Lithuanian “žiaurùs” : “žvėrìs”

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVII (2002), 109-115 Lithuanian žiaurūs : žvėris STEVEN YOUNG University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD Lith. žiaurūs ‘grausam’ is linked by Fraenkel to the word nest žiaudūs “Žiaurus [oft bei Daukantas]’, žiudrūs rauh, uneben’, žiudrēti ‘rauh, uneben werden’; these are associated in turn with either Lith. žūti zugrunde gehen’, žudyti ‘umbringen’ or Russ. жула ‘Entsetzen, Elend”. But Fraenkel’s comparison falls short both phonologically (the derivation of *žiaurfrom *žiaud(r)- is not evident) and semantically (the basic meaning of *žiauris ‘cruel’ rather than ‘rough, coarse’). A better-motivated solution is suggested by the semantic relation Lat. ferus : ferox: žiaurūs тау be seen as a ‘state Г formation (*g"éur-) to the state П of žvėris (*g"uēr-). In this explanation, (*g"ēur-) would originally have represented a thematic adjective of appurtenance, refashioned in Lithuanian as a u-stem. Lith. žiaurūs, -i (stem žiaūr-) ‘cruel, ferocious, brutal, savage’ is linked by Fraenkel (1965: 1303) to the word nest Ziaudus “= žiaurūs (oft bei Daukantas ...),” žiaudrūs, Ziudrus *rauh, uneben’, Ziudréti ‘rauh, uneben werden’, all of which are said to belong either to the set of Lith. žūti ‘zugrunde gehen’, žudyti ‘umbringen’, Latv. zāudēt ‘vernichten, verlieren, verderben’, or to Russ. жудй *Entsetzen, Elend” (which itself may be related to the žūti set: Vasmer, Trubacev 1987, : 63). Under the entry žiudrūs (characterized as the “Tiefstufe zu žiaurūs“), Fraenkel expands this set of phonetically and semantically disparate items to include Ziubrus ‘rauh, uneben’, Ziubrinti ‘rauh machen’, and under nuzurdoti, nužurdoti (1962: 514) ‘zu Тоде guālen” we read: “Nach meiner Ansicht sind die Worter verw. mit lit. žiaurūs *grausam, erbarmungslos, wild, rauh', Ziaudus dass[elbe]...” Regarding the comparison of žiaurūs to Ziaudus and related forms, it is difficult to imagine how the -dof the latter stem (to say nothing of the -bof žiubrūs) could be reconciled with the -7of žiaurūs, unless the source of both words is taken to be *žiaū-, with an optional -denlargement (IEW 448 *¢heu-, *¢heu-d- ‘verschwinden, umkommen’, the source of žūti) together with the -rsuffix present in žaudrūs (to Ziaudus; cf. also dial. skaudrūs “aštrus, piktas” alongside skaudūs, Skardžius 1941: 300). But this direction need not be pursued, since žiaurūs and žiaudūs are not easily reconciled semantically. Būga (1959: 327, 688) presents this semantic sketch of žiaudūs: ‘суровый, шерховатый, негладкий; ... acerbus; ... chropawy’. The ‘суровый’ meaning seems to be typical in reference to the wind: sziaures ar kitti Ziaudi wiejej; 'Or's yra ... žiaudūs ir nepatogus’ (Daukantas); NW Žem. žiaudrūs ‘суровый, пронизывающий, острый; шершавый, неровный; hirtus”; NW Žem. Ziudris (reduced grade ofžiaudrūs) ‘шершавый, негладкий (SiurksStis)’, žiudrēti ‘становиться шершавым: nuZindro raūkos nū būlvių rinkimo". To this we сап add Vitkauskas (1976: 453, 458): žiaudrūs, žiudrūs "šiurkštus, kietas”: (examples appear in dialect form іп the original) marškiniai 110 | STEVEN YOUNG žiaudri buvo. ... Каір šepečiai; pakulinis žiaudrus: nugarą draskė; vikšris žudrus: pjausta liežuvį gyvulių; pakulinis labai žudrus audeklas. It seems clear from these glosses and samples that the central meaning of the žiaūd(r)-, žitdrroot is ‘rough, coarse, harsh’, rather than ‘cruel, ferocious’, and thus there is no need to link Ziaud(r)us, Ziudrus semantically (any more than phonologically) with žiaurūs. The occasional contexts in which the usages may coincide (for example, in reference to a harsh ~ raw ~ cruel wind) should not obscure this fact. For Lith. žiaurūs, semantic parallels such as Lat. ferus : ferox, Russ. зверь : зверский ‘brutal’, and Lith. žvėris : žvēriškas suggest rather a comparison with Lith. žvėris ‘wild animal’. Consider also Žem. žvėris in the sense of ‘kas žiaurus' (Vitkauskas 1976: 462) and the fact that Lith. žvēriškas, a transparent derivative of žvėris, is defined by the ‘DZ as “žiaurūs'!. Given the semantic rapprochement žiaurtts : žvėris, we turn next to the phonetic relationship between the two words. A Lithuanian sequence #7, 27 (represented orthographically as $il~, žiV-), such as we have іп žiaurūs, reflects in principle an ancestral *kiV-, *giV-. One Balto-Slavic source for such sequences is found in tautosyllabic *(С)ёи- > (in Baltic terms) (C)iāu-: IEW 597 *Kéufe]r- ‘Nord, Nordwind” > Lith. šiaur-[ė] ‘north’, IEW 684 *leud"i- ‘Nachwuchs, Volk’ > Lith. liaudis, Sl. *ljud->. Accordingly, the most likely antecedent for a Lithuanian root of the shape žiaurwould be *g'TMeur-. The tone of the original (acute or circumflex) cannot be deduced from žiaurūs, since modern u-stem adjectives tend to generalize accent paradigm 4, i.e., impose circumflex metatony: šiaurė ‘north’ : šiaurūs, stem šiaūr- ‘Siaurinis’ (Stundžia 1995: 94). We arrive then at a comparison of a pre-Baltic *g"eur- (essentially *žvēriškas”) and *g"uer-, IEW 493 ‘wildes Tier’, the source of Lith. žvėris id”. Since this relationship is (to use Егіс Hamp’s term) one of an ‘adjective of appurtenance’ *g"eurto a nominal base *g”uēr-, and such adjectives are formed by thematic derivation and the addition of the “vocalism e in the first possible position” (Hamp 1978: 186, 193-94), and moreover are oxytonic (Hamp 1984: 141), we are dealing in fact with a thematic stem *g"euro-. Golab (1967: 770) refers to the derivational process involved here as (a type of) vrddhi, and explains it at greater length: “Vrddhi can be defined as a type of secondary (denominative) adjective-generating derivation which combines two devices: a) suffixation (chiefly -o/eand -(i)io/e-); b) gradation of the initial syllable of basic word (noun). The gradation of the vowel in the initial syllable ... can be interpreted as the result of the ‘addition’ or ‘insertion’ of e to the basic vocalism O...” Yet another semantic parallel of this sort is provided by Slavic *svwpē/sverēpē (e.g. Russ. свирепый), ultimately to IE *g"uér- ‘animal’ (Holzer 1989: 78-81, in his provocative theory of a Slavic wordstock reflecting an adstrate [possibly Cimmerian] influence). On the development of *еи in both Slavic and Baltic, see Arumaa (1964: 86 ff. and 96 ff.). Arumaa challenges Vaillant’s claim that the change took place only before a soft consonant: “Vaillant ... macht den Wechsel slav. и ~ iu, balt. au ~ iau vom harten oder weichen Charakter des folgenden Konsonanten abhāngig. wofūr aber eine sichere Beweisfūhrung unmēglich ist, weil die lautliche Spaltung hier schon in den Urzustand dieser Sprachen zurūckzuverlegen ist und wir einer sicheren Kontrolle dafūr entbehren.” Shevelov (1965: 273) is more categorical: “ Yet an examination of every instance shows that the only phonetic reflex of eu was [Slavic] jū, while all other forms are due to extra-phonetic factors and constitute deviations ofa later date”. ts LITHUANIAN žiaurūs : žvėris | 111 Our thematic derivation *о^еигб- < *g”uēr-> thus parallels that of the (substantivized) adjective *deiuo- (Kurytowicz 1968: 303: *himmlisch” > *Gott') to the original base *dieu- (of Ol dyduh, dyoh) through the reduced grade *diu/diu, except that the intermediate stage of a reduced-grade **g*ur- (to *g"uér-) is apparently unattested. Regarding such ‘Schwebeablaut’ relations (which continue the state I and П formations of Benveniste’s binomial roots), Szemerenyi (1980: 126) says that the assumption of a reduced-grade stage is not necessary: “In einigen Fallen (2. В. bei mittlerem R) konnen Umstellungen stattgefunden haben, а. h. *terpdirekt zu *trepgeworden sein”. With the phonetic development of *g”eur6to the recognizably Baltic shape *Ziaurāwe have a form with the appearance of an o-grade (Baltic a-grade) adjective. Such adjectives (chiefly deverbal) in Baltic were susceptible to a shift to the originally reduced-grade oxytonic u-stems: “the notable fact of Baltic is the appearance of ograde bases in -ii-stems: kartus ‘bitter’, gajūs ‘lively, vivacious’, etc.; or even of pseudoo-grade: saldūs ‘sweet’ (Hamp 1984: 141; Vanags 1989: 118 suggests a motivation for this large-scale shift). Accordingly, the thematic oxytone *žiaurāwas refashioned as the u-stem *Ziauri-. In summary, we have an oxytonic thematic adjective of appurtenance *g"eurd-, essentially *žvēriškas”, to the inherited base *g”uēr- ‘zvéris’, by a Schwebeablaut derivational process. This yielded, by regular phonetic change, a ‘pseudo-o-grade’ žiaur6-,* which together with other thematic o-grade adjectives was refashioned as а u-stem, giving the modern žiaurūs ‘cruel, ferocious’. Having secured the antecedent *g"eur6of Lith. žiaurūs, we might ask if this base is reflected in Slavic as well; the expected formal development of the root *g*eurin Slavic would be *žur-, through the intermediate stage *ziour-, with a change of the -eudiphthong analogous to that in Baltic (for Slavic Z from z of palato-velar origin plus i, note Russ. ёж ‘hedgehog’ < *eg”io- = Lith. ežys). In fact, a verb žuriti (se) is widely attested in the Slavic languages, but in a bewildering array of meanings, summarized as follows. Czech zurit (intransitive only, replacing older Czech zuriti se) presents a single unambiguous meaning: ‘rage, be furious’ (Poldauf 1971: 1213); ‘свирепствовать’ (Pavlovic 1989: 808), which appears again in the derived adjective zurivy ‘raging [mad], ferocious, furious’ (Poldauf, loc. cit.)?. According to Dybo (1981: 40) Lith. žvėris shows apophonic root length which was generalized in this root as early as Indo-European. Others posit a laryngeal base here. As noted above, the original situation is obscured in žiaunts by a tendency to generalize circumflex stems. I would tentatively suggest that an intermediate Baltic stage *žeurais reflected in Fi hirved ‘dreadful, frightful, horrible, hideous’, which lacks an etymology in both SKES 78 and SSA 167. Finnish 4 is the expected reflex of a Baltic palatal; concerning the regular metathesis of -ur- > -rvin Finnish, see Koivulehto (1991: 34). The pattern example is Fi. Хата ‘hair’ < Baltic *gaura- ‘id.’ Machek is undoubtedly correct in treating Cz. zurit (for *žufit) as the result of dissimilation: on the one hand, the Czech root zuris isolated (Machek suggests Slovak zurit”, zūrit” is borrowed from Czech), and on the other hand there is no Zurin Czech. Old Czech гейі, brought into the equation by Holub (1952: 440), hardly belongs here. 112 | STEVEN YOUNG In Polish the now archaic žurzyč sie (reflexive only) has as its core meaning ‘be angry, indignant’, or, marking greater intensity, ‘rage, storm’ (Doroszewski 1968: 1458: *gniewač sie па Коро, oburzač sie, srožyč sie”), as in Czech. Kartowicz (1927: 726) notes the additional senses kwasič sie ‘become embittered’, рус markotnym ‘be gloomy, sullen’, and also chetpič sie ‘boast, brag’, nadymač sie ‘put on airs’. Lower Sorbian (Mucke 1928 : 1161) has both a transitive žuris ‘sauer machen; tibertr. erbittern, сделать кислым, озлоблять, ожесточать’ and a reflexive with the meaning ‘sauer werden; iibertr. sich erbittern; скисать, озлобляться, гневаться, ожесточаться’, hence essentially the ‘gniewac si¢” and *kwasič sig” meanings found in Polish. The East Slavic languages lack the ‘be angry/furious’ meaning. Belorussian and Ukrainian share a core sense of ‘grieve, be distressed’ (verb) and ‘grief-stricken, distressed’ (adjective): Belorussian журіцца ‘грустить, печалиться; кручиниться’ (Atraxovié 1988: 414); журиіцьца сов. зажуріцьца ‘скорбеть, предаваться печали’ (Nosovič 1870: 158); Ukrainian журіти, -10, -иш‘сокрушать, крушить, печалить’, журітися, -Юся, -ишся ‘печалиться, грустить, горевать, кручиниться, крушиться; унывать’ (Kiričenko 1953: 505). In addition, Belorussian and Ukrainian show comparable deverbal nouns and corresponding adjectives: Br. журбі, журббта (разг.) ‘грусть, печаль, кручина’, журббтны ‘грустный, печальный; скорбный’ (Atraxovič 1988: 413); Ukr. журба ‘печаль, грусть’, журлівий ‘печальный, грустный’ (Kiričenko loc. cit.). Ukrainian, however, also provides the base from which the verbal журіти(ся) is derived: (Kiričenko 1953: 506, s.v. »xypūd) обл. журӣ, редк. жур ‘печаль, грусть’ and the corresponding denominal adjective журній ‘печальный, грустный; сокрушённый"'. The central meaning of Russian журіть, -рю, -рішь (transitive only) is ‘scold’: ‘(pasr.) делать лёгкий выговор; слегка бранить’ (Ožegov 1989: 199). The word seems to Бе attested no earlier than Avvakum's Житие (1673). Тһе reflexive журіться, -pOCb, -рішься is known dialectally in the meanings of горевать, печалиться’ (southern Russian) and ‘ворчать, браниться’, which reappears in the derived журиіло, журила ‘grumbler’ (SRNG,: 231). As in Ukrainian, dialectal Russian also has жўрный, журнбӣ ‘печальный’, although the base жур seems to be absent in Russian. South Slavic introduces the meaning ‘hurry’, in Slovene (archaic) žūriti se, -іт, and SCr жўрити ce, which alongside its core meaning also shows (dialectally) ‘complain’, which Petleva (1969: 178) connects with the ‘grieve’ and (for non-reflexives) ‘scold’ meanings found in East Slavic. The above survey suggests a consistent distinction between a West Slavic *Zuriti, which is typically reflexive/intransitive, lacks a derived noun Zurbd, and centers around the notion of “anger, rage’; and the rest of Slavic, where the range of meanings is more scattered, but ‘grieve, cause grief’ is typical, and the deverbal noun žurbd is found along with an apparently underived base Zur, žurd. Among the Slavic etymological dictionaries consulted, Briickner (1957: 668) is alone in linking the Polish žurzyč sie with the East and South Slavic forms; curiously, the semantically identical Czech zurit is not mentioned. Machek (1968: 589 s.v. zuriti) LITHUANIAN žiaurūs : žvėris | 113 appropriately unites the Czech and Polish forms without mentioning East and South Slavic, while Vasmer, Trubačev (1987 : 68 s.v. журіть), Černyx (1993,: 309 s.v. журиіть), and MeVnyčuk (1985: 210 s.v. журіти, журітися) make no reference to the West Slavic forms; the East and South Slavic forms аге compared with OI ghoras ‘страшный, ужасный, стремительный’ and Gothic gaurs ‘возмущённый, опечаленный’ (IEW 453 *ghou-ro-s ‘furchtbar’, ‘voller Furcht'). Černyx, while conceding that the root is etymologically unclear (МеГпусик agrees) and that the meanings in the modern Slavic languages are guite divergent, ventures that the older meaning for the Russian term was ‘cause someone grief’, ‘upset someone’, whence also ‘rush’ and ‘worry’. Baltic *gur-, with the general meaning of ‘impoverishment’, may also belong here (Ioporov 1979: 346 ff., s.v. gurīns ‘бедный’). This leaves us with the question of the origin of the West Slavic forms. For Lower Sorbian žuriš *sauer machen, ibertr. erbittern’, Zuris se ‘sauer werden, tibertr. sich erbittern' and for the occasional meaning *kwasič sig” of the corresponding Polish verb, a solution is suggested by Mucke’s note accompanying the formally corresponding adjective Zuriwy (comparable to Czech zurivy) ‘widersetzlich; yIpsiMbli...: “абе. у. Zur”, that is, derived from the widespread West Slavic word for a sour mash used for soup or bread, the generally accepted source of which is MHG sūr ‘sour’®. The verb žuriš may either be a direct derivative of LSo. žur or the original meaning of the verb may have been extended from “be angry’ to Бе sour, bitter’ through a folk-etymological association with Zur. Brūckner offers no etymology for žurzyč sie. Machek sees Czech zuriti (se) and Polish žurzyč sie as deriving from an earlier *vz-juriti (he adduces Pol. jurzyč sie “fly into a rage’, ‘fume, storm’, Ukr. наюритися ‘get angry’) through a false break (*v-zjuriti ) апа 2from the sequence zj-. Although the semantics are suggestive, the comparison cannot be upheld: the word seems not to know a prefix vzor v- (modern Czech uses only na-, roz-, vy-, zawith this root). More importantly, the palatalization of 2+/ across a prefix-root morpheme boundary is not expected at such a late stage in Slavic (although t+j > č is found in e.g. Russ. очутиться < от+ ютиться : Lith. jaūsti, justi; Vasmer, Trubacev 1987 : 179). In fact, the etymology of the otherwise isolated West Slavic *žuriti (se) is, from our newly-gained Baltic perspective, clear: it is a denominal verb from the same base as Lith. žiaurūs cruel’, in Slavic terms *g”eur- > *ziour- > *žur-, the Schwebeablaut form to *g"uér- ‘wild animal’. Indeed this connection was precociously hit upon by Josef Jungmann in his 1839 Slovnik česko-nēmecky (1839: 793) under the lemma zurivy, where he notes “cf. zwēr.” In its derivational semantics, West Slavic *žur- (< *g"eur-) : žuriti (se) is analogous to Russ. свирепый : свирепствовать, or, using a 6 СЕ. Brūckner (1957: 668): zur — niemiecka nazwa ‘kisielu’; od 15. wieku ogdlne, przejęte па calym Zachodzie stowianskim (u nas, Stowiencow, Czechow, Luzyczan), a od nas па Rusi; 2 niem. sūr (dziš sauer) *kisty'. Grinaveckienė (1975: 174-5) treats Вг. жур ‘овсяный кисель as a borrowing from the Baltic source of Lith. žiūrė, žiūrā and Latv. žūra, žūre, arguing that the Baltic forms have the broader semantic range and are therefore original. But this argument does not take into account the presence ofžur in Polish, Upper and Lower Sorbian, Czech, and even Slovene, where it cannot possibly represent a borrowing from Baltic. 114 | STEVEN YOUNG closer formal analogy (а reflexive -ить verb), Russ. бес : беситься. Alongside the verb *žuriti (sę), West Slavic has apparently lost the original base preserved in Lithuanian žiaurūs, a phenomenon not unknown in the history of Balto-Slavic (e.g., SI. *roka ‘hand’ : Lith. ranka : rinkti ‘gather’ : Sl. *rototv [Киѕѕ. pmyms] ‘mercury’ : Lith. risti : ritant- ‘roll’). REFERENCES ARUMAA, P. 1964: Urslavische Grammatik 1, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. ATRAXOVIC, К. К. 1988: Белорусско-русский словарь 1, Минск: Белорусская советская энциклопедия. BRŪCKNER, А. 1957: Slownik etymologiczny jezyka polskiego, Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. BUGA, K. 1958, 1959, 1962: Rinktiniai raštai 1-3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. CERNYX, P Ја. 1993: Историко-этимологический словарь современного русского языка 1, Москва: Русский язык. *DŽ - Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, ed. S. Кеіпуѕ et al., Vilnius: Mokslo іг enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000. DOROSZEWSKI, W., ed. 1968: Sfownik języka polskiego 10, Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. DyBo, V. A. 1981: Славянская акцентология, Москва: Наука. FRAENKEL, Е. 1962-1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wērterbuch 1-2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. GOLAB, Z. 1967: The Traces of vrddhi in Slavic. To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 770—784. GRINAVECKIENE, E.,et al. 1975: Бытовая лексика литовского происхождения в западной Белоруссии. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16, 163—195. HAMP, E. 1978: Sound change and the etymological lexicon. Farkas, D. et. al., eds., Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon, April 14-15, 1978, 184-195. Hamp, Е. 1984: On the development of oxytone o-grade adjectives to -iistems. Baltistica 20 (2), 141-142. HOLUB, J., KOPEČNY, Е 1952: Etymologicky slovnik jazyka českėho, Praha: Statni Nakladatelstvi Učebnic. HOLZER, G. 1989: Entlehnungen aus einer bisher unbekannten indogermanischen Sprache im Urslavischen und Urbaltischen, Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. IEW – Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch, ed. J. Pokorny, Bern: Francke, 1959. JUNGMANN, J. 1839: Slovnik česko-nēmecky 5, Praha: V Knižeci Arcibiskupské Knihtiskārnē. KARLOWICZ, J.,etal. 1927: Stownik jezyka polskiego 8, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Kasy im. Mianowskiego. KIRIČENKO, I. I. 1953: Украинско-русский словарь 1, Киев: Издательство Академии наук Украинской ССР. KOIVULERTO, J. 1991: Uralische Evidenz fiir die Laryngaltheorie, Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. KURYLOWICZ, J. 1968: Indogermanische Grammatik 2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. МАСНЕК, V. 1968: Etymologicky slovnik jazyka českčho, ed. 2, Praha: Academia — Nakladatelstvi Ceskoslovenské Akademie Vēd. MEL'NYčuk, О. S. 1985: Етимологічний словник українскої мови 2, Киів: Наукова думка. MUCKE, Е. 1928: Worterbuch der nieder-wendischen Sprache und ihrer Dialekte 2, Prag: Verlag der Bohmischen Akademie fiir Wissenschaften und Kunst. Nosovīč, І. I. 1870: Словарь белорусского наречия, Санкт-Петербург: Типография Императорской Академии наук. OžEGov, S. I. 1989: Словарь русского языка, изд. 21-ое, Москва: Русский язык. PAVLOVIČ, A. I. 1989: Уешско-русский словарь, изд. 8-ое, Москва: Русский язык. PETLEVA, І. Р. 1969: Дополнительные ресурсы для реконструкции праславянской лексики (на материале сербохорватского языка). Этимология 1967, 173—179. LITHUANIAN žiaurūs : žvėris | 115 POLDAUF, I.,etal. 1971: Anglicko-česky a česko-anglicky slovnik, Praha: Stātni Pedagogickė Nakladatelstvi. SHEVELOV, С. Ү. 1965: А Prehistory of Common Slavic, New York: Columbia University Press. SKARDŽIUS, Р. 1941: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademija. SKES - Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja, ed. Y. Toivonen, Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura, 1955. SRNG - Словарь русских народных говоров, ред. Ф. П. Филин et al., Москва-Ленинград: Наука, 1965-. SSA — Suomen ѕапојеп alkuperā 1, ed. E. Itkonen, et al., Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus, 1992. STUNDŽIA, B. 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, Baltų kalbų katedra. SZEMERENYI, O., 1980: Einfiihrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Tororov, V. No. 1979: Прусский язык. Словарь E-H, Москва: Наука. VANAGS, Р. 1989: On the History of Baltic u-Stem Adjectives. Baltistica 25 (2), 113—122. VASMER [ФАСМЕР], M., TRUBAČEV, О. N. 1987: Этимологический словарь русского языка. Перевод с немецкого и дополнения О. Н. Трубачева, изд. 2-ое, Москва: Прогресс. VITKAUSKAS, У. 1976: Šiaurės rytų dūnininkų šnektų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Steven Young Gauta 2002 11 24 Department of Modern Languages University of Maryland Baltimore County 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore, MD 21250, USA [email protected]