986: Предметно-понятийный словарь греческого языка. Крито-микенский период. Ленинград: Наука. К р е г ж д и с Р о л а н д а с 2009: Прусс. Curche: этимология теонима, функции божества; проблематика установления культовых соответствий на почве обрядовой традиции восточно-балтийских, славянских и других индоевропейских народов. – Studia Mythologica Slavica 12, 249–320. 78 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryikowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkich Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari Крежджис Роландас 2010: Восточнославянские боги Киевской Руси: Стрибог (сопоставительный анализ данных славянской и балтийской мифологических систем). – Studia Mythologica Slavica 13, 211–232. Куркина Любовь Викторовна 1992: Диалектная структура праславянского языка по данным южнославянской лексики. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Лукашевич Платонъ 1846: ЧАРОМЖТІЕ, или священный языкъ маговъ волхвовъ и жрецовъ. Петръгородъ: типографія К. Винегебера. Маковский Марк Михайлович 1998: Метаморфозы слова (Табуирующие маркеры в индоевропейских языках). – Вопросы языкознания 4, 151–179. Маслов Юрий Сергеевич 1981: Грамматика болгарского языка. Москва: Высшая школа. Мейе Антуан 1954: Основные особенности германской группы языков. Москва: Изд. иностранной литературы. Нильссон Мартин 1998: Греческая народная религия. Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя. Откупщиков Юрий Владимирович 1988: Догреческий субстрат. Ленинград: Изд. ЛГУ. Откупщиков Юрий Владимирович 2006: Об этимологии гидронима Ловать. – Индоевропейское языкознание и классическая филология – X. Материалы чтений, посвященных памяти профессора Иосифа Моисеевича Тронского. 19–21 июня 2006 г. Санкт-Петербург: Наука, 215–219. Прохоров Андрей Аркадьевич 2002: О мифологической основе сюжета конного состязания в славянских исторических преданиях и фольклоре. – Балто-славянские исследования 15, 410–454. Семереньи Освальд 1967: Славянская этимология на индоевропейском фоне. – Вопросы языкознания 4, 3–25. Скрипник Лариса Григорівна, Дзятківська Ніна Пантелеймонівна 2005: Власні імена людей. Київ: Наукова думка. Суперанская Александра Васильевна и др. 1986: Теория и методика ономатических исследований. Москва: Наука. Суслова Анна Владимировна, Суперанская Александра Васильевна 1991: О русских именах. Ленинград: Лениздат. Тахо-Годи Аза Алибековна, Лосев Алексей Фёдорович 1999: Греческая культура в мифах, символах и терминах. Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя. Straipsniai / Articles 79 ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 79 2011.06.17 08:24:02 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Топоров Владимир Николаевич 1973: Из истории балто-славянских языковых связей: анчу́тка. – Baltistica 9(1), 29–44. Топоров Владимир Николаевич 2000: Из индоевропейской этимологии 6(1–2). – Этимология 1997–1999, 172–185. Топоров Владимир Николаевич 2004: Исследования по этимологии и семантике 1. Москва: Языки славянских культур. Топоров Владимир Николаевич 2006: Исследования по этимологии и семантике 2. Москва: Языки славянских культур. Топоров Владимир Николаевич 2007: К интерпретации былины „Путешествие Вавилы со скоморохами“. – Имя: семантическая аура. Москва: Языки славянских культур. Трубачев Олег Николаевич 2006: История славянских терминов родства и некоторых древнейших терминов общественного строя. Москва: КомКнига. Хабургаев Георгий Александрович 1974: Старославянский язык. Москва: Просвещение. Шанский Николай Максимович 1959: Очерки по русскому словообразованию и лексикологии. Москва: Государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство министерства просвещения РСФСР. Шипова Елизавета Николаевна 1976: Словарь тюркизмов в русском языке. Алма-Ата: Наука. Theonyms in M. Stryjkowski’s work Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi: Chaurirari SUMMARY The study deals with the topics of etymological analysis and brief nascence (consequently, hierarchical position in the Baltic pantheon) of the theonym Chaurirari mentioned in Maciej Stryjkowski’s work Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi (Krolewen, 1581). Cryptogram methods are used to explain the changes, which appeared in the morphological structure of the word probably by virtue of a taboo phenomenon. Changes of the lexeme are explained by means of areal studying and synchronous methods. Being based on the analysis carried out, the main conclusion has been made to which Vladimir Toporov had come earlier that the theonym cited in Stryjkowski’s writing reflects authentic linguistic material which can not be 80 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII M. Stryjkowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari ascertained without paying attention to detailed analysis of the lexeme each component. The other conclusions are as follows: 1) theonym Chaurirari reflects juxtapositionally metathesis of the front syllables, i.e. contact metathesis type has been set to explain the morphotactical shift: Lith. *Kauriraris ‘horse God’ < Lith. *kaurikaris ‘ditto’ (r...r < r...k (contact progressive assimilation)) ↔ Lith. *kaurikanis (r...r < r...n (incontiguous progressive assimilation)) ‘ditto’ < Lith. *kaukarinis ‘ditto’ (morphotactical metathesis due to taboo) < adj. Lith. *kaukarinis ‘appending to Kaukarius’; 2) theonym Chaurirari can not be interpreted as ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The lexeme may be correlated with nomen proprium (theonym) Kaukarius ‘ghats God’, which is mentioned in several Lithuania Minor lexicographical lexicons of the 18th century; 3) Lith. kaū̌karas, Lith. kaū̌kas, Pruss. cawx reflect phonetic structural shift caused by progressive assimilation (k...p → k...k): Balt. *kaupa- ‘accumulation’ > Lith. kaūpas, káupas ‘boss, hump, heap’ → (derivatives with suff. -(a)ra-) Lith. kauprà ‘hill’, kaūparas ‘hump’; Latv. kaupra ‘hill’, Latv. kàupre2 ‘small hill; sierra’, Latv. kàupris2 ‘sierra; sconce’) ⇨ *kauka- ‘ditto’; 4) nom. propr. (theonym) Kaukarius sememe ‘ghats God’ mentioned in Brodowski’s and Milke’s lexicons is attributable to parent drift, while Stryjkowski’s *Kaukarinis ‘horse God’ to accessory, presupposed by functional connotation of the god; 5) Russ. dial. кау́р ‘mallet used to knock out a fish’ and Russ. dial. кау́риться ‘to sulk; to wince, to gloom; to stand tall; to recalcitrate’ are not Baltisms. Įteikta 2010 m. lapkričio 17 d. ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Lietuvių kalbos institutas Vileišio g. 5, Vilnius LT-10308 El. paštas – [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 81