Edenda Curaverunt, Józef Marcinkiewicz ir Norbert Ostrowski. „Mvnera lingvistica et philologica Michaeli Hasivk dedicata“

138 | RECENZIJOS LINGUISTIC AND PHILOLOGICAL GIFTS DEDICATED TO MICHAEL HASIUK. EDITED BY JÓZEF MARCINKIEWICZ AND NORBERT OSTROWSKI Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Katedra Skandynawistyki i Baltologii, 2001, 273 p., ISBN 83-232-1198-1. (Poznańskie Studia Bałtystyczne, 1.) It is symbolic that in recent years several collections of commemorative articles dedicated to foreign Balticists have launched new series of Baltic studies books. Thus, in 2000, a volume honoring the prominent German Slavist and Balticist Rainer Eckert appeared, Aspekte baltistischer Forschung—the first book in the series “Schriften des Instituts für Baltistik der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald.” This tradition is also upheld by the collection of articles dedicated to Professor Michał Hasiuk, a champion of Polish Baltic studies: it marks the beginning of the series “Poznańskie Studia Bałtystyczne.” On the other hand, as is evident from the preface by the volume’s editors, Józef Marcinkiewicz and Norbert Ostrowski, it is also a kind of continuation of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań’s old series “Seria Filologii Bałtyckiej,” which included three important books for Balticists, published as early as the second half of the 1970s1. In addition to the list of congratulators on the occasion of Professor Hasiuk’s 70th birthday and the comprehensive bibliography of his works, the collection also briefly presents the most important episodes in the honoree’s life, especially his scholarly activity (pp. XV–XVII, Eugeniusz Rajnik). The account highlights several of Hasiuk’s principal research interests: Lithuanian dialectology, phonology and phonetics, and the history of the Baltic languages. Naturally, the editors sought to ensure that most of the articles in the volume would address questions in precisely these fields, which were close to the honoree. Literary studies are also represented—for Michał Hasiuk, who devoted considerable effort to developing Lithuanian studies in Poland, particularly in Poznań (from 1987 he headed the Department of Baltic Languages at the University of Poznań), also strongly supported its literary side. A closer examination of the works published in the volume makes it clear that diachronic research on the Baltic languages occupies the largest share. A considerable number of articles are devoted to the history of words—etymology, historical word formation, and historical morphology. Some etymological studies pursue research on loanwords. In the aptly concise article “Lith. (Žem.) ābrinas” (pp. 73–79), Vincas Urbutis adds several newly elucidated loanwords to the history of Lithuanian vocabulary. This time, he convincingly shows that the Samogitian ābrinas ‘a small upright wooden container with a lid for putting butter or other things in’, included in DŽ₁₋₄ as a native word, is in fact a late Latvian borrowing, taken from the Latvian dialects of the southwestern corner of Courland. Incidentally, other names for the old wooden butter container are also touched upon in passing, especially the suspected Slavicism vogōnas. The semantic development of ābrinas and vogōnas is interesting. The meaning of both words differs considerably from that of their sources—the Latvian and Slavic words; the usual meaning of Latvian abra is ‘kneading trough, bread trough’, and this meaning is also found in some Slavic examples. The researcher rightly argues that the meaning of the Lithuanian loanwords may have shifted from ‘kneading trough, bread trough’ to ‘old wooden butter container, abrinas’ either through the intermediate meaning ‘(wooden) bowl (with a lid)’ or by direct specialization; compare Lithuanian dežė ‘chest, box’ and ‘abrinas’, derived from Belarusian дзяжа and Polish dzieża ‘kneading trough’. 1 Kolbuszewski (1977), Kudzinowski (1977), Hasiuk (1978). RECENZIJOS 139 On the basis of certain orthographic features of Prussian texts, Pietras U. Dinis identified a Germanism in Prussian in “Linguistics and Baltic Philology: On EV 469 Scrundus, EV 558 Scrundos” (pp. 131–136). According to him, Pr. scrundus, scrundos ‘scissors’, with the original meaning ‘*splitting off, tearing away’, reflects Pr. [[rund-] and is related to MHG schrunde ‘crack, tear in the skin’, schründic ‘having cracks in the skin’ (cf. MHG schrinden ‘to tear, crack, split, become fissured’). Since the meaning of the object or result of an action in German derivatives with the so-called zero suffix is usually closely related to the meaning of nomina actionis, such a borrowing seems quite plausible. Perhaps, however, given the instrumental meaning acquired by the Prussian Germanism, it would have been useful to provide other parallels. Interesting connections with the history of Lithuanian words are brought to light in Lembit Vaba’s article “Is the Finnic lanko a Germanic or a Baltic loan?” (pp. 157–160). Although the case under consideration concerns a Finnic word, the proposed etymology of lanko ‘relatives by marriage [etc.]’ depends directly on establishing the origin of the borrowing source—the Lithuanian word. Vaba considers Kaarlo Liukkonen’s attempts to connect Finn. lanko with Lith. (Samog.) nuolanka, lankà ‘humility, submission; the daughter-in-law’s bow to her husband’s relatives’ semantically unfounded. It is true that the article recounts this rejected etymology not quite accurately: the meaning ‘humility, submission, respect’ is not given for nuolanka; consequently, the etymological connection appears entirely incomprehensible, whereas in fact it should be criticized above all for the novelty and limited distribution of the Samogitian derivative selected. The source of the Finnic borrowing chosen by the Estonian scholar himself—Lith. laigonas—seems more suitable, at least semantically and in terms of distribution and antiquity. But, as the author of the study also acknowledges, this entails phonetic difficulties and requires addressing problems in the etymology and historical phonology of the Lithuanian word. It is regrettable that Vaba did not make use of Rūta Buivydienė’s monograph Lietuvių kalbos vedybų giminystės pavadinimai (1997), which presents in detail the history of research on laigono and assesses the proposed etymologies. Buivydienė reasonably favors a connection with words based on the PIE root *leik- ‘to connect, tie’, ‘to reach, undertake’. Thus, the linguist would probably have been able to devote much less space to other, less well-founded alternatives. In the article, the prototype of the Finnic word is considered to be Lith. *langonas, which, it is conjectured, may have existed alongside laigonas, in the same way as the variants aldra // audra; bengti // baigti; tvankas // tvaikas; strungas // strugas. However, alternation between a sonant and a vowel—or, more precisely, perhaps between a diphthong and a vowel sequence—in the root or suffix is a rather problematic and not entirely clear linguistic phenomenon. Nor is the relationship among the examples given entirely clear; at least some of them reflect different linguistic regularities: aldra // audra and other similar variants result from the al // au alternation characteristic of some dialects (see Zinkevičius 1966: 164 for more); the root n in bengti, which arose later alongside baigti, beigti, is of infixal origin (see Urbutis 1981: 100–104); there is no consensus on the relationship between tvaikas and tvankas (Urbutis 1981: 102, n. 26), and so forth.2 Thus, the proposed explanation of Finn. lanko remains overly hypothetical. Mariola Walczak-Mikolaiczakowa’s research (“Балтизмы в болгарском языке”, pp. 167–173) continues the refinement of the dictionary of Balticisms prepared by Jūratė Laučiūtė, Словарь балтизмов в славянских языках (1982). Similar work has already been undertaken by other scholars; cf. Vincas Urbutis’s review (Urbutis 1984: 184–191) and Aleksandras Anikin’s comments (Anikin 2001: 8–10). The article under discussion rightly questions whether the nine Bulgarian words mentioned in Laučiūtė’s dictionary could be Balticisms. 2 The phenomenon of replacing nasal vowels with diphthongs or vowel sequences through epenthesis, studied in detail by Vytautas Vitkauskas, would not be applicable to the postulated phonetic changes in the word either (Vitkauskas 2001: 120–126). 140 | RECENZIJOS Balticisms. Only one of them—вепер—is unquestionably of Baltic origin, but from the perspective of Bulgarian it is a Russianism. Similarly, some of the other words mentioned in the dictionary entered Bulgarian through closer Slavic languages, while the rest are probably simply cognate words dating back to the common Baltic-Slavic period. Among studies of the origins of Baltic words themselves, Wojciech Smoczyński’s work deserves mention first of all. In the article “Litewskie stógas obok innych refleksów pie. pierwiatków na *h₂Te” (pp. 15–27), he develops an idea raised in earlier works, “Indoeuropėjiškie podstawy słownictwa litewskiego” and “Komentar laryngalistyczny do wybranych formacji litewskich” (Smoczyński 2001: 131ff., 252), concerning the origin of Lith. stógas, more precisely Baltic *stág-a-. In his view, this isolated word is a derivative of the extinct Lithuanian verb *stógti, stóga, stógo ‘to flow in drops, seep, drip’ (which has cognates in Greek)3. The original meaning of stógas would then have been ‘drainage gutter (of a roof), roof overhang for rainwater runoff’, with the current meaning developing by metonymy. The semantic aspect of the proposed hypothesis raises some doubts. More obvious parallels in other languages are lacking. The motivation of the principal words for ‘roof’ in a considerable number of Indo-European languages is, after all, related to covering: German Dach, Germanic *þaka-, Latin toga, Russian and Belarusian крыша, etc.; compare also dialectal Lithuanian dangtis ‘roof’ (LKŽII 259). Thus, the etymology of Vytautas Mažiulis, omitted from the article, seems more reliable. In Prūsų kalbos etimologiniame žodyne, it returns to earlier attempts to connect the word with PIE *(s)teg- ‘to cover’: Baltic (dial.) *stágas is a flexional derivative of the Baltic verb *stīg- / stag- ‘to cover’ ← *stag-, which existed alongside the Baltic verb *steg- ‘to cover’; cf. cognate Pr. steege ‘barn’ < Pr. *stēgē ‘covering’ < Pr. stēg- ‘to cover’ < Baltic *steg- ‘the same’, etc. (Mažiulis 1997: 157ff.). Besides the etymology of stogas, Smoczyński’s article discusses a dozen or so Lithuanian words whose phonological structure corresponds to the reconstructed *stág- < *stéh₁g-, i.e. *C(C)eh₂T. The origins of some of the words discussed here had already been mentioned in the author’s earlier works. However, there are also entirely new etymological connections which, with new material, complement the work of the renowned German linguists Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (see Rix 1998). The etymological studies presented by Piotr Stalmaszczyk and Krzysztof T. Witczak are quite problematic (“On two Baltic-Celtic terms for ‘stallion’,” pp. 29–32). As can be inferred from the article, they are closely connected with a project to prepare a new comparative etymological dictionary of the Indo-European languages at the University of Łódź. The linguists offer two new etymologies of Baltic words denoting a stallion or horse. They argue that the source of borrowing for Pr. sveriapis ‘tournament horse’ and OCS *swerjepъ is *swerihāpos ‘stallion’ in an extinct East Celtic dialect; cf. OIr. serrach ‘young horse, foal’, etc. Nevertheless, the possibility is not excluded that the Prussians borrowed this conjectured Celtic word directly and even shared a common Balto-Slavic word, *sweriapas. Most likely, as many of today’s leading specialists in Prussian believe, it is a Polonism in Prussian. Moreover, not a single reliable instance of borrowing from Celtic has been established in Slavic, let alone Baltic, nor has a fully convincing exclusive Baltic-Celtic isogloss been identified (cf. Dini 2000: 53f., 152f.). Thus, rather than the elaborate and complicated etymology constructed here, a far more acceptable explanation is the connection, proposed by Trautmann and Vasmer, of Polish świerzepa ‘mare’, Czech sveřep(ec) ‘field weed; breeding stallion’, etc., with an adjective not preserved in Polish but attested in other Slavic languages; cf. OCS swerěpъ ‘wild’, Slovene srěp ‘angry, harsh’, etc. A new, conjectured etymological connection between Baltic, Celtic, and Indo-Iranian is proposed: East Baltic *kumelias ‘stallion’ (*ku- 3Incidentally, it is unclear why the word formation revealed reaches back only to Proto-Lithuanian times, since stogas is a common Baltic word. RECENZIJOS | 141 melias), OIr. meile ‘horse’ < and Celtic *melyos, Skt. máryaḥ ‘stallion’—also seems debatable. The word Skt. márva- meaning ‘stallion’, supposedly recorded in the Rigveda, is cited only in old Sanskrit dictionaries from the late nineteenth century. In recent scholarly works this meaning is not given at all (cf. Mayrhofer 1996: 326; Geldner 1951 a: 191.13; 1951 b: IX 97.18). Thus, the word probably does not exist with this meaning in Old Indic. The genetic relationships of the presumed cognate OIr. meile, meanwhile, cannot be reliably established because its meaning is not entirely clear. Ignacas R. Dankas’s article in Latin, “De Balticis ciconiae nominibus” (pp. 1–4), with which the editors opened and seemingly presented the volume, is a striking example of the ideologization of Indo-European studies and the failure to read etymological literature. The article surveys research into the origins of some Baltic names for the stork. It mostly confines itself to the works of the old classics of Indo-European studies, and takes no account of what Baltists wrote in the second half of the twentieth century. For instance, the Lithuanian gužas, gužutis is considered an Indo-European inheritance, supposedly unanalyzed since Pokorny’s time, when in fact, as Vincas Urbutis established, it is a formation from the Lithuanian-language period (cf. gūžinti ‘to walk bent over, hunched’, gūžinėti ‘to walk stooped, shuffle’, gūžtis ‘to huddle together, curl up’, gaužtis ‘to hunch, draw in one’s neck, crouch’, etc.; see Urbutis 1981: 33 and n. 43). Other etymologies analyzed in detail in Urbutis’s study Baltų kalbų garrnio pavadinimai are also left unmentioned: Lithuanian garnys, genė and so on, and Latvian dialectal guoris (Urbutis 1981: 18, 24f., 32f.), although these are much better founded than the explanations recounted in the article. Stranger still, the Germanic origin of the word gandras is treated as virtually the only possibility, with no discussion of alternatives; yet closer examination of the literature cited in the footnote (p. 2, n. 4), which seems to confirm this sole route, reveals that entirely different explanations of the origin are actually preferred there. Moreover, the article repeatedly relies on the Polish Yatvingian word list once brought to public attention by Z. Zinkevičius, citing from it supposed Yatvingian equivalents (sterkas, gerwe), although Wolfgang Schmid has quite convincingly established that the language recorded in this little work is not Yatvingian at all⁴. Even Zinkevičius’s view, expressed somewhat later, that the words recorded here are those of the Yatvingians (as a certain union of Baltic tribes) and of Lithuanians living in the basin of the Narva River (Zinkevičius 1992: 99–133), does not justify such a trusting and uncritical approach to this source. It is commonly emphasized that the data must be assessed with great caution. The volume includes several studies devoted to onomastics. Józef Marcinkiewicz discusses the origin of the suffix -ukas in Suwałki personal names (“The -uk- affix in Lithuanian personal names of the Suwałki region,” pp. 55–62). Drawing on what are known as Falk’s [published] data from the registers of griniņķi (seventeenth–eighteenth centuries), he argues that the aforementioned suffix in Suwałki personal names is Lithuanian rather than Belarusian (the latter origin is identified by a considerable number of researchers). Nevertheless, the facts presented do not yield a definitive answer: some ecclesiastical Latin names entered Lithuanian specifically through Belarusian or Polish, and determining whether certain variants were typically Lithuanianized is very difficult given the close ties among Polish, Lithuanian, and Belarusian. At times, precision is also lacking. For example, it is claimed that Belarusianisms in Polish dialects identified by other linguists are “really Lithuanian origin (sic)” (p. 56, n. 4), although the Lithuanian equivalents of some of them, e.g. pacuki (cf. paciūkas), kańcuk (cf. kańčukas), kindžuk (cf. kindžiūkas), are borrowings. The adaptation of Baltic place names and personal names in the Polish, Belarusian, and Lithuanian border region is discussed in Michal Kondratiuk’s article “О славянизации балтийских топонимов и антропонимов на 4 The word list does indeed record a mixture of Lithuanian, Latvian, and German, which may have been spoken by a Jewish newcomer who did not know Lithuanian and Latvian well (see Schmid 1986: 273–286). 142 | RECENZIJOS polsko-belorussko-litovskom pogranič’e” (pp. 161–166). These studies grew out of the scholar’s earlier work (cf. especially Kondratiuk 1985 and 2000). The accumulated database of names from the Białystok region of Poland and the Grodno region of Belarus made it possible to survey the ways in which identified Lithuanian place names and personal names were Slavicized: phonetic, phonetic-derivational, several hybrid types (with a Baltic word root and a Slavic other element), translational, and folk-etymological adaptation. Mykolas Letas Palmaitis’s study, which analyzes the origins of some Prussian-Russian place names and personal names, is interesting, though controversial (“Old Prussian Share in Creating the First Russian State,” pp. 141–153). Drawing on historical and protohistorical (chronicle and legend), archaeological, and onomastic data, the linguist reconstructs (or creates?) a fragment of Prussian history from the ninth to thirteenth centuries, closely connected with the formation of Kievan Rus’. This develops the Normanist theory of the state’s origins. The Prussians here are, in a sense, allies and intermediaries of the Normans, or Vikings, the Varangians. In connection with this, a distinctive origin is proposed for the name Russia and the Russian ethnonym: they derive from the Vikings’ name Rūs < Rōs, cf. Old Icelandic róþs-menn ‘rowers’, a generalization based on the name of the Prussians living in the basin of the Rusnė (Russ / *Rusā) River, *Rus(ai), Russes. In general, the material in chronicles and legends is usually multifaceted, ambiguous, and unverifiable, making it very difficult (perhaps impossible) to avoid speculation here. The “Prussocentrism” of Palmaitis’s hypotheses immediately raises serious doubts. The handling of facts and linguistic material seems too strongly bent toward a single idea: Russian vitjaz’ (← Prussian *vītingis ← Old Germanic vikingr), said to have entered Russian through Prussian, is based on the stem of the Prussian word jō, whereas the Varangian prince’s name Oleg, considered to be of Prussian origin, ← Prussian *Algis (such a Prussian personal name is, admittedly, unattested), is generalized from the supposed genitive *Algas and the ō stem of other cases. Some ancient two-stem personal names of North Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic origin are also linked etymologically. Henryk Jankowski’s article “The names of habitation places of Polish-Lithuanian Tatars” (pp. 189–200) also belongs to the field of onomastics. It investigates the origins of toponyms for Tatar settlements in the Trakai and Vilnius regions and in parts of Belarus and Poland, which are presumed to be of Turkic origin. Besides place names with the Turkic suffix -Lar, the article discusses toponyms derived from Tatar personal names with added Slavic or Lithuanian suffixes. By the way, the Lithuanian suffix -išk- (in its Slavicized form -iški) is inexplicably and inaccurately classified as Slavic or even Lithuanian-Slavic. Also interesting, and awaiting assessment by Lithuanian onomasticians, is the attempt to link the name of the Vokė River with the Turkic proper noun Waq. Witold Mańczak’s study “Coup d’oeil sur le dictionnaire de fréquence du lituanien” (pp. 47–53) brings together, in a distinctive way, synchronic and diachronic research on words and forms. It further develops and substantiates the author’s claim that irregular sound changes may result from frequent word use. Drawing on Laima Grumadienė and Vida Žilinskienė’s Dažninis dabartinės rašomosios lietuvių kalbos žodynas (1997), the article presents a list of especially frequently used words whose origins cannot be explained by sound laws or analogy. It appears that most such words or forms have been shortened, others have arisen through the fusion of several longer words, and still others have undergone sound changes. It is odd that the article contains no references at all to literature used to establish word origins. It is unclear whether, apart from Fraenkel, mentioned several times (presumably his work Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch?), other works were consulted. Probably not. Accordingly, comments on some words need revising: opinions about the origins of namō and žemyn are quite conflicting and varied—they are not necessarily shortened forms (see Zinkevičius 1981: 170, 182f. with references). There is likewise no complete agreement about the shortening of the Germanism pinigas. According to Kazimieras Būga, only the Samogitian dialects borrowed the longer variant piningas (from Old High German penning), whereas pinigas was borrowed somewhat later (around 1200) from Middle High German pennig. RECENZIJOS | 143 buvo perimtas aukštaĩčiu (Būga 1959: 91). Vadinasi, čia susiduriame ne su vienos formos trumpėjimu, o su kelių formų konkurencijos išdava. Tikslumo kartais trūksta pateikiant Fraenkelio žodyno duomenis. Teigiama, jog dalelytė gi yra sutrumpėjusi veiksmažodžio girdi forma. O iš tiesų ta dažniausiai vartojama pabrėžiamoji dalelytė gi laikoma archajiška ir siejama su senuosiuose tekstuose paplitusiomis -ge, -ga, -gu, taip pat su slavų ir kitų kalbų atitikmenimis (Fraenkel 1962: 126; Zinkevičius 1981: 197). Dėl pakartotos kitos Fraenkelio (remiantis Endzelynu 1939: 74, 188) hipotezės apie homonimišką gi, pasitaikančią sakinio pradžioje ir neva kilusią iš girdi, galima ir paabejoti⁵. Kad ir kaip ten būtų, į dažninį žodyną veikiausiai buvo įtraukta tik įprastinė archajiškoji dalelytė gi. Taip pat svarstytina, ar verta nedėsningu trumpinimu laikyti dūrinio pirmojo sando galūnės (arba istorinio kamiengalio su galūne) numetimą, plg. šimtmetis, viešbutis komentarus⁶. Dūrinių formavimasis iš dviejų žodžių junginio vyksta ne chaotiškai, o pagal tam tikrus dėsningumus. Autoriaus hipotezę atitinkančiu trumpėjimu nebent būtų galima laikyti dūrinio jungiamojo balsio išmetimą, tačiau naujadaras viešbutis, neturįs ilgesnių variantų, čia taip pat netiktų. Turbūt korektūros klaida laikytinas nors kildinimas iš noris, o ne iš noris. A similar work by W. Mańczak, devoted to Prussian, is also commented on and corrected in another article in the reviewed volume, with the graceful and subtly witty title “A note on Old Prussian dewas, Marx and engels” (pp. 155–156). Its author, Williams Schmalstieg, corrects several Prussian examples that inappropriately illustrate the relationship between the frequency of the words mentioned above and irregular phonetic changes. The shortened forms of the word dewas and other *ǭ-stem words cannot be considered to be nom. sg. forms in -is (dewis, etc.), since only these forms (with no variant dewas alongside them) are used in the earliest Prussian text, the Elbing vocabulary. The gen. sg. form sīras ‘of the heart’ is also unshortened: the Old Church Slavonic form česo, compared by Mańczak, in fact reflects an *ǭ stem, whereas the Prussian form is a consonant stem; cf. Greek χῆρος. Norberto Ostrowski’s research on the Lithuanian verb is related to historical morphology (“Zu den litauischen nasalinfigierenden Verben des Typs ved. punāti,” pp. 69–71). According to the author, several Lithuanian verbs can be found with an old nasal infix: trinti ‘rub’, skinti ‘pluck’, and minti ‘trample’; the representatives of this type identified by earlier researchers, žinoti ‘know’ and gauti (gauna) ‘get’, should be rejected. Frederik Kortlandas examines questions of historical word formation (“OPr. -snā, Lith. -sena, Latv. -šana,” pp. 137–139). This is another attempt to establish the genetic relationship between Lithuanian -sena, Latvian -šana, and Prussian -snā (for other attempts, see Ambrazas 1993: 60ff.). Kortlandas reconstructs the following Baltic-Slavic paradigm: nom. sg. -sin, acc. sg. -senin, with -snā- in the other cases. Karlas H. Schmidtas surveys archaic Baltic reflexive forms, regarded as Indo-European inheritances (“Zum baltischen Reflexivum,” pp. 5–14). The position of the enclitic pronoun s(i) in words and sentences in old Baltic texts, as well as the use in a sentence of the possessive genitive savo of the reflexive pronoun, is compared with counterparts in ancient Indo-European languages (Indo-Iranian, Tocharian, Greek, etc.) and, typologically, with ergative-sentence tendencies in non-Indo-European Kartvelian languages. 5 Fraenkelis indicates that its meaning is ‘however, while, but’. Nevertheless, LKŽ does not give this meaning, and the similar use of gi found in speech (corrected in language-culture publications) in comparative or adversative compound sentences was conditioned by the Russian conjunction and particle že. On the other hand, Endzelīns’s idea should not be entirely dismissed. Unlike Fraenkelis, the Latvian linguist did not specify a clear second meaning for the particle gi. It may be that the origin of the later meaning of jaugi that he mentions, ‘indeed, yes, by the way’ (also included in LKŽ), is in fact connected with the verb form girdi. 6 By the way, the base words of the compound viešpilas, cited as the model (prototype) for the word viešbutis, may have been not viešas and pilis, but viešas and pilti. 144 | RECENZIJOS Several semantic parallels from Caucasian and Basque languages concerning the etymology of the emphatic pronoun *patis support the interpretation advanced by a considerable number of linguists, including Delbrück, Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, and, most recently and especially cogently, Rosinas: that the original meaning of Indo-European *pot was ‘ruler, master’ (see Rosinas 2000: 129–140). The only article devoted to the complex subject of Baltic historical accentology is Rick Derksen’s “Tonal oppositions on non-initial syllables in Latvian” (pp. 81–87). It tests Steven Young’s claim that the secondary broken tone in the non-initial syllables of Central Latvian dialects almost regularly corresponds to the original circumflex. The analysis shows that the pattern identified is not regular: some of Young’s examples can be interpreted quite differently; Latvian and Lithuanian dialects have numerous variants with conflicting accentuation, and the operation of Saussure–Fortunatov’s law in non-initial syllables has also been unjustifiably absolutized. For further study of the origin of the broken tone in non-initial syllables, Derksen proposes a number of systematic steps: first, take account of existing Latvian dialect variants, then compare them with Lithuanian dialect data, and finally draw on morpheme etymology. Incidentally, loanword data might also offer a distinctive way of refining these studies; compare the Germanisms mentioned in the article, sī-puōls, maguōne, and the Slavicism čilvēks (cilvēks). The volume includes two works on Latvian studies among its research into the history of old texts. Gvidas Michelinis investigates the sources of the first printed Latvian book—the 1585 translation of Petrus Canisius’s Catholic catechism (“Sources of the 1585 Latvian Catechism,” pp. 121–129). Extensive quotations show that no definitive source for the catechism could be found. The Latvian text is more similar to Canisius’s German small catechisms; the closest are the 1584 Der kleine Katechismus and the 1581 Catechismus In Kurtze Frag. However, according to the author, a considerable number of passages remain without clear parallels. Two hypotheses are proposed: either the Latvian work was compiled from translations of several different catechisms by Canisius prepared earlier, or some compiled manuscript text (in German) was used. It is worth adding that further material on this question might be provided by verifying a possibility of authorship by the translator, inexplicably left unmentioned in the article: it is conjectured that the catechism’s translator may have been the German Erthmannis Tolgsdorffas. Incidentally, the surname of the editor of the facsimile edition of the catechism is given inaccurately—it should be Günther, not Günter. Toshikazo Inouė’s article “Некоторые заметки к изданному Бецценбергером тексту латышского Катехизиса 1586 года” (pp. 113–119) discusses another old Latvian catechism—the 1586 translation of Martin Luther’s Enchiridion. In fact, it presents a list of discrepancies and small errors found in Adalbert Bezzenberger’s critical edition (1875) of the Latvian Enchiridion. The author’s proposed reading of the entire text, with commentary in Japanese, was published in Japan. These textual notes are just the beginning of a planned major undertaking: comparing all three Baltic Enchiridion texts. This undertaking is also made possible by the sources of the Prussian and Latvian texts having been studied quite thoroughly by scholars (see Trautmann 1909: 217–479; Mažiulis 1966: 33–40; Vanags 1995: 52–62). It is true that, since Trautmann’s study, apparently no one has again investigated the relationship between the sources and the Lithuanian translation by Baltramiejus Vilentas, ENCHIRIDION Catechijmas maþas; Vilentas’s work is also one expanded part of the 1547 catechism translated from Polish (probably the work of Martynas Mažvydas himself). The reviewed volume contains several articles devoted to dialectological research. There could have been more, since dialect research is perhaps Michało Hasiuko’s main field of scholarly interest. Almost all the dialectological studies analyze the dialects of Lithuanian speakers in Poland. Kazimieras Garšva RECENZIJOS | 145 In the article, the author reviews and presents the phonological and some accentological features of these dialects (“The Lithuanian dialects of the Seinai region,” p. 33–38). Particular emphasis is placed on the phonological interpretations of variants of the vowel i:, a, and e; problems in determining the quantity of word-final and post-accentual vowels; and the leveling of pitch accents on long vowels. As for the hardening of the consonants l, r, and s mentioned above, opposing assessments are also possible: see Kardelis (2001: 141–150 with references). Piotr Grablun’s and Jowita Niewulis’s dialect studies are rather student-like. In Grablun’s paper, “Some (sic!) questions concerning the use of the locative in the Polish Dzūkian dialect” (p. 39–46), the very awkward and confusing use of terms for describing the locative is striking. The opening of the article and its English summary make clear that the terms locative / inessive and illative / directive are used synonymously, that is, for the inessive and, respectively, the elative locative. The examples, however, show otherwise: “The inessive can be used to express a) the locative and b) the inessive” (p. 40); “The illative can also be used to express a) the inessive and b) the locative” (p. 40), “The illative also approaches the directive in meaning, not the locative” (p. 44)7. A review of the terminology used for the locative, based on Jonas Šukys’s classification of case meanings, shows that a considerable number of the locative constructions described are syntactic calques from Slavic languages (the article discusses only the adoption of certain constructions from Polish). In Jowita Niewulis’s article “The distinctive features of pronouns in the Punsk dialect” (p. 62–67), the more unusual forms of individual pronouns in the Punsk dialect are discussed. Here, too, there are some inaccuracies. For instance, the forms jisai, jinai, tasai are regarded as definite forms of pronouns, whereas in fact they are forms extended by the postpositive particles -ai, -nai, which in some dialects are treated as definite forms (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 430ff.). Friedhelm Hinze’s article-publication, “Mehrsprachigkeit rund um das Kurische Haff im Bewusstsein meines Gewährsmannes Fritz Peleikis (1904–1984) aus Preil” (p. 98–111), is devoted to the study of a quite different distinctive dialect, or perhaps even language. It publishes a late text in the Curonian Spit dialect, written by Fritz Peleikis, a former fisherman from Neringa. Its value lies in the additional marking of the rising pitch accent uttered by the informant while commenting. The paper also provides detailed commentary on place names and certain word forms, with comparisons to German and Baltic languages. The author emphasizes that, like other late twentieth-century texts, Peleikis’s “Panorama” shows clear signs of a vanishing dialect. Rainer Eckert’s article “Satzgliedwertige und satzwertige Phraseologismen aus der Sprache der lettischen Folklore” (p. 89–98), on Latvian lexicology and folklore, is interesting. The linguist examined a phraseological set based on the words siets and sijāt. A comparison of various folklore phraseological units and proverbs convincingly revealed the meaning of expressions such as caur sietu sijāt kādu, meaning ‘to despise, revile, mistreat’, and refuted Artūrs Ozols’s view that Latvian sung folklore contains only undeveloped “seeds” of phraseological units. Joanna Ostaszewska and Tomasz Wicherkiewicz’s article “Žemaitisch und Latgalisch als europäische Regionalsprachen” (p. 175–188) represents sociolinguistics, a relatively young branch of linguistics in Lithuania and Latvia. The authors conclude that, by virtue of their characteristic features, both Samogitian and Latgalian should be considered regional languages. Some inaccuracies crept into the account of Samogitian history. The Samogitian region (dialect) is confused with the historical fifteenth-century— 7 In the first two cases, there may be a typographical error: the dialect sentences suggest that “illative” should be used instead of “inessive”; cf. ind’e:j’p’uodi p’inigus; nuv’3:jo: lauk’uosna darb’u: dzi:rpcie. 146 | RECENZIJOS —the seventeenth-century Duchy of Samogitia (and bishopric, whose date of establishment and founder are also given incorrectly), which encompassed mainly Aukštaitian areas in central Lithuania and established an Aukštaitian version of the written language. Consequently, Mikalojus Daukša, who wrote in the Central Aukštaitian dialect, is mistakenly mentioned as a Samogitian author, while the Aukštaitian towns of Jurbarkas and Kėdainiai are mentioned alongside the distinctly Samogitian Skuodas. Priests and monks promoted the idea of a standard Samogitian language in the nineteenth, not the eighteenth, century. At least a few words could also have been said about the eighteenth century—this was when (not in the twentieth century) a distinctive Samogitian orthography began to take shape. Moreover, it is hard to agree with the claim that Samogitians still look different from Aukštaitians (apparently they have been confused with the Latgalians, who do indeed have a distinctive appearance). In addition to this work in external linguistics, several other articles that go beyond the boundaries of traditional linguistics are worth mentioning: Alfred Majewicz’s study “Bronisław Piłsudski and Lithuania” (p. 201–214), about the renowned ethnographer Piłsudski’s connections with Lithuania, and Bernard Piotrowski’s study “W oczekiwaniu na niepodległość. Litwini amerykańscy i z Prus Wschodnich wobec spraw narodowych (1914–1915)” (p. 215–227), about the political expectations of Lithuanians in East Prussia and America in 1914–1915. As noted, the volume also includes works on literary studies. All of them are connected in one way or another with Lithuanian literature. However, only Juozas Girdzijauskas’s article “Liudvikas Adomas Jucevičius kultūrų kryžkelėje” (p. 241–249) and Monika Pokorska-Iwaniuk’s rather student-like survey “Maironis – didysis lietuvių poetas” (p. 251–263) analyze Lithuanian authors and their works. The other two interesting contributions belong to the history of Polish literature: an expressively written article by Jerzy Borowczyk and Radosław Okulicz-Kozaryn, “Pasilinksminimai niūriu metu pas bazilijonus. Filomatų papročiai Vėlinių III dalyje” (p. 229–239), and Justyna Prusinowska’s paper “Vitolio rauda – užmiršta J. I. Kraše vskio lietuviškoji daina” (p. 265–270). It is regrettable that Prusinowska does not compare the original by Kraszewski with Andrius Vištelis’s translation into Lithuanian. Thus, the collection honoring Michał Hasiuk includes a wide variety of articles—both serious scholarly studies and modest surveys that the editors might perhaps have omitted. The volume is marred by the language of some articles translated into (or written in?) Lithuanian, which is surprisingly unedited and rife with errors of usage and proofreading (especially in the literary studies papers). For example: nesąmonė (p. 66), sudominavo įvardį (p. 66), atitikmenys bendrinėje kalboje (p. 64), pagrindinė skirstymo kriterija (p. 37), veikalo užuomazga pasireiškė [...] Improvizacijos kūrybinėje eksplozijoje (p. 299), manuskriptu analize (p. 299), taip vadinamą (p. 230), provokacingoje [...] dramoj (p. 230), tris metus (p. 231), poetiniame mate įgy dav o gl esnę prasmę (p. 232), o tuo pačiu (p. 267), būt ybes be kritiškai priskiria (p. 267), etc., etc. The editors, who will continue publishing books in the scholarly series “Poznańskie Studia Bałtystyczne,” should therefore be urged to exercise greater care and diligence. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, S. 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. ANIKIN, A. 2001: Заметки о балтизмах. Tarptautinė Kazimiero Būgos konferencija: Etimologija ir onomastika, 2001 m. lapkričio 9 d. Pranešimų tezės, Vilnius: VU Baltistikos ir bendrosios kalbotyros katedra, 8–10. BŪGA, K. 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. BUIVYDIENĖ, R. 1997: Lietuvių kalbos vedybų giminystės pavadinimai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. DINI, P. U. 2000: Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. RECENZIJOS 147 ENDZELĪNS, J. 1939: Sīkumi CCXV; Sīkumi CCXVIII. Filologu biedrības raksti 19, 74; 188. FRAENKEL, E. 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I–II, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. GELDNER, K. F. 1951a: Der Rig-Veda. Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt 1, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (Harvard Oriental Series, 33.) GELDNER, K. F. 1951b: Der Rig-Veda. Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt 3, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (Harvard Oriental Series, 35.) GRUMADIENĖ, L., ŽILINSKIENĖ, V. 1997: Dažninis dabartinės rašomosios lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Matematikos ir informatikos institutas, Lietuvių kalbos institutas. HASIUK, M. 1978: Fonologia litewskiej gwary sejneńskiej, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. KARDELIS, V. 2001: Dar dėl junginių le, se, re raidos uteniškių ir vilniškių tarmėse. Baltistica 35 (2), 141–150. KOLBUSZEWSKI, S. F. 1977: Jana Karigera słownik polsko-łotewski na tle leksykografii b. Inflant Polskich, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. KONDRATIUK, M. 1985: Elementy bałtyckie w toponimii i mikrotoponimii regionu białostockiego, Wrocław–Warszawa: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. KONDRATIUK, M. 2000: Nazwiska pochodzenia bałtyckiego w regionie białostockim. Acta Baltico-Slavica 25, 123–150. KUDZINOWSKI, Cz. 1977: Indeks-słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“ 1–2, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. MAYRHOFER, M. 1996: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindorischen 2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. MAŽIULIS, V. 1966: Prūsų kalbos paminklai 1, Vilnius: Mintis. MAŽIULIS, V. 1997: Prūsų kalbos etimologinis žodynas 4, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. RIX, H. 1998: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. ROSINAS, A. 2000: Dėl baltų *pat(is), *pat(n)ī pirminės reikšmės ir gramatinio statuso. Baltistica 35 (2), 129–140. SCHMID, W. 1986: Die „Germanismen“ in sogenannten polnisch-jatwingischen Glossar. Indogermanische Forschungen 91, 273–286. SMOCZYŃSKI, W. 2001: Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. TRAUTMANN, R. 1909: Die Quellen der drei altpreußischen Katechismen und des Enchiridions von Bartholo-maeus Willent. Altpreußische Monatsschrift 46, 217–479. URBUTIS, V. 1981: Baltų etimologijos etiudai, Vilnius: Mokslas. URBUTIS, V. 1984: [Rec.:] Лаучюте, Ю. А. Словарь балтизмов в славянских языках, Ленинград, 1982. Baltistica 20 (2), 184–191. VANAGS, P. 1995: 1586. gada latviešu katehisma teksta izcelsme, Baltu Filoloģija 5, 52–62. VITKAUSKAS, V. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių morfofoneminiai reiškiniai, Vilnius: Žara. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1981: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 2, Vilnius: Mokslas. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1992: A Polish-Yatvingian Vocabulary? Linguistic and Oriental Studies from Poznań 1, 99–133. Birutė Kabašinskaitė Baltistikos ir bendrosios kalbotyros katedra Vilniaus universitetas Universiteto g. 5, 2734 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2002 12 20