ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

XLVII (2002), 131–147

REVIEWS

Reviews

Wojciech Smoczyński

Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej

Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2001, 510 p., ISBN 83-233-1430-6 (Baltica Varsoviensia, 3)

The productivity and energy of the renowned Polish Balticist and Indo-Europeanist Wojciech Smoczyński are truly enviable: interesting articles appear regularly, innovative monographs are prepared, the journal Linguistica Baltica is edited, Colloquium Pruthenicum is organized, and professorships are held at the universities of Kraków and Warsaw. Over several decades, a great many studies, essays, and notes devoted to Lithuanian studies have been published at various conferences and in publications. It is a pleasure that these works have now been brought together, supplemented with one new study, and published as a separate collection. The book consists of five chapters: “The Place of the Lithuanian Language in the Indo-European Language Family” (“Stanowisko języka litewskiego w rodzinie indoeuropejskiej”), “Morphology,” “Dialectology,” “Etymology,” and “Linguistic Relations between Polish and Lithuanian” (“Stosunki językowe polsko-litewskie”). The reprinted texts have not been changed or edited (except, of course, for pagination); their original bibliographic details are given in the table of contents (pp. 5–7). It is very convenient that the collection concludes with indexes of words and names, compiled by Tomasz Majtczak.

The book opens with an essay devoted to all the Baltic languages, “Języki bałtyckie: litewski, łotewski, staropruski” (1988).¹ (pp. 9–95). This relatively short text manages to provide a highly informative introduction to the Baltic languages, set in a sound Indo-European context. It not only discusses grammatical facts but also presents essential encyclopedic information and cites the most important bibliography. The inclusion, after the descriptions of individual languages, of texts from old written sources and dialects (with linguistic notes and translations into Polish) is useful. The essay’s narrative proceeds systematically from the Proto-Indo-European language (pp. 15–19), through the layers of Baltic innovations (pp. 19–34), toward descriptions of the individual languages. Lithuanian and Prussian receive the most attention (pp. 35–60; 74–92), while Latvian matters are treated somewhat less extensively (pp. 60–74). It is significant that the ideas of distinguished Polish linguists (J. Safarewicz and J. Kuryłowicz) are properly integrated into the text.² It is slightly inconvenient that references to the pages of the original publication remain; for example, p. 10 directs the reader to p. 844 (= p. 34). A few other minor points also need correction: p. 23 Lithuanian troško ‘wants to drink’ = ‘wanted to drink’; p. 35 nom. sg. Europa = Europą, skęsti = skęsti; p. 37 gen. pl. rankų = ranķu; p. 42 acc. pl. dievus = dièvus; p. 89 užės

¹ To give readers an idea of the general linguistic context, this overview indicates the dates when the articles were first published.

² For example, J. Kuryłowicz’s view on the kinship of the Baltic and Slavic languages is presented from a public lecture he gave, and may therefore be unfamiliar to some linguists (p. 15).

132 |

RECENZIJOS

‘week’ (‘savaitė’) = ‘six weeks after childbirth’ (LKŽ_xvii 555, 556); p. 12, Latvian žiemel’i = žiemelį, p. 21, Latvian dzėls = dzėls. The author would probably further improve this work today, but even without major changes the text is recommendable as a truly successful compendium of the Baltic languages. It is excellently complemented by a wide-ranging study, published here for the first time, devoted to the Indo-European foundations of Lithuanian vocabulary (“Indoeuropējskie podstawy słownictwa litewskiego”, pp. 96–166)³. The author notes that this is a survey, and so, to save time and space, references to classical etymological works are not provided, with rare exceptions. The study’s principal aim is to survey the Lithuanian lexicon from the perspective of the Indo-European proto-language: to identify inherited vocabulary and patterns of word formation and ablaut, and to take into account the problems raised by laryngeal theory. Lexemes are discussed not alphabetically but in certain grammatical and semantic subgroups. Compared with works of a similar kind (Buck 1949; Gamkrelidze, Ivanov 1984, II: 457–855; Sabaliauskas 1990)⁴, what is new is that the highest level of classification consists of grammatical classes: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and numerals. On the basis of this classification, it would also be appropriate to add subgroups of pronouns and conjunctions. In the sections on nouns and verbs, the material is divided into semantic groups, for example: (nouns) ‘natural phenomena’, ‘time’, ‘forest and trees’, ‘wild animals’, and so on; (verbs) ‘vital (human) activity’, ‘senses and perception’, ‘movement’, and so on. It is significant that the author devotes considerable attention to Indo-European ablaut (for example, the paragraph ‘earth’ (pp. 97–98, no. 25) indicates that the basis of this Baltic-Slavic word is not an o-grade root (neopir-wiastek) of Indo-European *gʰem-, resegmented from Proto-Indo-European loc. sg. *dʰgʰ-ēm-∅, which existed alongside nom. sg. *dʰégʰ-ōm-ø)⁶. Derivatives of the vrdhi type are discussed repeatedly (see pp. 108, nos. 32, 34; p. 110, nos. 44, 46; p. 111, no. 49; pp. 120–121, no. 96; p. 129, no. 147), and laryngeal information is provided consistently. Systematic studies of Baltic etymology at the level of contemporary Indo-European linguistics are lacking, so Smoczyński’s contribution is significant and merits attention. One can only hope that readers will be willing to engage in discussion, and that this dialogue will encourage the author and other scholars to undertake works of even greater scope⁷.

A couple of articles in the section under discussion highlight archaisms in Lithuanian phonetics, phonotactics, and the ablaut of roots and stem-final syllables: “Das Litauische im Kontext der indogermanischen Vergleichung” (1993) (pp. 167–178), “Il ruolo della lingua lituana per la linguistica indoeuropea” (1997) (pp. 179–208). The archaic features are brought out by comparison with innovations in Old Indian, Greek, Latin, Germanic, and Slavic. Considerable attention is devoted to the history of word derivation: saulė (pp. 176–178, 204–205); dievas, diena, žiemà, der̃và (pp. 188–190); duktė, sesuo, šuo, žmuo, vanduõ (pp. 194–199); statýti (p. 207), and others. The note “Konserwatyzm językowy na przykładzie litewskim” (1992) (pp. 209–210), which discusses the numeral dešimtas from similar perspectives, belongs with these articles.

³ Another article by Smoczyński (see Smoczyński 1982) may be considered a prototype of this study.

⁴ The oldest semantic lexicon of the Baltic languages is considered to be the so-called Elbing Prussian-German dictionary.

⁵ The concepts under discussion are numbered.

⁶ See also the notes on pp. 98–99, no. 4 ‘sun’, no. 5 ‘moon’; pp. 104–105, no. 23 ‘dawn’; p. 106, no. 28 ‘spring, summer’; pp. 113–114, no. 63, ‘fish’; p. 115, no. 70 ‘human being’, and others.

⁷ As the work under discussion is pursued, one or two inaccuracies should be corrected: p. 101, Latvian mist = mizt; p. 102²³, Lithuanian statai = statė̃i; p. 111⁴⁶, Old Russian krstiti = krъstiti; p. 157, Lithuanian išlįsos = išlįsos; on p. 106 vākārai is given as a literary accentual variant of standard Lithuanian (alongside vakarai) – it should be clarified that this is a dialectal accentual variant (see LKŽ_xvii 984; DLKŽ₄ 906).

RECENZIJOS

133

The Indo-European section concludes with a phonological note, “Sporne problemy wokalizmu litewskiego” (1976) (pp. 211–213). The author proposes introducing the feature diphthongal: non-diphthongal into vowel classification, in order to distinguish /ie/ and /uo/ from the other phonemes. In Smoczyński’s view, short [e] and [o] occurring in words of non-Lithuanian origin should not be considered phonemes (they merely distinguish morphemes and indicate that those morphemes are foreign).

The morphology section of the collection opens with the article “Przypadki lokalne języków bałtyckich” (1974) (pp. 214–216). It is interesting that the author identified the following distributional rule for postpositional locatives: the locative and illative are characteristic of lexemes denoting inanimate things, whereas the adessive and allative are generally formed from stems referring to living beings (or persons) (cf. daržė: daržan, dieviep: dievop)⁸.

Straipsnyje „Uwagi o litewskim praeteritum typu norė(j), giedo(j)“ (1974) (p. 217–223) autorius teigia, kad tokie trumpieji lie. preteritai negali būti laikomi archaizmais. Smoczyńskio manymu, čia įžvelgtina tendencija išlyginti praes. ir praet. kamienų skiemenų skaičių: sė-di: se-dė-jo → sė-di: sė-dė(j); miega: miegójo → miega: miegó(j); žino: žinójo → žino: žinó(j) (plg. lygiaskiemenius šūka: šūko, nėša: nėšė). Vėliau šis trumpinimas analogiškai paveikęs ir lygiaskiemenius veiksmažodžius (pvz., praet. senė(j) pagal sėdė(j)), o pagal senė(j) atsiradę ir sė(j); galvó(j) pagal miegó(j), o pagal galvó(j) – stó(j) ir t. t.). Šioje analogijų eilėje kiek problemiškas atrodo praet. ė(j) trumpinimas pagal praet. sė(j), nes inf. ir praes. kamienai nėra panašūs: sėti, sėja: eiti, eina (atem. eiti).

Apybraižoje „Geneza starolitewskiego conditionalis na -biau, -bei, -bi-“ (1999) (p. 224–229) pasiūlyta elementus -biau, -bei, -bi- kildinti iš atitinkamų praet. ind. formų *bijau, *bijai, *bijā (plg. la. biju, biji, bija)⁹ ir neįžvelgti čia optatyvo (kaip yra interpretavęs Kazlauskas 1961: 80; 1968: 393t.). Cond. pl. 1, 2 -bi- istoriškai laikytina 3 asmens sutrumpintąja preterito forma (plg. la. dial. praet. bī, bij)). Semantiniu ir morfologiniu požiūriu gera paralelė nurodyta iš lotynų kalbos istorijos: fūat ‘tebūnie’ < *bʰuh₂ + -ah-.

The article “Starolitewskie žmuo, žmunį na tle prabałtyckich rzeczowników atematycznych”, published in Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 43 (pp. 18–33), is probably familiar to readers and is therefore not reviewed here. The notes “Komentarz laryngalistyczny do wybranych formacji litewskich” (2001) (pp. 248–252) discuss several morphonological problems concerning the fate of laryngeals, for example: (1) the possible loss of a laryngeal in roots ultimae laryngalis -RH before i (árti, but ariù < *h₂érh₃-ie-, gélti; but geliù < *gʷélH-ie-; in this context, the stems sėjų, klóju, griaúju are regarded as innovations of one kind or another); (2) in infixed CnH-o- type stems, metathesis Rn → nR took place after the loss of the laryngeal (kyla < *kinla ← *kilna < *kl-n-H-o ← *kelH-, cf. kélti, kilti); (3) certain nouns with the full grade and circumflex accent are to be regarded as vrdhhi type formations, derived from zero-grade roots by inserting e before RH (žentas (South Slavic žęt) ‘acquaintance’ < *ženta- < *g’enh₃-to- ← *žinC- < *g’nh₃C- (Lithuanian pažinti); cf. Greek gnōtós, Vedic jñātá-, Latvian znuots, Russian znatb) and other cases. Etymological notes are offered on the words kiaūras, klūonas, pjauti, smėlys, stātas, stōgas, žiōti(s).

The dialectology section consists of four studies systematically describing the Punsk dialect: its phonology (“System fonologiczny litewskiej gwary puńskiej”, (1986) pp. 253–269; “Grupy

⁸ Naujausias yra G. Kavaliūnaitės šios krypties darbas (žr. Kavaliūnaitė 2002).

⁹ This hypothesis was also briefly mentioned in an earlier study (see p. 51 of the collection under discussion).

134 |

RECENZIJOS

spółgłoskowe litewskiej gwary punskiej“ (1986) p. 270–278), morfologija („Szkic morfologiczny litewskiej gwary punskiej“ (1984) (p. 279–305) bei skolintinė leksika – germanizmai („Zapożyczenia niemieckie w gwarze litewskiej okolic Puńska na Suwalszczyźnie“ (1986) p. 306–316). Atkreiptinas dėmesys, kad fonologinės pastabos metodiniu požiūriu svarbios ir bendrinės kalbos problemoms (garsai [ie], [uo], trumpieji balsiai [e], [o], skieme­niniai priebalsių junginiai ir kt.). Morfologijos studijoje aptarta ne tik kaityba, bet esama ir derivacinių pastabų (apie daiktavardžių darybą, žr. p. 282–284). Reikšminga, kad p. 299–303 paskelbta Punsko šnektos tekstų¹⁰. Germanizmų tyrime aptarta apie 90 žodžių, iš kurių 10 nėra užfiksuota LKŽ¹¹ (bankūkas, bankukėnas, brėkšt(r)ange, dampà, drėjeris, kerātė, kraižas, kūcė, liūke, raiš), pateiktos skolinių fonetinės adaptacijos taisyklės (p. 313, 315)¹².

The etymology section is the largest in the collection in terms of the number of texts. Five “Etymological Notes” studies offer many valuable insights into historical phonetics and derivational morphology. The words pavėikslas, paukštis, pešlys, nakvoti are etymologized (1990) (pp. 317–319); veikslūs, veigžlus, gaištras, gaizdras, žaizdras, žieždrai, žiegždros, žvirždai, žvirgždai, kemzdrynė, kremzlė (1993) (pp. 320–330); kakšlė, pūkšlė, vikšras, vievesą (1994) (pp. 331–337); vaikščioti (1995) (pp. 338–340); indas, pérgas, išeiga (1998) (pp. 341–350). The article “Etymologisches zu litauisch lokšnus, šikšna und šykštūs” (2000) (pp. 378–384), which addresses problems of consonant insertion, also belongs with these notes.

Three studies are devoted to Baltic-Slavic etymology. The first (“Slawisch ovadъ und litauisch úodas“, (1992) (pp. 351–354) shows that Sl. ovadъ can be considered a derivative of a prefixed verb: (Balt.-Sl.) *au̯-ōd-as: *au̯-ēd- ‘eat away, gnaw off; devour’. The second study concerns the development of the Lith. and Sl. lexemes meaning ‘month’ (“Etymologia scs. měsęcь и lit. mėnuo jako ilustracja zmian językowych stwierdzanych przez porównanie zewnętrzne“ (1994) (pp. 355–366). The result of a consistent analysis is the reconstruction of different word stems from the proto-language perspective, as well as thematization, suffixation, and metathesis of the Sl. lexeme: Lith. nom. mėnuo < *mēn-ōs-ø (IE nom. *meh₂n-ōs-ø), acc. mėnesį < *mēn-es-in (IE acc. *meh₂n-és-m); Sl. měsęcь < *měsinko- ← (metathesis) *mēns-i-ko- < *mēns-i-, where *mēns- derives from the IE gen. *meh₂n-s-és. The final Balt.-Sl. study discusses three problems: “Kılka zrówn­ań słowiańsko-litewskich: 1. Sl. *vęncb: Lith. vainikas; 2. PS *čeznǫti: Lith. kę́sti; 3. PS *degna: Lith. dengù” (1994) (pp. 385–394). In the author’s view, Sl. vęncb and Lith. vainikas should be regarded as derivatives with the suffix -ka- from the Balt.-Sl. noun *u̯ai-ni- (cf. Sl. ind. veníḥ ‘hair braid; plait, braid’): u̯ei- / *u̯ī- ‘twist, braid’. Osten-Sacken’s (1909: 246) proposal to compare Sl. *čeznǫti with Lith. išsikėžti, išsikėžti is refined: morphologically, it is more meaningful to compare *ke-n-ž(a) (cf. Lith. kę́zta) and Sl. *kez-ne-. This compares roots with the same vocalism and demonstrates two methods of forming nasal presents: infixation and suffixation, respectively. For the etymology of Sl. *degna (Old Polish dzięgna ‘gangrene of the oral cavity; inflammation or decay of the gums’; Upper Sorbian dzáha ‘heartburn, a burning sensation in the esophagus’), Smoczyński proposes drawing on Lith. pres. -dengù (sudengù ‘I burn up’, nudengù ‘I burn up’) and reconstructing Sl. pres. *dęgǫ, to which the abstractum suffix -nā- was added.

¹⁰ Dar žr. anksčiau autoriaus skelbtus tekstus (Smoczyński 1972: 104–109).

¹¹ The author was able to consult only volumes I–XI (A–R).

¹² Pages 313 and 314 should be transposed.

RECENZIJOS

135

Of course, the reader should not infer that questions of Slavic studies are discussed only in these three texts—important observations occur in most of Smoczyński’s articles (see the index of Slavic words, pp. 499–504).

Etimologinis etiudas „Litauisch lokyš, lateinisch lacer und griechisch ἀπέληχα“ (1999) (p. 367–377) svarbus ne tik baltistikai, bet ir graikų kalbos istorijai. Autoriaus manymu, baltų kalbose įžvelgtinas nomen agentis *lāk-īya ‘zerreißendes Tier; plėšrus žvėris’; balt. *lāk- ‘zerrēn, zerreißen; tempti, plėšyti’ (< ide. *leh₂k-). Sintaksinė šio žodžio istorija galėjusi būti tokia: (I) *žmoglokyš (adj.) žvėris (subst.) ‘žmogų suplešęs žvėris’ arba ‘žmones plėšantis žvėris’ → (II) *žmoglokyš (subst.) ‘t. p.’ → (III) lokyš¹³. Ši hipotezė paremtų kīpr. gr. aor. šaknies ληχ- (ἀπέληχα) vedimą iš *leh₂k-.

The three final texts in the etymology section are devoted to the history of derivational formatives. The article “Pochodzenie wyrazów litewskich typu pelūdė, arklidė” (2000) (pp. 403–407) presents the author’s view that the word pelūdė (or this derivational type) may have arisen alongside *pelūdēmē ‘place for storing chaff’, on the model of lyg-mė:: lyg-ė. Consequently, the formatives -idė and -udė should not be understood as containing the root *dʰeh₁-, zero grade *dʰ₁-.¹⁴ “The Origin of the Suffix -ščias” (1992) (pp. 408–413) explains it as follows: it arose through reanalysis of -jas derivatives from past passive participles ending in -st- or -št-, e.g., skliausčias: skliaustas, tuščias: *tuš-tas. In the article “Problematyka etymologiczna sufiksów -dyti i -styti” (1998) (pp. 414–417), the author proposed that verbs in -dyti and -styti were originally causative derivatives in -yti formed from intransitive verbs whose present stems had the suffixes -d- and -st-, and were only later resegmented (e.g., ardyti: *ér-da (cf. érdi) → ar-dyti: ir-ti; barstyti: birst-a → bar-styti: ber-ti).

The book concludes with texts devoted to linguistic relations between Polish and Lithuanian. The article “Altlitauisch prieras, pryieraut und priarka” (1998) (pp. 395–402) might perhaps be moved here from the etymology section. It proposes reading pryeráuk DK 74ᵖʳˢᵗ., pryeraut DK 84ᵖʳˢᵗ. as prijerauk, prijeraut¹⁵, and priarka BB Kar 8,31; BB Kar 19,27; BB 2 Sam 21,11 as prijarka (cf. Polish fryjerz / fryjarz, fryjerka / fryjarka). On the other hand, the corresponding forms in Sirvydas’s first dictionary, prieras, prierka (SPr 32 s.vv. fryierz, fryierka), and others, are proposed to be read without [j], e.g. prieras < *prijeras (like neprietelius < *neprijetelius < *neprijatelis; cf. Belarusian neprijatelb).

The “Polono-Lithuanica” series consists of four studies. The study “1. O nazwiskach typu Piłsudski” (1982) (pp. 418–427) is devoted to Polish surnames of Lithuanian toponymic origin. Not only is the amusing hypothesis about the personal name Piłsudski and the place-name Piłsudy (supposedly connected with pel-šūdis) refuted, but a substantial list of other surnames and corresponding place-names is also provided (cf. famous surnames that Lithuanians would hardly regard as locally derived: Łowmiański:: Laumėnai, Ogiński:: Uoginiai, Wiwulski:: Vivuliai, etc.). The collection’s final text, “Pochodzenie litewskiej nazwy miejscowej Piłsūdai (pol. Piłsudy)” (1984) (pp. 469–480), which examines in greater detail the origin of the place-name Piłsudy and its path into Polish, should also be linked to this article. The toponym is analyzed as containing the following stems: pil(ia)- (cf. pilis, etc.) and sūd- (present *sū-da, infinitive *sū-ti ‘become damp, etc.’, cf. iterative-causative sū-d-yti). Thus the original meaning of *pil(ia)-sūdas may have been ‘a damp or boggy place near a castle or

¹³ Perhaps at the first stage it would suffice to posit only *lokyš (adj.) ‘predatory’ + žvėris (noun) ‘animal’, as in vakāris ‘west wind’ ← vakaris vėjas ‘west wind’ (p. 372¹⁵).

¹⁴ Cf. also the article devoted to this and related problems (pp. 341–350).

¹⁵ The index of words in DK (p. 713) gives prieraut, prierauk.

136 |

RECENZIJOS

‘of the city’. The article “Les noms de famille polonais d’origine lituanienne” (1982) (pp. 461–468) is devoted to Polish surnames of Lithuanian origin; it discusses four types of anthroponyms: dithematic names (Pol. Butrym < Lith. Būt-rimas); those derived from shortened forms of dithematic personal names (Pol. Butejkis < Lith. But-eikis, from the shortened form Būt-as: Būt-rimas, Būt-vydas, etc.); those of Christian origin (Pol. Grygolan < Lith. Grigal-ionis: Grigalius); and nickname-derived names (Pol. Dojlido < Lith. Dailydà; cf. dailýda, dailìdė).

Four texts in the collection are devoted to Lithuanianisms in Polish. The article “Polono-Lithuanica. 2. Pol. kieszen(ia), br. keśenja a lit. kišėnė” (1985) (pp. 428–438)¹⁶ demonstrates that kišėnė is a word motivated within Lithuanian (from: kišti; dialectal kešėnė: the old praes. *kešu), first borrowed into Belarusian (kišenja, kišénь), and from there into Polish (kiesien(a), kieszeń(a)). The study “Polono-Lithuanica. 3. Pol. gwar. rupiezliwy a lit. rūpesývas” (1986) (pp. 439–444)¹⁷ draws attention to the adjective rupieżliwy in the Polish Suwałki dialects, meaning ‘concerned, anxious about something’, which had been erroneously derived from the non-existent Polish noun *rupież. Smoczyński demonstrated that this word should be regarded as a straightforward Lithuanianism: rūpesývas > *rupieśliwy (cf. Belarusian rúpjašlivy) → rupieżliwy (adapted to other Polish adjectives ending in -żliwy: bojaźliwy, obraźliwy, etc.). The fourth short article in the “Polono-Lithuanica” series clarifies certain aspects of the Lithuanianism guzny (cf. Lith. gūžynės) (1986) (pp. 442–444). In the broader collection of notes “O niektórych lituanizmach polszczyzny wileńskiej” (1987) (pp. 445–460), K. Tekielski’s data (1980) are carefully corrected and supplemented.

The book concludes with indexes of words and surnames, so readers interested in them will quickly find what they are looking for. A few forms have indeed been omitted; for example, there is no subsection for Old Russian words, where one could include krǫstiti 23, 111⁴⁶, 380⁷, krǫstǫ 380⁷, kūmeti 128, vūnukū 125, and so on.

The collection of Smoczyński’s works discussed here excellently illustrates the breadth of the author’s linguistic outlook: from phonetics to lexical studies; from specific problems in Lithuanian studies to general questions in Indo-European studies. There is no doubt that the linguist’s versatility and ability to synthesize material from several fields made it possible to take a fresh look at many interesting phenomena. The collection has already received a positive assessment from the distinguished scholar W. R. Schmalstieg (2002), so it is likely to prove useful to other Lithuanianists, Balticists, and Indo-Europeanists as well. In closing this review, one would like to propose publishing a collection of Smoczyński’s studies on Prussian, which would nicely complement his monographs (Smoczyński 2000; 2003). Naturally, new studies are also eagerly awaited; the author is therefore wished continued rūpes(t)lyvai work and that he not keep his ideas kišeniuose for long.

ABBREVIATIONS

BB – This is the whole Holy Scripture, translated into Lithuanian by Jonas Bretkūnas [...] 1590.

DK – Mikaloj aus Daukšos 1595 metų katekizmas (prepared by Vida Jakštienė and Jonas Palionis), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995.

DLKŽ⁴ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (ed. S. Keinys), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000.

¹⁶The title of the original article differs slightly: “Polono-Lithuanica. 2. Pol. kieszen(a), br. kiśenja a lit. kišėnė” (cf. p. 445¹ of the collection under review). In addition, a superscript asterisk <*> should be added at the end of the title, since the footnote on p. 428 has no reference in the text.

¹⁷The contents (p. 7) give rūpes(t)lyvas, but without accent marks. A footnote marker <¹> should follow the title (p. 439).

RECENZIJOS

| 137

LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language I–XX (eds. J. Balčikonis, J. Kruopas, K. Ulvydas, V. Vitkauskas), Vilnius, 1941–2002.

SPr – The Old Dictionary of Konstantinas Sirvydas (prepared by Kazys Pakalka), Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1997.

LITERATŪRA

Buck C. D. 1949: A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gamkrelidze T. V., Ivanov V. V. 1984: Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы. Реконструкция и историко-типологический анализ праязыка и протокультуры, кн. 1–2, Тбилиси: Издательство Тбилисского университета.

Kavaliūnaitė G. 2002: Die postpositionalen Lokalkasus in Chylinskis’ Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. Linguistica Baltica 10 (spausdinama).

Kazlauskas J. 1961: Iš optatyvo istorijos. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 4, 73–91.

Kazlauskas J. 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika (Kirčiavimas, daiktavardis, veiksmažodis), Vilnius: Mintis.

Osten-Sacken, W. 1909: Etymologien. Indogermanische Forschungen 24, 238–248.

Sabaliauskas A. 1990: Lietuvių kalbos leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Schmalstieg W. R. 2002: [Rec.:] Wojciech Smoczyński. Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej, 2001. Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 235–244.

Smoczyński W. 1972: Gwara południowolitewska w Sejneńskiem. Obrębska-Jabłońska, A., red., Teksty gwarowe z Białostocczyzny z komentarzem językowym, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe (Prace Białostockiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 18), 97–109.

Smoczyński W. 1982: Indoeuropėnų pagrindas slownictwa bałtyckiego. Acta Baltico-Slavica 14, 211–240.

Smoczyński W. 2000: Untersuchungen zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreußischen, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego (Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia 3).

Smoczyński W. 2003: Lexikon der altpreußischen Verben (spausdinama).

Tekielskis K. 1980: Lituanizmy leksykalne w dialekcie okolic Podbrzezia i Niemenczyna. Acta Baltico-Slavica 13, 67–72.

Jurgis Pakerys Vilniaus universitetas Baltistikos ir bendrosios kalbotyros katedra Universiteto 5, 2734 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]

Gauta 2002 12 19