Lietuvių ir latvių kalbų daiktavardžių darybos svarbiausi skirtumai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XLIII (2000) Saulius AMBRAZAS Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius IN LITHUANIAN IR LATVIU LANGUAGE During my research on the development of noun construction in Lithuanian, I have noticed significant structural differences in the construction systems of Lithuanian and Latvian languages. I would like to briefly review the most important of them in this article. The structure of the verbs, copulative names and deminutives differs in these languages. First of all, it is striking that Lithuanian productive verb names with the suffix *-i-mo-/-i-mo have correspondences not in Latvian, but in the more distant Slavic (Liukkonen 1987), albany (Jokl 1963: 131-133; Desnickaja 1983: 20), Hittite (Laroche 1956; Kronasser 1963: 177-178) languages. In Latvian, as in Prussian, there are only adjectives with this suffix, cf. la. dial. talium is lie. far away (LVG 332), also pr. stesmu aucktimm-ien (den Obersten) III 91,. (SV 47; PKEŽ I 114-116). i In Latvian, verb names are quite widely made with another suffix derived from *- *-u-mo-(LVG 333-337; Baltynja 1979: 15-16). Meanwhile, in Lithuanian, only a dozen corresponding derivatives with *-um have been observed, mostly in old writings, especially in M. Daukšos Postila, cf. discovery/discovery “service, duty” DP 289, 551 and la. habits “custom, habit” (DaiktvDrR 73-75). Otherwise, in Lithuanian, with the suffix *-uma, names of features are usually made, which are also productive in Latvian, cf. lie. dryness and la. dryness (LVG 333-334). But this is also innovation. In Lithuanian writings of the 16th-17th centuries, especially those based on the Žemaičių and eastern Altai dialects, there are still relatively few names of features with *-uma (DaiktvDrR II 8 etc.). In the past, in Baltic, as in some other related languages (cf. Hamp 1973; 1983), with the suffix *-mo-, apparently, so many adjectives were made, from which es emerged. time passive participants, as well as abstracts (names of actions and properties). Later, probably when the separate Lithuanian and Latvian languages were already forming, new suffixes -imas and -umas appeared after the stems i or u were attached to *-mo. L. Vaba (1995) presented Baltisms of Baltic Finnish languages (see Estonian porm "dust, ashes" < Belarusian *bermair lie. bėrimas, Finnish dialect „energija, | A little more about the structure of noun formation in Lithuanian and Latvian is discussed in an article written in English, published in the journal „Linguistica Baltica“ (vol. 8, 2000, 7—33). 111 Jėga" < balt. *tarpmair lie. interim and others), apparently, shows that in the times of Lithuanian and Latvian language commonality (possibly as early as the 5th-6th centuries, when the eastern Baltic tribes moved strongly to the northeast, to the Baltic Finns inhabited places) abstracts were quite often made with the pure suffix *-mo-, similarly as in the old Slavic languages. se (plg. Liukkonen 1987). The most important role in the category of Latvian verb names was played not by the suffix *-mo-, but by the other adjective suffix *-no-. It is from the latter that the most important Latvian verb noun form -šana (< *-s-io-na, e.g.: būšana "being", miršana "death", etc.) emerged. as well as the old-fashioned suffix -iens (< *-ei-no-, e.g. gūjiėns „walking- “, Saviéns „shooting“, etc.)*. In this respect, the Latvian language is closer to the Prussian language than to the Lithuanian language, where the relative suffix -sna (< *-s-na) is also widely used to make names of verbs, e.g. billisna "speaking, saying" (Sprūche) III 85,, crixtisna "baptising" (Tauffe) III 59, etc. (SV 46-47; Bammesberger 1973: 87-89; Parenti 1998; Schmid 1998: 205-206). In the noun, the suffix *-nobūdvardžiai did not have a significant effect on the formation of Lithuanian verb names, except in the Žemaičių dialect, especially in its northern part, where the Curonians once lived. Here are productive action names with the suffix -s-ena (DaiktvDr 295). There are few derivatives of this type in the Aukštaičių dialect, and in addition, they have a more special meaning of the way of action. The form of the prepositions is la. -šana, -iens, pr. -sna, kurijų -sena are very different. In addition, Prussian verb names with -sna have exact equivalents in Lithuanian (e.g., dulksna), but not in Latvian. In Latvian, there seems to be no verb names with suffixes *-na, *-e-na, *-0-na (without the determinative *-s-), which occur in Lithuanian (DaiktvDrR 58-60) and some other related languages. It is a very old castle, c. *price "kaina", av. caena “revenge, punishment, retribution,” Gr. xo:vrį “blood revenge; punishment for murder’ (LEW 202; Skardžius 1998: 595; Ind. 809). Its possible equivalent in Latvian ciens “respect, dignity, attention” is not quite clear due to the root vocalism (ME 394–395). Thus, in this case we can only speak about a general tendency of Latvian, Prussian and Curonian to use the adjective suffix *-no-/-na more widely in the formation of verb names. However, in the individual languages mentioned, this tendency was realized by different derivative prepositions that emerged from the latter. Lithuanian and Latvian languages differ in the types of verbs, established at the centre of the category of imperfect verbs. While in Lithuanian the *-eliovediniai suffixes predominate, in Latvian they are much fewer and not in all dialects. They are most typical for western and central Kur- * The latter can be compared with rare Lithuanian derivatives with -iena, e.g.: gaišiena „drought, dryness“ Rms, šaliena „Šalimas“ Grz (DaiktvDrR 65). 112 and part of Žiemgala. In addition, deminutives with *-elic places often have a softened consonant before the preposition (e.g., s—, z—ž, etc.). Therefore, some of the Latvian Vedic texts almost completely coincide with the Lithuanian ones, cf. la. bag bag (: ‘bags’) lie. ir bag, la. Aedes (: albopictus ,,0zys") ir lic. Goat (DL 246— 270). As a result, A. Bielenstein (1863: 308-309) and A. Leskienas (1891: 481) even thought that the Latvian diminutives with *-elio had arisen as a result of the influence of the Lithuanian language. However, J. Endzelynas (1909: 376; LVG 343), V. Rūke-Dravina (DL 259— 262) doubt this, because this type of vedic is used not only near the Lithuanian border, but farther away from it. ir In the Prussian language, diminutives with *-elior were apparently not very common either. This suffix is found in the derivative patowelis "stepfather" (Stiffater) E 179, possibly wayklis (< *vaikelis, cf. woikello GrG) "son" (Son) E 190 (PKEŽ IV 213; Smoczynski 2000: 199-200), some personal names (e.g. Madelle, Jannell, Katell, see Trautmann 1925: 175), place names (e.g. Grabelle, Scabelle, Wirbell, see Gerullis 1922: 250). The pure minor meaning can only be seen in the derivative thewelyse used in a Prussian epigram found in the University of Basel library, which, according to V. Mažiulis (1975; 1981: 62) and F. Kortlandt (1998; 1998a), meant “uncle”. However, the meaning and form of the latter word is still being debated (cf. McCluskey, Schmalstieg, Zeps 1975; Schmid 1994: 287-290; Bammesberger 1998). Thus, deminutives with *-elioprobably came into use in the times of independent development of Lithuanian language. In Lithuanian, significantly more deminutives than in Latvian are made with other prefixes derived from the determinatives *-/-, *-g'-, *-s-, *-t- (cf. DaiktvDrR II 93-105). In Latvian, diminutives are usually made with the suffixes *-inioir *.itio-. They are connected by a kind of complementary distribution ratio. With the suffix *-iti, deminutives are usually made from nouns of the iio and € roots, and the corresponding vedic with *-inio-—from nouns of all other roots, cf. bralitis, saulite, but dėlinš. Of course, there are some variations from this general rule in dialects (DL 168-188, 232-242). In Lithuanian, only one other derivative with the suffix *-iniohas a deminutive meaning, e.g.: bobiné „poor woman“ Tvr; Aps (LKŽ I? 962), karvinė „kovutė“ Sv (Salys 1992: 338), lazdinė „lazdelė- “, glostininė „pirštiniukė“ Grdm (LKA III 135), mergelinė „maža mergaitė“ Sv, mergininė „darnaitė“ Pnd; Kp; Sb; 1928) 1964 – Donnie Wahlberg, American actor (b. Otherwise, here with *-inothe most frequently made adjectives, which are very rare in Latvian and are available only in some dialects (cf. lit. dzelzs and lat. dzelzinis, lit. lapinis and lat. lapinš "made of leaves", lit. molinis and lat. malinis, see LVG 312-313; Vulane 1986; Rekėna 1996: 61-62). In Lithuanian, they are usually used as the names of the persons holding the attribute. This is also not typical of Latvian, cf. lie. kdiminis "peasant" and la. kaiminn 'neighbour' (LVG 113 313), lie. the morning and the la. roll "east wind", lie. kelminė/kellminė and la. celmine „paprastasis kelmutis“ (Rekėna 1996: 63-64)“. In Lithuanian, deminutives and older prefixes derived from the adjective suffix *-noare not very popular. Deminutives with *-ino are now made in the southern and eastern Highland dialects, and with *-ino-—in the western part of the Žemaičių dialect approximately between Klaipėda and Šilutė (LKA III Map No. 119, pp. 134-135); earlier there were also in East Prussia (Gerullis, Stang'as 1933: 26-27; DaiktvDrR II 106-107). All these dialects are near Latvia, where the corresponding Vedic with *-ino-, *-ino are used in two non-connecting areas: in the southwestern corner near the Lithuanian border and in a considerable northeastern area near Estonia (DL 198-199, Žemėl. No. 1). Therefore, it is possible that Latvia was the centre of the spread of Baltic diminutives with the suffix *.no." Data from other related languages also show that this adjective suffix entered the deminutive construction paradigm rather late. Although deminutives with *-i-noy are still found in Slavic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Albanian, Greek languages (Brugmann 1906: 275; Jokl 1963: 134), they are here recent, used usually alongside adjectives with *-inohaving deeper Indo-European roots. In Latin, for example, *-in was originally used to make adjectives, and deminutives with this suffix appeared only in the late period of its development, the so-called popular Latin, and became more common only in the Romance languages that emerged from it, especially Italian and Portuguese (Niedermann 1954; Ettinger 1980: 28-29). In Germanic languages, the nounification of adjectives with *-inois thought to have first occurred in the names of young animals (see German *gaitinaz "goat" and Latin haedinus "goat") and only later (especially in German) — ir other deminutives (May 1967: 110-114). In Lithuanian, diminutives with the suffix *-itioir is also much less than in Latvian, cf. lie. Brother, sunshine. The Lithuanian language is much more characterized by deminutives with the apophonic variant of this suffix *-oitio (e.g.: brolditis, mergditė DaiktvDr 271-272), which have no equivalents at all in Latvian. The suffixes *-itio-, *.oitio-, now more frequently used to make deminutives, and *-eitio-, with which names of persons with special qualities are still widely made in Lithuanian, are all apophonic variants of the same suffix, cf. German, la. The vampire is a liar. Vokites, la. vūcitis, lie. cousin and relative, etc. With this suffix from the beginning 3 They have relatives in Prussian, cf. lie. drėvinė „statinaitė taukams“ and pr. drawine „(drevinis) kubilas“ (Bote) E 393 (PKEZ I 223-226), lie. side and pr. grawyne ‘Side (carriage board)’ (Tuncbret) E 304 (PKEŽ I 404). *In Lithuanian (unlike Latvian) adjectives of suffix *-noun in nouns have had a significant effect not on the categories of deminutive, but on the categories of possessor of the attribute (cf. DaiktvDrR II 144-167) and partly on the categories of names of subjects (cf. DaiktvDrR 124-129). 114 were made the names of the owners of the characteristic", later it fell into the category of deminutive forms. One of its apophonic variants is more common in Latvian, and the other in Lithuanian. In the Latvian language there are completely disappeared uopiniai names, denoting a pack of people or otherwise living beings. In the Lithuanian language, such vedas are still productive. They are usually made with the suffix -ija (cf. lit. brolija "brothers and sisters" and sl. *bratroja "brothers", gr. gparpia "genus, family", see Brugmann 1906: 647), sometimes with -(i)ava (cf. lit. brotherhood "brothers and sisters" and sl. *dét(s)va ‘children’, see Otrębski 1935: 115, 117) and its variants -(i)uva (see Lithuanian broluva "brothers and sisters"- ), -auja (see Lithuanian šunava and šunauja "dogs' herd") and has no equivalents in Latvian. This is the reason why the name of the group has been changed to "The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time". However, in Lithuanian and Latvian there are only barely recognizable relics of this type, cf. dlksna/alksna ‘alksnynas’; bala, klonis, slėnis" and la. alder "marsh place" (DaiktvDrR II 48). It is true that in Latvian dialects there is a considerable number of Vedic words, denoting the accumulation of plants or other objects in one place, with the suffix * -ū-10-(LVG 284), also derived from the verb ending *-a, cf. la. alksnajs "alksnynas" is lie. alder/alder. There are only a few such derivatives with *-ai in Lithuanian, e.g.: nututojas „hazdynas“ K¢; Vvs (DaiktvDrR II 53). On the other hand, in Lithuanian dialects (mostly western ones) there are several similar group names with *-4-to (see alksnotas „alksnynas“ J I 96 and dlksna/alksna, see DaiktvDrR II 58), which have no equivalents in Latvian, but can be compared with the Prussian place name Rikoyot: rikijs „Lord“ (Herr) III 37,, (Būga 1958: 160 etc.). In Lithuanian, there are many group names, mainly denoting the accumulation of plants and objects in one place, with the suffix *-i-no-. They have a similar structure (cf. Figure 1). familija and pr. seimins (Gesinde) III 83,), Slavic (cf. lit. beržynas and sl. *berzina, see Stawski 1974: 121, 123), partly Latin, possibly Germanic, Albanian (Jokl 1963: 133—-134; Butler 1971: 27-28), but not at all in Latvian. In this case, the suffix *-inois not used, but its apophonic variant *.ei-no-/-- oi-no (cf. lit. eglynas and lat. egliene, egliens, eglainis, see LVG 322—324, 327; MLIVG I 86-87, 132, 137). On the other hand, in the Lithuanian language, the group names with *-eino-/-oino now have to be searched with a light, cf. raziénos, dirsainė „duona su dirsėmis“ JR 39 (DaiktvDrR II 56). "This may be a common innovation of the Baltic, Slavic (cf. s. sl. golit'b "naked, poor man", brūtit'5 "brother's son", cf. Stawski 1976: 55 etc.), Germanic (cf. s. german. high. jungidi "beast's young", cf. Mezger 1953) languages. ® The Prussian Elbing dictionary contains a whole bunch of nouns with *-4 in the non-noun genus of the group nature, e.g.: slayo „horns, šlajos“ (Slete) 307: slayan „pavaža“ (Sletekuffe) 309 (Mažiulis 1981; PKEŽ I-IV; Degtjarev 1994). It is also possible that the plural form of the Lithuanian word „Jiepynas“ Št (Stundžia 1981) has a similar origin. 7 They may also have existed in the Prussian language, cf. the place names Stabayen: stabis "stone" (Steyn) E 32, Wangayen: wangus (Dameraw) E 588 (Gerullis 1922: 247). 115 more because of the squad nature perhaps ir there are abundant suffixes - one vedic, marking the growing places of cultured plants, e.g.: potato, cabbage, etc. ir (ŽD 288; Substan400). Be tive to, derivative seweyni "piglet" (Sewstal) E 229 (King 1992: 21) and such place names as Alkayne, Alkeyne, Zaseynen ir etc. (Gerullis 1922: 252; Blažienė 1998) may testify to the existence of group names with *_eino-/-oino in Prussian. However, this is not entirely clear (cf. Smoczynski 2000: 74). In addition to the two languages, there are also two other languages spoken in the region, namely the Latvian and the Lithuanian. In some eastern and western Altay dialects we find group names with the suffix -ytė, which have the same meanings as the derivatives of the suffix -ynas (also -ynė), e.g.: alksnytė „alksnynas“ J; Sd; Rs; Pg; Klv; Rgv (LKZ I? 105), oak tree "young oak forest" J; Grk; Kp; Rm (IP 535-536), birch "young birch forest" Rs; Grk (I) 777, spruce "spruce" J I 694, carnation "carnation-- covered place" Rgv; 294 (1994) "Groove" (feat. Kp; DI (V 526), kemsytė „kemsuota meža“ Vdšk (V 564), lazdyte „place where hazel trees grow“ Er (VII 214), liepytė „linden bushes“ Rgv (VII 426), nolitė „molynė“ Knr; Er (VIII 340), reed "cane" Rm (VIII 655), samanytė "place covered with reeds" Ėr (XII 90). In the Latvian language, the presence of this type of action in the past can be recalled at least by the place names Apsite, Kalmite, etc. (LVG 388)". Anyway, here the corresponding vedas are made with another suffix -aite, which differs by the change of vowels, cf. lit. birch and la. bérzaite ‘birch’ (LVG 389; Laumane 1990). In Lithuanian there are almost no corresponding group names with -aitė, except perhaps alksnaitė "alksnynas- ", beržynaitė "beržynas" J I 12, 205 (ŽD 360)". Furthermore, it should be noted that Latvian has no equivalents at all of Lithuanian group names made with adjective affixes derived from the names of characteristics (DaiktvDrR II 59-63). Of these, the most productive derivatives with the suffix *.6-men-. Initially, the name was used to refer to the locality, but later it was used to refer to the whole area. For example, in the eastern Highland dialect some Vedic words with *-Omengreta have retained the older meaning of a trait, e.g.: jauntiomené ‘youth’ Ds (LKŽ IV 315), minor "childhood" Ds; Str; Swine; Tvr; Brsl (VII 978, cf. also go. aldomin „senatvei“, see Endzelin 1924: 124; Bammesberger 1998: 110). Furthermore, derivatives of this type can be partly linked to the Germanic group names with -ide (cf. s. German pfluogide "pair of oxen", see Meid 1967: 149) and place names with -ithi-, most of which are found in Germany, i.e. not far from the Baltic language range (Udolph 1996: 258-274). ? They are perhaps comparable to, for example, krischayta ‘plum’ (Krichen) E 621, sliwayta ‘plum’ (Pflumen) E 619, wisnayta ‘cherry’ (Kirsen) E 620. Considering these derivatives as deminutives, as is usually done, is impeded by the fact that there is no clear evidence of the existence of deminutives with *-oiti in Prussian. This may be a mere innovation of the Lithuanian language (DaiktvDrR maziiomene mažmėnė „childhood, infanthood“ II 109). 116 Appendix *-6-men-" derived iš from the ancient suffix su *-men-, with which abstracts were made from ancient times (both actions and properties ir names), cf. lic. ir Dkst; Aps: “small items” BM 433; Trgn (LKŽ VII 978). Significant differenir ces exist in other Lithuanian (especially in its western and southern dialects) in the noun construction categories of ir Latvian languages. In some aspects, Lithuanian is closer to Latvian and Prussian. ne o In most Lithuanian dialects, the most important name suffix of Baltic language characteristics *-iba" has a changed ė-root form *-ibé (plg. LKA III. No. 123, p. 137), which we seem to find in Prussian, cf. lie. paganism and pr. paganism (Heidenschaft) E 795%. Meanwhile, Latvian keeps its older form everywhere - Just. In Lithuanian there are quite common names of characterisu stics suffix -ysta (especialsu ly in its newer form -yste). They also have an exact equivalent in Prussian, plg. lie. Christianity and pr. cristionist (Kristenheit) E 794. Meanwhile, in Latvian, this type of derivative seems to be almost absent: J. Endzelynas (SV 53) mentions only a rare dialect vedini keniste “kingdom”. Similar, but not distinctive, vedas are also found in some Latvian writings. It is not excluded that they were created due to the influence of the Lithuanian language (cf. DaiktvDrR II 69-70). Thus, it can be assumed that the use of the adjective suffix *-istū in the names of features began first in the western dialects of the Baltic languages, and later this innovation spread further to the east. This hypothesis is further supported by the following facts: 1) as evidenced by Lithuanian writings of the 16th-17th centuries, vedic with -ystė were once particularly prolific in the western and central Highland dialect (e.g., in S. B. Chylinski’s translation of the New Testament, J. Bretkūno Postilae, in the 17th-century anonymous dictionary “Lexicon Lithuanicum” this type of vedic predominates among all names of features, cf. Adjectives II 9); 2 suffix su *-istois widespread in many Slavic languages (plg. s. bsl. récisty ‘expressive’, I. jedwabisty ‘like silk’, etc.’ ), while in the Baltic languages there are only a few (e.g.: lie. balystas "marshy- ", kiaulystas "rude", "0 Kamiengalis *6 before a suffix is not quite an exception in Baltic languages (yes Smoczynski 2000: 118). For example, in Lithuanian, adjectives with *-6-t0 (ŽD 345 etc.; Akelaitienė 1999) are made from nouns of root 0. Thus the Vedic youthmené's relationship with the young is the same as the mountain man's relationship with the mountain. Perhaps this is also explained by the fact that the first fickromai "true, legitimate" (gerecht) III 63,: lie. tikras, e.g. tickars ‘tikras’ (rechter) III 47,? 11 For the origin of this adverb see. DaiktvDrR II 15-17. 12 V. Mažiulis (PKEZ III 208) believes that this derivative in Prussian language had the suffix *-ibé (with short i), similar to the Slavic -5ba. However, this is doubtful, as there is no other evidence of the presence of the suffix *-iba or *-ibė in Baltic languages. For similar reasons, the attempt to correct the derivative pagonbe to *pagonabe is somewhat doubtful (yes Trautmann 1910: 388; Bammesberger 2000). Isn't it easier to derive the Prussian vedini pagonbe from *poganibeé? 13 Winker-Leszynska 1963; Vaillant 1974: 469-471; Kiparsky 1975: 219. 117 fiery/fiery “hot, acute; the colour of fire). So perhaps the adjective suffix *_istoiz *-itokilo originated in Slavic languages, then it entered the neighboring western Baltic languages, where the names of properties ir were formed su *-ista? In Prussian there are a lot of special names with another adjective suffix *-iska, e.g. deiwūtisku "salvation" (Seligkeyt) III 75,,, labbisku "goodness" (Gūte) III 85, etc. (Trautmann 1910: 223 etc.; SV 50). In Lithuanian we find several names of characteristics with -iškė. Of these, only the derivative jauniškė „youth“ (cf. adjective jauniškas „youth“) is more common in old writings and dialects, and the other two are quite rare, now extinct: berniškė „childhood, youth“ DP 17x (cf. adjective bėrniškas), singular „loneliness“ (recorded in 18th-19th century dictionaries of Lesser Lithuania- ). They may also be a reflection of the "innovation of the western Baltic languages", which did not reach Latvian. Similarly, the development of the forms of the names of some of the owners of the specialty could be interpreted. For example, alongside the names of the possessors of the attribute with the suffix -ulis(-¢)" in Lithuanian there are a number of corresponding derivatives with the suffix -uolis(-ė), cf. aukštūlis "the highest, God" and aukštuėolis(-ė) "who is high", greitūlis and greituolis "who is fast", bičiūlis and bičiuolis "who has bees with another; close friend” and so on (DaiktvDrR II 172-174). The latter type of vedic has a corresponding in the Prussian language (see Lithuanian place name Aukštuėliai and pr. Auctoliten, cf. Trautmann 1925: 177; SV 48). This may also be a common innovation of Prussian and Lithuanian languages, which did not reach Latvian. It seems that the western Lithuanian dialects and the Prussian language are also linked by the names of skins and furs with the suffix -ena, cf. arklena „horse skin“, kiskena „hare fur“, also kotena „skin of animal legs“, Zdndena „skin of cheeks“ etc. (DaiktvDrR II 164-165) and pr. nognan „skin (worked fur)“ (Leder) E 498, if it comes from *nogenan, as V. Mažiulis believes (PKEŽ III 194-195). In Latin, there is no such word. However, there are a lot of names of persons with the newer io-stem suffix *-eno-/-endvariant *-enio-, e.g.: vecenis „old man“, ritenis „east wind“, mellene „blue“, etc. (LVG 298-302). In the Lithuanian language, however, there are very few of them, for example: bergždėnis (-ė) "futile, barren animal", mėlėnė "bloody" (DaiktvDrR II 166). They may have counterparts and counterparts '* It may also have interfered with some Germanic languages, cf. s. skand. bernska "childhood" (and lit. berniškė- ), folska "stupidity" (Meid 1967: 197; Range 1977: 128). Maybe here mentioned and go. Barniski „vaikystė“ (Benveniste 1964: 38; Nepokupnyj 1997: 13), s. vok. height. fronisci "paganism", heidinisci "paganism" and others (Range 1977: 128). However, the latter can be property names with -jakaip and go. biuhti "habit": biuhts "accustomed", galeiki "similarity": galeiks "similar" and others (Kubrjakova 1963: 78, cf. also Bammesberger 1995: 96). For in Germanic, Slavic, Italic, Indo-Iranian, Greek (but unlike the Baltic languages) with the affix *-(i)io-/-(i)- ia were widely made names of characteristics. D They have clear correspondences in Latvian and Prussian, cf. lie. The miser and the la. bėdulis, lie. meal and la. milulis (LVG 346-347); lie. bandžiūlis "friend, buddy; a co-worker; a fraudster; drąsuolis" and pr. antrop. Bandule (Trautmann 1925: 176). 118 in the speech, plg. werene ‘copper boiler’ (Brass boiler) E 356, wissene ‘Sgailis’ (GROANS) E 622, personal names Drutenne, Jewish (SV 44-45). True, some people see an adverb here -in- (plg. Smoczynski 2000: 197). For, the short vowel in i the Prussian language could have become į e (Girdenis, Mažiulis 2000). In the Prussian language, the corresponir ding names of persons with Lithuanian characteristics may have the additive suffix *-at-io-, cf. lie. barzdotis (also adjective barzdotas) pr. ir nagotis "copper pot with su legs" (Erintop) E 349 : nage ‘coach’ (Nage) E 145 (PKEŽ III 168). This type of Vedic appears to be absent in Latvian. In addition, almost exclusively in Lithuanian, deminutives with *-atė are made, which are of the same origin as the names of the above-mentioned owners of the characteristic (DaiktvDrR II 109). It is ir surprising that the suffix -inykas (< *-ino-+ *-i-ko-) for the names of the owners of the most important feature of the Lithuanian language has an exact equivalent in the Prussian language, while in the Latvian language the form of this suffix differs, cf. wild chard, i.e. wild chard ‘Landlord’ (Leman) E 407 and la. laūcinieks (see DaiktvDrR II 118-127 for further details). Lithuanian and Prussian languages are also linked by the prevalence of character names with the deminutive suffix *-iko. They have been particularly characteristic of the Lithuanian West Highland dialect since ancient times. For example, in the dictionaries of J. Brodovskis and F. Kuršaitis, they are even more than the corresponding *-éiovediniai of the adverb (DaiktvDrR 135). For the Eastern Highland dialect (as for Latvian, cf. LVG 358) they are less typical: in K. Sirvydas’ dictionaries we find only one name of an actor with *-ikolojikas “who barks” SD’57; SD*141 (cf. also LKA III Map No. 114). In the Prussian language monuments, as in the mentioned Lithuanian dictionaries of Lithuania Minor, there are more names of characters with *-ikoirgi than corresponding derivatives with *-éio- (DaiktvDrR 136). Some of them have equivalents in the Lithuanian language, cf. lie. mynix and pr. mynix ‘orchid, fur’ (Gerwer) E 511, lip. sewing ‘sewing’ and pr. Schuwert ‘sewing’ (Schuwert) E 496. In the latter case, however, the meaning of the Lithuanian and Prussian Vedic texts differs. So perhaps they appeared in both languages in parallel (plg. Smoczynski 2000: 73). The suffix *-ikoin the category of personal names came from diminutives, which in Prussian are most often made with this suffix, e.g.: malnijkix "child" (Kindlein) III 113,, acc. sing. gannikan "girl" (Frewlein) III 105, etc. (DaiktvDrR II 88-89 with lit.). In Lithuanian, as in Latvian (DL 297-298, 300-305), there are only remnants of this type of Vedic words. However, in the western part of Lictuva, diminutives with *-iko could have been productive, because in a significant part of the Žemaičių dialect and in some western Highland dialects, diminutives are quite often made with the suffix -ikė, cf. katikė, mergaitė (LKA III Map No. 116, p. 131). It is also mentioned here the compound suffix -ik-utas of the Zietela dialect, e.g.: bernikūtas "little boy", paršikūtas "piglet" (Vidugiris 1969: 151). Thus, the names of characters with *-ikomatyt were first made in the western Baltic languages, and later this innovation spread to some eastern Baltic dialects, also hindering the Slavic languages, cf. lit. seamstress and sl. *$evece (for more on this type of vedic in Slavic languages see Wojtyta- -Swierzowska 1974: 82-87). 119 Country A. 1992: Widgets 4, Rome: Catholic Academy of Sciences. Savukynas B. 1966: K problems zapadnobaltijskogo substrata v jugozapadnoj Lithuania. — Baltistica 1(2), 165-176. Schmid W. P. 1994: Linguistics Scientiae Collectanea, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. Schmid W. P. 1998: Old Prussian-Latvian Linguistic relations. — Baltistica 33(2), 199-208. Skardzius P 1998: Selected finds 4, Vilnius: Institute of Science ir and Technology. Stawski E 1974-1976: Outline of Prastovian word-craft. —Stannik prastowiarski 1-2, Wroclaw etc. : Polish Academy of Sciences. Smoczynski W. 2000: Research on the German Feudal Estate in Old Prussian, Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Specht E. 1938: To the Illyrian Suffix -ist-. — KZ 65, 175. Stundžia B. 1981: Plural personal nouns oikonimes and jy meaning for reconstruction of conjugation and pronunciation systems. —CCC 21, 185-198. Trautmann R.1910: Die altpreuflischen Sprachdenkmittel, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht. Trautmann R. 1925: Die alipreuflischen Personennamen, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht. Udolph J. 1994: Name Studies of the Germanic Problem, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. V aba L. 1995: Baltic m-deverbals in the Baltic-Finnish languages. —VII International Congress of Baltists 1995. g. 13-15. June. Vaillant A. 1974: Grammaire comparée des langues 117-119. slaves 4, Paris: Editions Klincksieck. Vanagas A. 1970: Hydronyms of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius: Mintis. 1994: The City of Crete. —CCC 34, 162-163. Vėlius N. 1983: Ancient Baltic Worldview, Vilnius: Mintis. 1969. pp. 69. "About the Alumni". —CCC 11, 147-182. Vidugiris A. 1996: Some phenomena of the western Baltic language in the southern Lithuanian dialects. — Baltistica 31(1), 31-38. Vidugiris A. 1996a: On the dependence and origin of the Zietela schneck. —CCC 36, 127-137. Vidugiris A. 1998: Zanavykai —sūduvių ar žemaičių palikuonys. —CCC 40, 22-31. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R. 1970: Lithuanians in the 9th-12th centuries, Vilnius: Mintis. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R. 1978: The formation of Lithuanian nationality (based on archaeological data). —History of Lithuania. 1977, pp. 5–22. Vulane A. 1986: Adjectives with -inis, -ine derivation and attributive function in the Upper Zemgale dialect. —Latvijas PSR zinatnu akadēmijas vēstis 1(462), 73-84. Winkler-Leszynska I. 1963: Adjective suffixes -ity||-isty, -aty||-asty in the Polish language on the background of ogėlnostowianism. —The Polish Language 63, 65-73. Wojtyla-Swierzowska M. 1974: Prastowiariskie nomen agentis, Wroclaw etc. : Publishing house National Academy of Sciences. Žulkus V. 1995: Western Balts in the Goth-Gepid migration (I-IV c.).—Lietuvininkų kraštas, Kaunas: Litterac Universitatis, 74-127. THE MAIN DERIVATIONAL DIFFERENCIES OF SUBSTANTIVES IN LITHUANIAN AND LATVIAN Summary Between Lithuanian and Latvian there are considerable differences with regard to the derivational structure of substantives. The most productive suffixes of nomina actionis (cf. Lith. *-i-moand Latv. *-s-io-na) and diminutives (cf. Lith. *-e-l-foand Latv. *-i-nio-, *-it-io-) are quite different in Lithuanian and Latvian. 126 Nomina collectiva, which indicate a group of people or living beings, have remained productive in Lithuanian (especially derivatives in *-ij-4), but they are quite extinct in Latvian. In Lithuanian and Latvian there are also some differences suffixes used form nomina collectiva with in the meaning forests to concentrations other plants things one place, cf. of or of or in Lith. *-i-noand Latv. *-ei-no-/-oi-no-, Lith. *-it-¢ and Latv. *-oit-é. A number of derivational isoglosses link the Lithuanian language (especially its western and southern dialects) to Old Prussian and oppose it to Latvian: nomina qualitatis in *-ibé, *-ista, *-isko-; nomina attributiva in *-in-iko-, *-6-lio-, *-e-nd, *-a-tio-; nomina agentis in *-i-ko-; diminutives in *-o-lio-, *_js-t-io-; hydronyms and place names in -ing- (resp. -ang-, -ung-, -eng-). Saulius AMBRAZAS Received 2000 02 24 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnio g. 6 LT-2055, Vilnius, Lithuania El. mail [email protected] 127