Wojciech Smoczyński. „Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVII (2002), 131-147 Reviews WOJCIECH SMOCZYNSKI JEZYK LITEWSKI W PERSPEKTYWIE POROWNAWCZEJ Krakéw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloniskiego, 2001, 510 p., ISBN 83-233-1430-6 (Baltica Varsoviensia, 3) The productivity and activity of Wojciech Smoczynski, a well-known Polish Baltist and Indo-Europeanist, is truly enviable: interesting articles are regularly published, innovative monographs are prepared, the journal Linguistica Baltica is edited, the Colloquium Pruthenicum is organized, and he is a professor at the universities of Kraków and Warsaw. Over several decades, a great number of studies, sketches and notes on Lithuanian studies have been published in various conferences and publications. It is a pleasure that these works have now been brought together, supplemented with one new study and published in a separate collection. The book consists of 5 chapters: “Lithuanian language position in the Indo-European language family”, “Morphology”, “Dialectology”, “Etymology- ”, “Polish-Lithuanian linguistic relations”. The reprinted texts were not changed or edited (except, of course, for pagination), their original bibliographical data are indicated in the table of contents (pp. 5-7). At the end of the book there are indexes of words and surnames compiled by Tomasz Majtczak. The book begins with an outline of all Baltic languages, "Języki battyckie: litewski, fotewski, staropruski" (1988) (pp. 9-95). The relatively small text contained a truly informative introduction to the Baltic languages with a good Indo-European context. It is not only able to discuss grammatical facts, but also to provide the most necessary encyclopedic knowledge, indicate the most significant bibliography. It is useful that after the descriptions of individual languages, texts from ancient scripts and dialects are given (with linguistic notes and translations into Polish). The plot of the sketch is consistently rolled from ide. pro-languages (p. 15-19) through the Baltic innovation deposit (p. 19-34) towards the descriptions of individual languages. Lithuanian and Prussian languages have received the greatest attention (p. 35-60; 74-92), while Latvian studies have received somewhat less attention (p. 60-74). It is significant that the ideas of prominent Polish linguists (J. Safarewicz, J. Kurytowicziaus) are properly integrated in the text. It is a little inconvenient that links to the pages of the original publication remain, for example, p. 10 is redirected to p. 844 (= p. 34). Some other details to be corrected: p. 23 lie. troško ‘chee pič’ = 'to want a pic'; p. 35 nom. s.g. Europe = Europe, shade = shade; p. 37 gen. pl. rankiy = ranky; p. 42 acc. pl. diévus = gods; In order to give the reader an idea of the general linguistic context, the first dates of publication of the articles are given in this review. 2 For example, the opinion of J. Kurylowicziaus about the Balty-Slavic languages is taken from his public lecture, so it may not be known to every linguist (p. 15). 132 | *tydzien' ('week') = ‘Second week after delivery' LZ... 555, 556); p. 12 la. Ziemel'i = ziemeli, p. 21 la. diesel = diesel. Now the author would probably improve this work, but even without major changes the text is recommended as a truly successful compendium of Baltic languages. It perfectly complements the first-published extensive study on the Indo-European foundations of Lithuanian lexicon („Indoeuropejskie podstawy stownictwa litewskiego- “, p. 96—-166)*. The author notes that this is a review work, so, to save time and space, references to classical etymological works are not given (with rare exceptions). The main aim of the study is to review Lithuanian vocabulary from ide. pro-speech point of view: to raise the inherited lexicon, word formation and apophony models, to consider the problems posed by laryngeal theory. Lecsema are discussed not in alphabetical order, but according to certain grammatical and semantic subgroups. In comparison with similar works (Buck 1949; Gamkrelidze, Ivanov 1984,: 457-855; Sabaliauskas 1990)”, the novelty is that the top level of the classification consists of grammatical classes: nouns, verbs, adjectives and numerals. Based on this classification, it would be appropriate to add subgroups of pronouns and conjunctions. In the sections on nouns and verbs, the material is divided into certain semantic groups, e.g. : (nouns) “natural phenomena”, “time”, “forest trees”, “wild ir beasts” etc. ; (verbs) “life (human) ir activity”, “senses and perception”, “movement” etc. It is significant that the author pays considerable attention to ide. changing things (e.g., in the paragraph *žemė' (p. 97-98, nr. 2°) it is indicated that this balt.-sl. the word's basis is the non-primary (neopierwiastek) ide. *g*em-, re-segmented from pide. loc. sg. *d'g'*'-em-9, which existed next to nom. s.g. *d"eg*-om-p)". Vrddhi-type derivatives are discussed several times (see p. 108, no. 32, 34; p. 110, no. 44, 46; p. 111, no. 49; p. 120-121, no. 96; p. 129, no. 147), laryngeal information is consistently presented. There is a lack of systematic studies of Baltic etymology at the level of modern Indo-European studies, so Smoczynski’s contribution is significant and worthy of attention. It is to be hoped that there will be some willing to discuss, and that dialogue will encourage the author and other scholars to undertake even more extensive worky’. A couple of articles in the discussion section are devoted to raising the archaisms of Lithuanian phonetics, phonotactics, root and stem apophony: ‘The Lithuanians im Context of the Indo-European Comparison" (1993) (p. 167-178), „The role of Lithuanian language in Indo-European linguistics“ la (1997) (p. 179-208). Archaic features are highlighted in comparison with s. ind., gr., lat., germ. and pp. language innovation. A lot of attention is paid to the history of word derivation: sun (p. 176-178, 204— diévas, day, winter, resin 205); (p. 188-190); daughter, sesué, dog, wife, water (p. 194-199); build (p. 207) ir kt These articles are accompanied by the note "Konservatyzm językowy przyktadzie litewskim" na (1992) (p. 209-210), where similar aspects discussed num. right-handed. * The prototype of a particular study is another Smoczynski- 's article (see section 4.4). Smoczynski 1982). The oldest semantic lexicon of Baltic languages is the so-called Elbing Prussian-German Dictionary. The concepts discussed are numbered. See also notes p. 98-99, no. 4 ‘saulė', no. 5 ‘ménuo’; p. 104-105, no. 23'‘aušra'; p. 106, no. 28 ‘pavasaris, vasara’; p. 113-114, No. 63, ‘zuvis’; p. 115, No. 70 ‘Zmogus’ ir kt. 5 7 One more inaccuracy needs to be corrected in continuing the work under discussion: p. 101 la. mist of = meat; p. 102%, lie. stata = stata; p. 111%. Russian. baptize = baptize; p. 157 lie. ilsiuos = ilsiuos; p. 106 as bk (literackie) variant of pronunciation provided zachodni (near west ) - should be clarified that here the pronunciation dialect (see section 4.4). LKZ,,,, 984; DLKZ, 906). 133 The Indo-Europeanist chapter ends with a phonological note — „Sporne problemy wokalizmu litewskiego“ (1976) (p. 211-213). The author proposes to introduce in the classification of vowels the postym diphthongic: non-diphthongic to distinguish /ie/ and /uo/ from other phonemes. The short [e] and [0] in words of non-Lithuanian origin, in Smoczynski’s opinion, are not to be considered phonemes (they only distinguish between morphemes and the sign that those morphemes are foreign). The morphological part of the collection begins with the article „Przypadki lokalne językow batltyckich“ (1974) (p. 214-216). Interestingly, the author observed such a rule of distribution of postpositional pronouns: the locative and iliative are typical of the lexems denoting inanimate things, while the adesive and aliative are usually made up of stems denoting living beings (or persons) (cf. daržė: daržan, dieviep: dievop)“. In the article „Uwagi o litewskim praeteritum typu norė(j), giedo(j)“ (1974) (p. 217—223) the author states that such short lies. preterites cannot be considered archaisms. Smoczynski believes that there is a tendency to equalize the differences. and pass. the number of stem syllables: sė-di: sė-dė-jo —>sė-di: sė-dė(j); miéga: slept —miėga: slept(j); žino: Zzindjo —Zino: Ziné(j) (cf. consonants suka: sūko, nésa: nésé). This was followed by a series of similarly shortened versions (e.g., 2000). sené(j) after sédé(j), and after sené(j) after sé(j); galvé(j) after sleep(j), and after galvé(j) —sté(j), etc.). In this series of analogies, the past seems somewhat problematic. ė(j) abbreviation for past tense. sė(j), because inf. and praes. trunks are not similar: sow, sow: go, go (exhales) In the outline „Geneza starolitewskiego conditionalis na -biau, -bei, -bi-“ (1999) (p. 224—229) it is proposed to derive the elements -biau, -bei, -bi from the respective past. ind. forms *biau, *biai, *bia (cf. la. biju, biji, bija)* and not to see an optative here (as interpreted by Kazlauskas 1961: 80; 1968: 393t.). Cond. pl. 1, 2 -bihistorically considered to be the abbreviated form of the 3rd person preteritum (cf. la. dial. preteritum bi, bij). From a semantic and morphological point of view, a good parallel is drawn from the history of the Latin language: fuat ‘tebunie’ < *b'uh, + -ah-. The article „Starolitewskie žmuo, žmunį na tle prabattyckich rzeczownikow atematycznych“, published in Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 43 (p. 18—33), is probably familiar to the reader, so it is not cited here. In „Komentarz laryngalistyczny do wybranych formacji litewskich“ (2001) (p. 248-252) several morphological problems related to the fate of laryngals are discussed, for example: (1) the possible disappearance of laryngal in the roots ultimae laryngalis -RH before i (arti, but ariū < *h ėrh -ie-,gėlti; betgeliū < *g"elH-ie-; in this context the stems sėju, kloju, demolišu can be regarded as one or another innovation- ); (2) in interstitial CRnH-otype strains, metastasis Rn — nR occurred after the laryngeal loss (kyla < *kinla —*kilna < *kl-n-H-o <—*kelH-, cf. raise, rise); (3) certain substantive prepositions of the base degree are to be considered as vrddhi-type derivatives, derived from the declination roots by inserting e before RH (zėntas (s.-kr. zėt) *“known” < *know-< *know-to-« *know-< *know. C (li. to know); plg. gr. gnotos, ved. jnata-, la. znuots, ru. znato) and other cases. The etymological notes are given for the words kiauras, klūonas, pjauti, smėlis, statos, stogas, žioti(s). The section on dialectology consists of four studies, in which Punsk dialect is systematically described: its phonology („System fonologiczny litewskiej gwary punskiej- “, (1986) pp. 253-269; „Grupy 8 The most recent work in this direction is by G. Kavaliūnaitė (see Kavaliūnaitė 2002). 9 This hypothesis has also been briefly mentioned in an earlier study (see p. 51 of the Reports). 270-278), morfologija („Morphological sketch of the Lithuanian Punk dialect“ (1984) (p. 279-305) bei skolintinė leksika —germanizmai („German pronunciations in the Lithuanian dialect of the Punk area of Suvalkija“ (1986) p. 306— 316). It should be noted that phonological notes are also important from a methodological point of view for problems of general language (sounds [ie], [uo], short vowels [e], [0], syllable consonant combinations, etc.). The study of morphology not only discusses conjugation, but also contains derivative remarks (about the construction of nouns, see pp. 282-284). It is significant that pp. 299-303 have been moved to the text of Punsk schneck. Germanizmy study discusses about 90 words, of which 10 are not recorded in LKŽ (bankūkas, bankūkėnas, brėkšt(r- )anggė, dampa, dreėris, keratė, kraizas, kūcė, liūkė, raūs), the rules of phonetic adaptation of borrowed words are presented (p. 313, 315)". The etymology section of the collection is the most extensive in terms of texts. Many valuable insights into historical phonetics and functional morphology are presented in five studies of “Notes on Etymology”. The etymological words pavéikslas, paūkštis, peslys, nakvoti (1990) (p. 317-319); veikslus, veigzlūs, gaistras, gaizdras, žaizdras, žiėzdrai, žiėgždros, žvirzdai, žvirgždai, kemzdryné, kremzlė (1993) (p. 320-330); kakšlė, pūkšlė, kakšras, vievesa (1994) (p. 331-337), walk (1995) (p. 338-340); indas, pėrgas, išeiga (1998) (p. 341-350). To the comments on the problems of inserting consonants, the article „Etymologisches zu litauisch lokšnūs, šikšna und šykštūs“ is also attached. (2000) (p. 378-384). There are three ethnographical categories. The first („Slawisch ovadas und litauisch todas“, (1992) (p. 351-354) shows that sl. ovads can be considered as a derivative of the prepositional verb: (byelo-sl.) *au-od-as: *au-éd-‘- abessen, abfressen; to eat. The theme of the second study is lie. and pp. leksemos ‘ménuo’ raida („Etymologia scs. mésecw and lit. ménuo as an illustration of linguistic changes as determined by zewngtrzne comparison® (1994) (p. 355-366). The result of consistent analysis — different roots of words from the point of view of protospeech, p. thematization, suffixation and metathesis of the lexem: lie. name. mėnuo < *mén-6s- -¢ (ide. nom. *meh n-0s-9), acc. ménesj < *meén-es-in (ide. acc. *meh n-és-m); sl. The word is derived from the Latin meens-i-- ko-< *méns-i-, where *meénsyra is from ide. gen. *meh n-s-és. In the last balt.-sl. The study deals with three problems:,Kilka zréwnan stowiansko-litewskich: 1. stow. wreath: lit. crown; 2. ps. *čeznoti: lit. chest; 3. ps. *degna: lit. dengū“ (1994) (p. 385-394). Sl. Come on, come on. wreath, in the author's opinion, are to be regarded as suffixes -kavediniai from balt.-sl. subst. *uai-ni-(cf. s. ind. venih ‘Haarflechte; plaukų pyné, kasa"): ùi-/*ui-"- to weave, to braid". Revised Osten-Sackeno (1909: 246) proposal p. *used to compare with lie. vykėžtū, išsikėžti: from a morphological point of view it is more meaningful to compare *ke-n-Za (cf. lit. kézta) and sl. *kez-ne-* This compares the roots of the same vowelism and shows two ways of producing the nasal presence: infixation and sufixation. Sl. *digna (s. le. diegna ‘oral gonorrhea; inflammation or rotting of the gums; gangrene of the oral cavity; inflammation or damage of the gums’; sorbų aukštaičių dZaha ‘heartburn, burning sensation in the stomach; "Smoczyński proponuje oparcie się na li" (in Polish). praes. -dengu (sudengū ‘burnt’, nudengu ‘burnt’) and suponuoti sl. praes. *dego, to which the abstractum suffix -nais added. "Dar zr. previously published texts by the author (Smoczynski 1972: 104-109). "1 The author was able to check only I-XI volumes (A-R). 2 P.313 and 314 should be interchanged. 135 Of course, the reader should not be understood to believe that Slavistic questions are only addressed in these three texts — important remarks are made in most of Smoczynski’s articles (see the indexes of Slavic words at pp. 499-504). The etymological essay „Litauisch lokys, lateinisch lacer und griechisch améxnxa (1999)“ (p. 367— 377) is important not only for Baltistics, but also for the history of the Greek language. According to the author, the nomen agent *lak-iya-- ‘zerreiBendes Tier is visible in the Baltic languages; 'predatory beast': balt. *lak-‘zerren, zerreiBen; tempti, pléSyti’ (< ide. *leh k-). The syntactic history of this word might have been as follows: (I) *žmoglokys (adj.) žvėris (subst.) “beast that robbed people” or “beast that robbed people” —(II) *žmoglokys (subst.) ‘t. p. —(III) lokys’. This hypothesis is supported by P.C. gr. aor. the root Anx-(įnėinza) lead iš *Leh k--. The three final texts of the etymology chapter are devoted to the history of the formant. In the article,,- Pochodzenie wyrazéw litewskich typu pelūdė, arklidė“ (2000) (p. 403-407) the author expresses his opinion that the word pelūdė (respectively such a type of verb) could have appeared next to *pelūdėmė “place to put the peals” according to the relation lyg-mė:: lyg-ė. Therefore, in the formants -idė and -udė, the root *d"eh should not be understood as the declining degree *d"h -*. "The origin of the adverb -sčias" (1992) (p. 408-413) is explained as follows: it arose by decomposing the -jas derivatives from the past tense passive type participants that ended in -star -št-, e.g.: skliaūsčias: skliaūstas, tuščias: *tuš-tas. In the article „Problematyka etymologiczna sufiksėw -dyti i -styti“ (1998) (p. 414—417) the author suggested that the -dyti and -styti verbs were originally causal derivatives of the suffix -yti, made from intransitive verbs, pres. of the root having suffixes -dir -st-, only later divided (e.g., ardyti: *ėr-da (cf. érdi) —ar-dyti: ir-ti; barst-yti: birst-a —barst-yti: ber-ti). The book ends with texts on Polish and Lithuanian linguistic relations. Perhaps the article „Altlitauisch prieras, pryieraut und priarka“ (1998) (p. 395—402) should be moved here from the etymology section. It proposes pryierūuk DK TA» pryleraut DK 84, =, Read prijerauk, prijeraut“, prefix BB Kar 8,31; BB Kar 19,27; BB 2 Sam 21,11 —prijarka (cf. lez. fryjerz /fryjarz, fryjerka /fryjarka). On the other hand, the corresponding words prieras, prierka (SPr 32 s.vv. fryierz, fryierka) and others from Sirvydas’ first dictionary are suggested to be read without [j], e.g. prieras < *prijeras (as néprietelius < *néprijetelius < *néprijatelius; cf. br. néprijatelv). The series,,Polono-Lithuanica® consists of 4 aedices. The study "1. O nazwiskach typu Pifsudski* (1982) (p. 418-427) is dedicated to local Polish surnames of Lithuanian origin. Not only is the ridiculous hypothesis about the personal name Pifsudski and the place name Pitsudy (which are probably related to pėl-šūdis) refuted, but a considerable list of other surnames and corresponding place names is also presented (cf. famous surnames, which Lithuanians would hardly consider to be of local origin: £owmiariski:: Laumėnai, Oginski:: Uoginiai, Wiwulski:: Vivuliai, etc.). The last text of the collection, „Pochodzenie litewskiej nazwy miejscowej Pilsūdai (pol. Pilsudy)“ (1984) (p. 469—480), which examines in more detail the origin of the local name Pifsudy and its way into the Polish language, should be added to this article. The Oikonimi suggests the following stems: pil(ia)-(cf. pilis and others) and sūd-(present *sū-da, inf. *sū-ti “to wet and so on”, cf. iter.-kauz. sii-d-yti). Thus, the primary meaning of *pil(ia)-sūdas could have been “a damp or viscous place near a castle or * Perhaps in the first stage it would be enough to assume only *bekys (adj.) žvėris (subst.) “a predatory beast", as, for example, vakaris ‘evening wind' — vakaris vėjas (p. 372%). '* See also the article dedicated to this and related problems (p. 341-350). In the DK word index (p. 713) it is written prieraut, prierauk. 15 136 | REVIEWS city’. The article “Les noms de famille polonais d'origine lituanienne” (1982) (p. 461-468) is dedicated to Polish surnames of Lithuanian origin, where four-letter anthroponyms are discussed: derived from abbreviations of double-called personal names (Let. Butejkis < Lit. But-eikis, from abbreviation of Būt-as: But-rimas, But-vydas and others); of Christian origin (Let. Grygolan < Lit. Grigal-ionis: Grigalius) and adjective nature (Let. Dojlido < Lit. Dailyda, cf. dailyda, carpenter). 4 texts of the collection are dedicated to Lithuanianisms in Polish. "Polono-- Lithuanica". 2. Pol. kieszen(ia), blr. kešėnja a lit. kišėnė“ (1985) (p. 428-438)* proves that kišėnė is a motivated Lithuanian word (: kišti; dia. kešėnė: old praes. *kesit), which first entered the Belarusian language (kišėnja, kišėno), 0 of it — into Polish (kiesieri(- a), kieszeri(- a)). "Polono-- Lithuanica". 3. Pol. gwar. rupieżliwy a lit. rūpeslyvas“ (1986) (p. 439-444)" the attention is drawn to the adj. rupieżliwy ‘worrying about something’, which is incorrectly derived from non-existent le. subst. *rupiez. Smoczynski proved that this word can be considered the simplest Lithuanianism: rūpeslyvas > *rupiešliwy (compare Br. rūpjašlivy) —rupiežliwy (adapted to other Polish adjectives with the ending -żliwy: bojażliwy, obrażliwy, etc.). The fourth article in the series “Polono-- Lithuanica” clarifies some aspects of Lithuanianism guziny (1986) (p. 442—444). In a larger set of notes “O niektérych lituanizmach polszezyzny wilenskiej” (1987) (p. 445-460) the data provided by K. Tekielski (1980) have been carefully corrected and supplemented. At the end of the book there are indexes of words and names, so those interested will find what they are looking for. There is also another form, for example, missing s. ru. subsection of words, where you could put krostiti 23, 111%, 3807, krosts 3807, kiimeti 128, viinukii 125, etc. The discussed collection of Smoczynski’s works perfectly demonstrates the broadening of the author’s linguistic horizon: from phonetics to lexical studies; from specific problems of Lithuanian studies to general questions of Indo-European studies. Undoubtedly, the linguist’s versatility and ability to synthesize material from several fields allowed a new look at many interesting phenomena. The collection has already been positively evaluated by the renowned researcher W. R. Schmalstieg (2002), so it is likely that other Lithuanianists, Baltists and Indo-Europeanists will also find much use in it. To conclude the review, we would like to propose the publication of a collection of Prussian studies of Smoczynski, which would perfectly complement his monographs (Smoczynski 2000; 2003). Of course, new studies are also very welcome, so we wish the author to continue to work carefully and not keep his ideas in his pockets for long. ABBREVIATIONS BB-—BIBLIA Wilsas Schwentas Rafchtas, Lietuwilchkai pergulditas per Jana Bretkuna [...] 1590. DK -Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 year catechism (prepared by Vida Jakštienė and Jonas Palionis), Vilnius: Moksenciklopedijų leidykla, DLKŽ* —-Dictionary of contemporary Lithuanian language (man. ed. S. Keinys), Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 2000. lo ir 1995. '**— The original title of the article is slightly different: "Polono-Lithuanica. 2. Pol. kieszeri(a), bir. pošėnja a lit. pošéně' (see p. 445' of the collection in question- ). In addition, a raised asterisk <" > should be added at the end of the heading, since the footnote p. 428 remained be in the reference text. 7 In the Contents (p. 7) rašomarūpes(t)lyvas, but not crossed. Po headings must have a footnote mark <'> (p. 439). 137 LKŽ-Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1-XX (ed. J. Balčikonis, J. Kruopas, K. Ulvydas, V. Vitkauskas), Vilnius, SPr —Old Konstan1941-2002. tino Sirvydo dictionary (prepared by Kazys Pakalka), Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias, 1997. LITERATURA Buck C. D. 1949: A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. GAMKRELIDZE T. V,, IVANOVv V. V. 1984: Huooesponeiickuii s3bix u undoesponetiyvl. Pexoncmpykyjus u UCMOPUKO-MUNOA02UMECKUL AHATU3 NPAA3LIKA U NPOMOKYIbmYpbl, KH. 1-2, Tounncu: Usnarenscrso ToHmcckoTO YHMBEPCHTETA. KAVALIONAITE G. 2002: The postpositional local case in Chylinskis’ translation of the New Testament. Linguistica Baltica 10 (printed). KAZLAUSKAS J. 1961: From the history of the optional subject. Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 4, 73-91. KAZLAUSKAS J. 1968: Historical grammar of Lithuanian language (Pronunciation, noun, verb), Vilnius: A thought. OSTEN-SACKEN, W. 1909: Etymologien. Indo-European Studies 24, 238-248. SABALIAUSKAS A. 1990: Lithuanian language lexicon, Vilnius: Mokslas. SCHMALSTIEG W. R. 2002: [Rec.:] Wojciech Smoczynski. The Lithuanian Language in Comparative Perspective, 2001. Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 235-244. SMOCZYNSKI W. 1972: The Polish-Lithuanian War in Sejnenisk. Obrebska-- Jablonska, A., ed., Texts of the War from Białostocz with linguistic commentary, Warsaw: Publications of the Białostocki Scientific Society 18), 97-109. SMOCZYNSKI W. 1982: Indo-European foundations of the Battic language. Acta Baltico-Slavica 14, 211-240. SMOCZYNSKI W. 2000: Researches on the German feudal estate in Old Prussia, Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego (Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia 3). SMOCZYNSKI W. 2003: Dictionary of Old Prussian Verbs (spausdinama). TEKIELSKI K. 1980: Lexical Lituanisms in the dialects of Podbrzezie and Niemenczyn. Acta BalticoSlavica 13, 67-72. Jurgis Pakerys Received 19/12/2002 University of Vilnius Department of Baltic Studies and General Linguistics Universiteto 5, 2734 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]