ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLIII (2000)

Saulius AMBRAZAS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius

KEY DIFFERENCES IN NOUN FORMATION BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND LATVIAN

While investigating the development of noun formation in Lithuanian, I have noticed considerable structural differences between the word-formation systems of Lithuanian and Latvian. In this article, I would like to briefly survey the most important of these¹. The structure of action nouns, collective nouns, and diminutives differs particularly between these languages.

First to catch the eye is the fact that the productive Lithuanian action nouns with the suffix *-i-mo-/-ī-mo- have counterparts not in Latvian, but in the more distant Slavic (Liukkonen 1987), Albanian (Jokl 1963: 131–133; Desnickaja 1983: 20), and Hittite (Laroche 1956; Kronasser 1963: 177–178) languages. Latvian, like Prussian, has only adjectives with this suffix; cf. Latvian dialectal tālīns and Lithuanian tólimas/tólymas (LVG 332), as well as Prussian stesmu auktimm-ien (den Obersten) III 91₂₅ (SV 47; PKEŽ I 114–116).

In Latvian, action nouns are formed quite widely with another suffix, *-mo--derived *-u-mo- (LVG 333–337; Baltynja 1979: 15–16). In Lithuanian, by contrast, only a dozen or so corresponding derivatives with *-umo- have been observed, mostly in old writings, especially M. Daukša’s Postilė; cf. Lithuanian įradumas/inradumas ‘helpfulness, duty’ DP 289, 551 and Latvian ieradums ‘custom, habit’ (DaiktvDrR 73–75). In Lithuanian, the suffix *-umo- is otherwise generally used to form nouns denoting qualities, which are productive in Latvian too; cf. Lithuanian sausumas and Latvian sausums (LVG 333–334). This, however, is also an innovation. In 16th–17th-century Lithuanian writings, especially those based on Samogitian and Eastern Aukštaitian dialects, there are still relatively few nouns denoting qualities with *-umo- (DaiktvDrR II 8 ff.).

In the past, in Baltic, as in some other related languages (cf. Hamp 1973; 1983), the suffix *-mo- apparently formed both adjectives, from which the present-tense passive participles developed, and abstract nouns (names of actions and qualities). Later, probably already as the separate Lithuanian and Latvian languages were taking shape, when stem-final vowels i or u attached to *-mo-, the new suffixes -imas and -umas arose. The Baltic Finnic Baltisms presented by L. Vaba (1995) include (cf. Estonian põrm ‘dust, ash’ < Baltic *berma- and Lithuanian bėrimas, Finnish tarmo ‘energy,’

¹ A somewhat more extensive discussion of the structure of noun formation in Lithuanian and Latvian appears in an article written in English and published in Linguistica Baltica (vol. 8, 2000, 7–33).

111

“force” < Baltic *tarpma- and Lithuanian tarpìmas, etc.), apparently indicates that during the period when Lithuanian and Latvian were still closely related (perhaps as late as the 5th–6th centuries, when the East Baltic tribes moved considerably northeastward into lands inhabited by the Baltic Finns), abstract nouns were quite often formed with the bare suffix *-mo-, much as in the old Slavic languages (cf. Liukkonen 1987).

The most important role in the Latvian category of action-noun formation was played not by the suffix *-mo-, but by another adjectival suffix, *-no-. It was from the latter that the principal means of forming Latvian action nouns developed, -šana (< *-s-io-nā, e.g., būšana ‘being’, miršana ‘death’, etc.), as well as the long-established suffix -iens (< *-ei-no-, e.g., gājiens ‘walking’, šāviens ‘shooting’, etc.).²

In this respect, Latvian is closer not to Lithuanian but to Prussian, where action nouns were also widely formed with the related suffix -sna (< *-s-nā), e.g., billisna ‘speaking, saying’ (Sprūche) III 85₆, crixtisna ‘baptizing’ (Tauf-fe) III 59₆, etc. (SV 46–47; Bammesberger 1973: 87–89; Parenti 1998; Schmid 1998: 205–206). The substantivization of adjectives in *-no- did not have a significant effect on the formation of Lithuanian action nouns, except in the Samogitian dialect, particularly its northern part, where the Curonians once lived. Here, action nouns with the suffix -s-ena are productive (DaiktvDr 295). There are few derivatives of this type in the Aukštaitian dialect, and they have also acquired a more specific meaning of manner of action. It is true that the forms of the suffixes themselves—Latvian -šana, -iens, Prussian -sna, Curonian -sena—differ considerably. Moreover, Prussian action nouns in -sna have exact counterparts in Lithuanian (e.g., dulksnā), but not in Latvian. Latvian apparently has no action nouns with the suffixes *-nā, *-e-nā, *-o-nā (without the determinative *-s-), which occur in Lithuanian (DaiktvDrR 58–60) and some other related languages. A particularly ancient derivative is káina, cf. Slavic *čěna ‘price’, Avestan kaēnā ‘vengeance, punishment, retribution’, Greek ποινή ‘blood vengeance; fine for murder’ (LEW 202; Skardžius 1998: 595; Ind. 809). Its possible Latvian counterpart, ciens ‘respect, dignity, attention’, is not entirely clear because of its root vocalism (ME I 394–395).

Thus, in this case one can speak only of a general tendency in Latvian, Prussian, and Curonian to make wider use of the adjectival suffix *-no-/-nā in forming action nouns. In each of the languages mentioned, however, this tendency was realized through different derived suffixes that developed from it.

Lithuanian and Latvian differ in the formation types established at the center of the diminutive-formation category.

Whereas derivatives with the suffix *-el̇io- predominate in Lithuanian, they are much less numerous in Latvian and are absent from some dialects. They are most characteristic of the western and central parts of Kur-

² The latter may be compared with rare Lithuanian counterparts formed with -iena, e.g., gūsiė-na ‘dryness, desolation’ Rmš, šalienā ‘freezing’ Grž (DaiktvDrR 65).

112

sonia and Žiemgala. Moreover, diminutives with *-elio- in these areas often have a softened consonant before the suffix (e.g., s→š, z→ž, etc.). Consequently, some Latvian derivatives almost entirely coincide with Lithuanian ones; cf. Latvian maìšelis (: maiss ‘sack’) and Lithuanian maišelis, Latvian āzelis (: āzis ‘goat’) and Lithuanian oželis (DL 246–270). For this reason, A. Bielenstein (1863: 308–309) and A. Leskien (1891: 481) even believed that Latvian diminutives with *-elio- had arisen under Lithuanian influence. However, J. Endzelīns (1909: 376; LVG 343) and V. Rūķe-Draviņa (DL 259–262) question this, since derivatives of this type are used not only near the Lithuanian border but also considerably farther away.

In Prussian, diminutives with *-elio- were apparently not very widespread either. This suffix occurs in the derivative patowels ‘stepfather’ (Stiffater) E 179, which became a kinship term, and perhaps in wayklis (< *vaikelis, cf. woikello GrG) ‘son’ (Son) E 190 (PKEŽ IV 213; Smoczyński 2000: 199–200), some personal names (e.g., Madelle, Jannell, Katell, see Trautmann 1925: 175), and place names (e.g., Grabelle, Scabelle, Wirbell, see Gerullis 1922: 250). A purely diminutive meaning can perhaps be discerned only in the derivative thewelyse, used in a Prussian epigram found in manuscript form in the library of the University of Basel, which, according to V. Mažiulis (1975; 1981: 62) and F. Kortlandt (1998; 1998a), meant ‘uncle’. However, the meaning and form of this word remain under discussion (cf. McCluskey, Schmalstieg, Zeps 1975; Schmid 1994: 287–290; Bammesberger 1998).

Thus, diminutives with *-elio- became most firmly established during the period of independent development of Lithuanian. Lithuanian also has considerably more diminutives than Latvian formed with other suffixes derived from the determinatives *-l-, *-g-, *-s-, *-t- (cf. DaiktvDr II 93–105).

In Latvian, diminutives are most often formed with the suffixes *-inio- and *-ītio-. They stand in a peculiar relationship of complementary distribution. The suffix *-ītio- is generally used to form diminutives from nouns with īo- and ē-stems, while the corresponding derivatives with *-inio- are formed from nouns with all other stems; cf. brālītis, saulīte, but dēliņš. Naturally, dialects show various deviations from this general rule (DL 168–188, 232–242).

In Lithuanian, only a few derivatives with the suffix *-inio- have a diminutive meaning, e.g., bóbinė ‘an inferior woman’ Tvr; Aps (LKŽ I² 962), karvinė ‘little cow’ Šv (Salys 1992: 338), lazdinė ‘little stick’, pirštinė ‘little glove’ Grdm (LKA III 135), mergelinė ‘little girl’ Sv, merginė ‘maid’ Pnd; Kp; Sb; Sl (LKŽ VIII 26, 28), vaikinis ‘young man’ K. Donel (Kabelka 1964: 249). Otherwise, *-inio- is most often used here to form adjectives, which are very rare in Latvian and occur only in certain dialects (cf. Lithuanian geležinis and Latvian dzelzinis, Lithuanian lapinis and Latvian lapiņš ‘made of leaves’, Lithuanian mólinis and Latvian màlinis, see LVG 312–313; Vulāne 1986; Reķēna 1996: 61–62). When substantivized, they most often become nouns denoting possessors of a characteristic in Lithuanian. This too is atypical of Latvian; cf. Lithuanian káiminis ‘peasant’ and Latvian kàimiņš ‘neighbor’ (LVG

113

313), Lithuanian rytinis and Latvian rītinis ‘east wind’, Lithuanian kelminė/kélminė and Latvian cēlminė ‘common stump-mushroom’ (Rekēna 1996: 63–64)³.

In Lithuanian, diminutives formed with the older suffixes derived from the adjectival suffix *-no- are also not very common. Diminutives with *-īno- are still formed in the southern and eastern Aukštaitian dialects, while those with *-ino- occur in the western part of the Samogitian dialect, approximately between Klaipėda and Šilutė (LKA III Map No. 119, pp. 134–135); formerly they were also found in East Prussia (Gerullis, Stang’as 1933: 26–27; DaiktvDrR II 106–107).

All these dialects are close to Latvia, where the corresponding derivatives with *-īno-, *-ino- are used in two noncontiguous areas: in the southwestern corner near the Lithuanian border and across a considerable area in the northeast near Estonia (DL 198–199, Map No. 1).

Thus, it is possible that a center for the spread of Baltic diminutives with the suffix *-no- was located in Latvia⁴.

Data from other related languages also show that this adjectival suffix entered the paradigm of diminutive formation relatively late. Although diminutives with *-īno- are also found in Slavic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Albanian, and Greek (Brugmann 1906: 275; Jokl 1963: 134), they are recent there, generally used alongside adjectives with *-īno- that have deeper Indo-European roots. For example, in Latin, adjectives were initially formed with *-īno-, while diminutives with this suffix appeared only in the late period of its development, in so-called Vulgar Latin, and became more widespread only in the Romance languages that developed from it, especially Italian and Portuguese (Niedermann 1954; Ettinger 1980: 28–29). In Germanic languages, when adjectives with *-īno- became nouns, names for animal young are thought to have arisen first (cf. Germanic *gaitīnaz ‘kid’ and Latin haedīnus ‘of a goat’), and only later (especially in German) other kinds of diminutives (Meid 1967: 110–114).

In Lithuanian, there are also considerably fewer diminutives with the suffix *-ītio- than in Latvian; cf. Lithuanian brolytìs, saulýtė. Diminutives with the apophonic variant of this suffix, *-oitio-, are much more characteristic of Lithuanian (e.g. broláitis, mergáitė DaiktvDr 271–272), and have no Latvian equivalents at all. The suffixes *-ītio-, *-oitio-, now more commonly used to form diminutives, and *-eitio-, which is still widely used in Lithuanian to form names denoting bearers of a quality, are all apophonic variants of the same suffix; cf. Lithuanian vókietis, Latvian vācietis and Lithuanian vókytis, Latvian vācītis, Lithuanian gimináitis ir giminiėtis, and so on. With this suffix, at first

³ They have cognates in Prussian as well; cf. Lithuanian drėvinė ‘small tub for fat’ and Prussian drawine ‘(tree-trunk) vat’ (Bōte) E 393 (PKEŽ I 223–226), Lithuanian šōninė and Prussian grawyne ‘šōninė (wagon sideboard)’ (Tuncbret) E 304 (PKEŽ I 404).

⁴ In Lithuanian (unlike Latvian), when adjectives with the suffix *-no- became nouns, they had a marked effect not on the formation of diminutives but on the categories of nouns denoting bearers of a quality (cf. DaiktvDrR II 144–167) and, in part, agent nouns (cf. DaiktvDrR 124–129).

114

Originally, names of possessors of qualities⁵ were formed with it; later it entered the category of diminutive formation. One of its ablaut variants became more widespread in Latvian, while the other did so in Lithuanian.

Collective nouns denoting a group of people or other living beings have disappeared entirely from Latvian. In Lithuanian, such derivatives are still productive. They are most often formed with the suffix -ija (cf. Lithuanian brolija ‘brothers and sisters’ and Slavic *bratьja ‘brothers’, Greek φρατρία ‘clan, kinship group’, see Brugmann 1906: 647), sometimes with -(i)ava (cf. Lithuanian broliavà ‘brothers and sisters’ and Slavic *dět(ь)va ‘children’, see Otrębski 1935: 115, 117), as well as its variants -(i)uva (cf. Lithuanian broluvà ‘brothers and sisters’), -auja (cf. Lithuanian šunavà and šunaujà ‘a pack of dogs’), which have no Latvian equivalents at all. The suffixes mentioned probably developed from the derivational ending *-ā, which was once widely used to form collective nouns⁶. However, only barely recognizable relics of this type remain in Lithuanian and Latvian, cf. Lithuanian álksna/alksnà ‘alder grove; swamp, hollow, valley’ and Latvian álksna ‘marshy place’ (DaiktvDrR II 48).

It is true that Latvian dialects have numerous derivatives denoting a mass of plants or other things in one place, formed with the suffix *-ā-jo- (LVG 284), which also developed from the derivational ending *-ā; cf. Latvian álksnājs ‘alder grove’ and Lithuanian álksna/alksnà. There are only a few such derivatives with *-ājo- in Lithuanian, e.g., riešutójas ‘hazel grove’ Kč; Vvs (DaiktvDrR II 53)⁷. On the other hand, Lithuanian dialects (mostly western ones) have several similar collective nouns with *-ā-to- (cf. alksnótas ‘alder grove’ J I 96 and álksna/alksnà, see DaiktvDrR II 58). These have no Latvian equivalents but may be compared with the Old Prussian place name Rikoyot: rikijs ‘lord’ (Herr) III 37₁₂ (Būga 1958: 160 ff.).

Lithuanian has many collective nouns, mostly denoting a mass of plants or things in one place, formed with the suffix *-ī-no-. They have equivalents in Old Prussian (cf. Lithuanian šeimýna and Old Prussian seimīns (Gesinde) III 83₄), Slavic (cf. Lithuanian beržýnas and Slavic *berzina, see Sławski 1974: 121, 123), and partly in Latin and perhaps Germanic and Albanian (Jokl 1963: 133–134; Butler 1971: 27–28), but they are entirely absent from Latvian. Latvian uses not the suffix *-ī-no- for this purpose, but its ablaut variant *-ei-no-/-oi-no- (cf. Lithuanian eglýnas and Latvian egliene, egliens, eglainis, see LVG 322–324, 327; MLLVG I 86–87, 132, 137). On the other hand, collective nouns with *-eino-/-oino- are now so rare in Lithuanian that one must search for them with a lantern; cf. ražienos, dirsainė ‘bread with couch grass’ JR 39 (DaiktvDrR II 56). It is true that in the past there may have been more of them, and

⁵ This may be an innovation shared by Baltic, Slavic (cf. South Slavic golīt’b ‘a naked, poor person’, brātīt’b ‘a brother’s son’, see Sławski 1976: 55 ff.), and Germanic (cf. Old High German jungidi ‘young animal’, see Mezger 1953).

⁶ The Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary contains a whole group of neuter nouns of collective nature with *-ā, e.g., slayo ‘sleigh, sled’ (Slete) 307: slayan ‘runner’ (Sletekuffe) 309 (Mažiulis 1981; PKEŽ I–IV; Degtjarev 1994). Lithuanian collective plural forms in -ai may also be of similar origin; cf. liepai, liepynas Št (Stundžia 1981).

⁷ They may also have existed in Old Prussian; cf. the place names Stabaven: stabis ‘stone’ (Steyn) E 32, Wangayen: wangus (Dameraw) E 588 (Gerullis 1922: 247).

115

perhaps more, since numerous derivatives with the suffix -iena may also be collective in nature, denoting places where cultivated plants have grown, e.g., bulviena, kopūstiena, etc. (ŽD 288; DaiktvDr 400). In addition, the derivative seweynis ‘pigsty’ (Sewstal) E 229 (Karaliūnas 1992: 21), as well as place names such as Alkayne, Alkeyne, Zaseynen and others (Gerullis 1922: 252; Blažienė 1998), may attest to the presence of collective nouns with *-eino-/-oino- in Old Prussian as well. This, however, is not entirely clear (cf. Smoczyński 2000: 74).

Similarly, two more suffixes used to form collective nouns show different vowel alternations in Lithuanian and Latvian. In some eastern and western Aukštaitian dialects, we find collective nouns with the suffix -ytė, having the same meanings as derivatives with the suffixes -ynas (and also -ynė), e.g., alksnýtė ‘alder grove’ J; Šd; Rs; Pg; Klv; Rgv (LKŽ I² 105), ąžuolýtė ‘young oak forest’ J; Grk; Kp; Rm (I² 535–536), beržýtė ‘young birch forest’ Rs; Grk (I² 777), eglýtė ‘spruce forest’ J I 694, karklýtė ‘willow-covered place’ Rgv; Rm (LKŽ V 294), kelmýtė ‘stump-covered place’ Grk; Kp; Dl (V 526), kemsýtė ‘sedge-covered meadow’ Vdšk (V 564), lazdýtė ‘place where hazel bushes grow’ Er (VII 214), liepýtė ‘linden thicket’ Rgv (VII 426), molýtė ‘clay-covered place’ Knr; Er (VIII 340), nendrytė ‘reed bed’ Rm (VIII 655), samanytė ‘moss-covered place’ Er (XII 90).

In Latvian, only place names such as Apsīte, Kalmīte and the like (LVG 388)⁸ may perhaps recall the former existence of this derivational type. Otherwise, the corresponding derivatives are now formed there with the suffix -aitė, which differs in its vowel alternation; cf. Lithuanian beržýtė and Latvian bērzīte ‘birch grove’ (LVG 389; Laumane 1990). Lithuanian has almost no corresponding collective nouns with -aitė, perhaps with the sole exceptions of alksnaitė ‘alder grove’ and beržynaitė ‘birch grove’ J I 12, 205 (ŽD 360)⁹.

It should also be noted that Lithuanian collective nouns formed with derivational affixes originating in names of qualities have no Latvian equivalents at all (DaiktvDrR II 59–63). The most productive among them are derivatives with the suffix *-ō-men-. This suffix was originally used to form names of qualities, and later was employed to form collective nouns. For instance, in the eastern Aukštaitian dialect, some derivatives with *-ōmen- have retained an older meaning denoting a quality alongside their collective meaning, e.g., jaunúomenė ‘youth’ Ds (LKŽ IV 315), mažúomenė ‘childhood’ Ds; Str; Švnč; Tvr; Brsl (VII 978; cf. also Gothic aldōmin ‘old age’, see Endzelin 1924: 124; Bammesberger 1998: 110). The derivative itself

⁸ These derivatives can further be linked in part with Germanic collective nouns in -īde (cf. Old High German pflūogide ‘pair of oxen’, see Meid 1967: 149) and place names in -ithi-, most of which are found in Germany, that is, not very far from the Baltic-language area (Udolph 1996: 258–274).

⁹ They may perhaps be compared with Old Prussian krischaytos ‘sloe plums (blackthorns)’ (Krichen) E 621, sliwaytos ‘plums’ (Pflumen) E 619, wisnaytos ‘cherries’ (Kirsen) E 620. The usual analysis of these derivatives as diminutives is hindered by the lack of clear evidence for diminutives with *-oitio- in Old Prussian. They may be an innovation exclusive to Lithuanian (DaiktvDrR II 109).

116

The suffix *-ō-men-¹⁰ derives from the ancient suffix *-men-, which has long been used to form abstract nouns (names of both actions and qualities); cf. Lithuanian mažūomenė and mažmenė ‘childhood, infancy’ Dkšt; Aps; ‘small objects’ BM 433; Trgn (LKŽ VII 978).

Marked differences are also found in other categories of noun formation in Lithuanian (especially its western and southern varieties) and Latvian. In some derivational features, Lithuanian is closer to Prussian than to Latvian.

In most Lithuanian dialects, the principal Baltic suffix for forming names of qualities, *-ībā¹¹, has an altered ē-stem form *-ibē (cf. LKA III map no. 123, p. 137), which appears to be found in Prussian as well; cf. Lithuanian pagonýbė and Prussian pagonbē (Heidenschaft) E 795¹². Latvian, by contrast, preserves the older form -ība throughout.

In Lithuanian, names of qualities with the suffix -ysta (especially its newer form -ystė) are fairly widespread. They too have an exact counterpart in Prussian; cf. Lithuanian krikščionystā and Prussian cristionisto (Kristenheit) E 794. By contrast, there appear to be almost no derivatives of this type in Latvian: J. Endzelÿnas (SV 53) mentions only the rare dialectal derivative kenīste ‘kingdom’. Derivatives denoting a similar kind of place, but not a quality, also occur in some Latvian texts. The possibility that they arose under Lithuanian influence cannot be ruled out (cf. DaiktvDrR II 69–70). Thus, one may suppose that names of qualities began to be formed with the adjectival suffix *-istā first in the western Baltic dialects, and that this innovation later spread farther east. The following circumstances also support this hypothesis: 1) as Lithuanian texts of the 16th–17th centuries show, derivatives in -ystė were once especially productive in the Western and Central Aukštaitian dialects (for example, in S. B. Chyliński’s translation of the New Testament, J. Bretkūnas’s Postil, and the 17th-century anonymous dictionary “Lexicon Lithuanicum,” derivatives of this type predominate among all names of qualities; see DaiktvDrR II 9); 2) adjectives with the suffix *-isto- are widespread in many Slavic languages (cf. Old Church Slavonic rěčistъ ‘eloquent’, Polish jedwabisty ‘silk-like’, etc.¹³), whereas only a few occur in the Baltic languages (e.g., Lithuanian balýstas ‘swampy’, kiaulýstas ‘rude’,

¹⁰ The stem-final *ō before the suffix is not entirely exceptional in the Baltic languages (so Smoczyński 2000: 118). For instance, in Lithuanian adjectives are formed from o-stem nominals with *-ō-to- (ŽD 345 ff.; Akelaitienė 1999). Thus the derivative jauniuomenė stands in the same relation to jaūnas as kalniūotas does to kalnas. Perhaps Prussian tickrōmai ‘true, lawful’ (gerecht) III 63₈ can be explained similarly: Lithuanian tikras, Prussian tickars ‘true’ (rechter) III 47?

¹¹ For the origin of this suffix, see DaiktvDrR II 15–17.

¹² V. Mažiulis (PKEŽ III 208) believes that this derivative in Prussian had the suffix *-ibē (with short i), similar to Slavic -bba. This is doubtful, however, since so far there is no other evidence for the presence of the suffix *-ībā or *-ibē in the Baltic languages. For similar reasons, the attempt to emend the derivative pagonbē to *pagonabē is somewhat questionable (so Trautmann 1910: 388; Bammensberger 2000). Would it not, then, be simpler to derive the aforementioned Prussian form pagonbē from *pagōnibē?

¹³ Winker-Leszyńska 1963; Vaillant 1974: 469–471; Kiparsky 1975: 219.

117

ugnystas/ugnystas ‘hot, fiery; fire-colored’). Could the adjectival suffix *-īsto- have arisen from *-īto- in the Slavic languages, and then spread to neighboring West Baltic languages, where names of qualities in *-īstā were formed?

In Prussian there are very many names of qualities with another adjectival suffix, *-iskā, e.g. deiwūtisku ‘salvation’ (Seligkeyt) III 75²², labbisku ‘goodness’ (Güte) III 85, and so on (Trautmann 1910: 223 ff.; SV 50). In Lithuanian we find several names of qualities in -iškė. Of these, only the derivative jauniškė ‘youth’ (cf. the adjective jauniškas ‘of youth’) is more widespread in older texts and dialects; the other two are very rare and now extinct: berniškė ‘childhood, youth’ DP 17x (cf. the adjective bérniškas), vieniškė ‘loneliness’ (recorded in 18th–19th-century dictionaries of Lithuania Minor). These too may reflect a West Baltic innovation¹⁴ that did not reach Latvian.

The development of some types of derivatives denoting bearers of qualities might perhaps be explained in a similar way.

For instance, alongside names of bearers of qualities with the suffix -ulis(-ė)¹⁵, Lithuanian has quite a number of corresponding derivatives with the suffix -uolis(-ė); cf. aukštūlis ‘the highest one, God’ and aukštuōlis(-ė) ‘someone tall’, greitūlis and greituōlis ‘someone fast’, bičiūlis and bičiūolis ‘someone who keeps bees with another; a close friend’, and so on (DaiktvDrR II 172–174). Derivatives of the latter type have a counterpart in Prussian (cf. the Lithuanian place-name Aukštuōliai and Prussian Auctoliten; see Trautmann 1925: 177; SV 48). This too may be a shared Prussian-Lithuanian innovation that did not reach Latvian.

It appears that western Lithuanian dialects and Prussian are also linked by names for hides and skins with the suffix -ena; cf. Lithuanian arklenà ‘horsehide’, kiškenà ‘rabbit fur’, as well as kojenà ‘hide from animal legs’, žandenos ‘cheek skin’, and the like (DaiktvDrR II 164–165), as well as Prussian nognan ‘leather (tanned hide)’ (Leder) E 498, if it derives from *nōgenan, as V. Mažiulis believes (PKEŽ III 194–195). No such derivatives have been observed in Latvian. There, however, names of bearers of qualities with the newer io-stem variant *-enio- of the suffix *-eno-/-enā- are plentiful, e.g. vecenis ‘old man’, rītenis ‘east wind’, mēllene ‘blueberry’, and so on (LVG 298–302). Lithuanian, by contrast, has very few of them, e.g. bergždėnis(-ė) ‘a barren, infertile animal’, mėlėnė ‘blueberry’ (DaiktvDrR II 166). They may also have counterparts in Prussian

¹⁴ It may also have affected some Germanic languages; cf. Old Norse bernska ‘childhood’ (and Lithuanian berniškė), fōlska ‘foolishness’ (Meid 1967: 197; Range 1977: 128). Gothic barniski ‘childhood’, Old High German frōnisci ‘foolishness’, heidiniscī ‘paganism’, etc. (Range 1977: 128) may also be relevant here. However, the latter may be names of qualities formed with -ja-, like Gothic biuhti ‘custom’: biuhts ‘accustomed’, galeiki ‘likeness’: galeiks ‘similar’, and so on (Kubryakova 1963: 78; cf. also Bammesberger 1995: 96). For in Germanic, Slavic, Italic, Indo-Iranian, and Greek (unlike the Baltic languages), names of qualities were widely formed with the affix *-(i)jo-/(i)jā.

¹⁵ They have clear counterparts in Latvian and Prussian; cf. Lithuanian bėdulis and Latvian bēdulis, Lithuanian mielūlis and Latvian mīlulis (LVG 346–347); Lithuanian bandžiūlis ‘friend, companion; co-worker; swindler; brave person’ and Prussian personal name Bandule (Trautmann 1925: 176).

118

in the language, cf. warene ‘copper cauldron’ (Messingkessel) E 356, wissene ‘cock’ (Pors) E 622, and the personal names Drutenne, Jodenne (SV 44–45). Admittedly, some discern the suffix -in- here (cf. Smoczyński 2000: 197). The reason is that the short vowel i in Prussian could have become e (Girdenis, Mažiulis 2000).

Names of persons characterized by a particular feature, formed with the compound suffix *-āt-io-, may also have a counterpart in Prussian; cf. Lithuanian barzdōtis (as well as the adjective barzdōtas) and Prussian nagotis ‘copper pot with legs’ (Erintop) E 349: nage ‘leg’ (Nage) E 145 (PKEŽ III 168). This type of derivative seems to be absent in Latvian. Moreover, diminutives with *-ātē, which are of the same origin as the aforementioned names of persons characterized by a particular feature, are formed almost exclusively in Lithuanian (DaiktvDrR II 109).

It is also striking that the principal Lithuanian suffix for names of persons characterized by a particular feature, -inykas (< *-ino- + *-i-ko-), has an exact counterpart in Prussian, whereas the form of this suffix differs in Latvian; cf. Lithuanian laukinykas, Prussian laukinikis ‘landowner’ (Leman) E 407, and Latvian laučinieks (for more detail, see DaiktvDrR II 118–127).

Lithuanian and Prussian are also linked by the prevalence of agent nouns with the diminutive suffix *-iko-. They have long been especially characteristic of the Western Aukštaitian dialect of Lithuanian. For instance, the dictionaries of J. Brodovskis and F. Kuršaitis record even more of them than the corresponding derivatives with the suffix *-ėjo- (DaiktvDrR 135). They are less characteristic of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect (as well as of Latvian; cf. LVG 358): the dictionaries of K. Sirvydas contain just one agent noun with *-iko-, lojikas ‘one who barks’ SD³141 (cf. also LKA III Map No. 114). In the Prussian-language texts, as in the aforementioned Lithuanian dictionaries from Lithuania Minor, there are also more agent nouns with *-iko- than corresponding derivatives with *-ėjo- (DaiktvDrR 136). Some of these have Lithuanian counterparts; cf. Lithuanian mynikas and Prussian mynix ‘a skinner, furrier’ (Gerwer) E 511; Lithuanian siuvikas ‘tailor’ and Prussian schuwikis ‘shoemaker’ (Schuwert) E 496. Admittedly, in the latter case the Lithuanian and Prussian derivatives differ in meaning. Thus, perhaps they arose independently in the two languages (cf. Smoczyński 2000: 73).

The suffix *-iko- entered the category of agent nouns from diminutives, which in Prussian are most commonly formed with this suffix, e.g.: malnijikik ‘little child’ (Kindlein) III 113₆, acc. sing. gannikan ‘little woman’ (Frewlein) III 105₂₅, etc. (DaiktvDrR II 88–89 with lit.). In Lithuanian, as in Latvian (DL 297–298, 300–305), only remnants of this type of derivative survive today. However, diminutives with *-iko- may once have been productive in western Lithuania, since in a considerable part of the Samogitian dialect and in some Western Aukštaitian subdialects diminutives are quite often formed with the suffix -ikė, cf. katikė, mergikė (LKA III Map No. 116, p. 131). Also noteworthy here is the compound suffix of the Zietela dialect -ik-utas, e.g.: bernikūtas ‘little boy’, paršiikūtas ‘little pig’ (Vidugiris 1969: 151).

Thus, agent nouns with *-iko- seem to have first begun to be formed in the West Baltic languages, and later this innovation spread into some East Baltic dialects, also reaching the Slavic languages; cf. Lithuanian siuvikas and Slavic *šъvbъ (for more on this type of derivative in the Slavic languages, see Wojtyła-Świerzowska 1974: 82–87).

119

Returning to diminutives, we find two more striking derivational isoglosses between Lithuanian and Prussian. It has long been observed that diminutives with the suffix -alis(-ė) (which, like the previously mentioned -elis(-ė), derives from the determinative *-l-) are widespread in a considerable part of the Samogitian dialect (LKA III Map No. 117, p. 132), where the Curonians once lived (Būga 1961: 244), and have an exact counterpart in Prussian; cf. Lithuanian puodālis and Prussian podalis ‘worn-out pot’ (Bosetop) E 351. It should also be noted that in some Samogitian subdialects (e.g. Pagramantis) derivatives of this type have a diminutive meaning (Jonikas 1939: 34), while in others (e.g. Švėkšna, Salantai) they are pejorative (ŽD 175; Salys 1992: 75, 337)—a meaning also found in the aforementioned Prussian derivative. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to regard Prussian podalis as a Germanism (as in Smoczyński 2000: 66 ff.). Latvian has virtually no diminutives with *-oļo- (DL 276).

The diminutive suffix *-istio- links the former region of Sūduva (the areas around Kybartai, Vilkaviškis, and Virbalis) with Prussian (Būga 1958: 305; 1959: 229; ŽD 332, 767); cf. Lithuanian ėriščias and Prussian eristian ‘little lamb’ (Lam) E 681 (DaiktvDrR II 100–101 with lit.)¹⁶

In the areas inhabited by Curonians, Yotvingians, and Prussians, there is a whole group of hydronyms and place names with -ing- (and variants -ang-, -ung-, -eng-); cf. the Lithuanian hydronyms Liōlinga, Alangà, Drubėngis, Babrungas/Bābrungas (Vanagas 1970: 91–92, 134, 168–169, 203, 410; Bilkis 1998: 54, 126–127, 169), the place names Lėipalingis, Kūlingė, Kretingà, Palangà (Savukynas 1966: 172; Vanagas 1994), and Prussian Balyngen, Stabingen, Marang, Marunge, Wandangen, etc. (Gerullis 1922: 247; Powierski 1985: 7–95).

This could be explained in part by the fact that the center of diffusion of the adjectival suffix *-ingo- was probably also located in the West Baltic languages. There, derivatives of this type were formed with it not only from nominal stems (as in Lithuanian and Latvian), but very often from verbs as well, e.g.: auschauditwingins ‘faithful’ (getrewe) III 53_^14–15: auschauditwei ‘to trust’ (vertrawen) III 27_¹¹, druwīngin ‘believing’ (gleubigen) III 119_¹³: druwīt ‘to believe’ (gleuben) III 45_¹⁰, etc. Moreover, in Prussian adjectives of this type quite often became nouns and turned into names of persons characterized by a particular feature; cf. naunīngs ‘new convert’ (Newling) III 87_⁸, ragnīngs ‘deer’ (Hircz) E 651, acc. pl. poklusmīngins ‘subjects’ (Vnterthanen) III 91_¹ (Kaukienė 1994). In Lithuanian, as in Latvian, this occurs very rarely, chiefly in western and southern dialects; cf. kregždinga ‘swallow’, žabangai ‘traps’ (characteristic of the Samogitian dialect); rūšingis ‘Russian’ Zt, juodengė ‘a type of blue berry’ Dbč, varliūngis ‘frog, small child’ Rdm (DaiktvDrR II 148 ff.). In Lithuanian, as mentioned, adjectives with the suffix -inis(-ė) most often become nouns in this way, without the determinative -g-.

¹⁶ F. Spechtas (1938) dar nurodė keletą ilyriškų asmenvardžių su -ist-. Kitur šio tipo deminutyvai tiesioginių atitikmenų, atrodo, neturi. Priesagoje *-is-t-io- veikiausiai slypi determinatyvai *-s- (plg. priesagas -šė, -i-šas, -u-šis, -iš-kas ir pan.), *-t- (plg. priesagas -u-tis, -u-tas) bei afiksas *-io- (DaiktvDrR II 101).

120

The data presented make it possible to speak of a certain influence of the West Baltic languages on the development of word formation in Lithuanian. This is all the more so because the word-formation connections between Latvian and Old Prussian are considerably weaker. They share only a few word-formation innovations less characteristic of Lithuanian. The most important of these is the aforementioned tendency to make broader use of the adjectival suffix *-no-/-nā in the formation of action nouns.

Moreover, most word-formation features shared by Lithuanian and Latvian were inherited from the Proto-Baltic period, while exclusive East Baltic word-formation innovations (especially new word-formation types productive in both languages) are relatively few and not particularly clear-cut.

For instance, abstract nouns were probably formed extensively in the East Baltic languages with the suffix *-mo-; none are attested in Old Prussian monuments, where only adjectives and personal names derived from them with this suffix occur (SV 47–48). However, as we have seen, this tendency was realized quite differently in Lithuanian and Latvian. In addition, derivatives with the adjectival suffix *-no- came to dominate the center of the category of action-noun formation in Latvian (and some other Baltic languages). This innovation had little impact on Lithuanian.

Agent nouns with *-ļio- (< *-lo- + *-io-, cf. BKGF 83) are productive in Lithuanian and Latvian; cf. beglys and Latvian bēglis (LVG 341; DaiktvDrR 118–119). On the other hand, the distribution of the extended suffixes *-ē-ļio- and *-ē-lio- already differs between Lithuanian and Latvian: agent nouns with *-ėlįo- are more characteristic of Lithuanian, whereas the corresponding derivatives with *-elio- are more characteristic of Latvian; cf. Lithuanian pasmirdėlis and Latvian smirdelis.

Word-formation innovations often do not extend throughout the entire Lithuanian and Latvian area. We have already seen how differently diminutives with *-ėlįo-, *-inio-, *-ino-, *-īno-, *-ītio- are distributed in Lithuanian and Latvian dialects. In addition, diminutives with the suffix *-ēno-, widespread across almost the entire Latvian dialect area (e.g., piļēns ‘young duck’ DL 217–230), occur only sporadically in one or another Lithuanian dialect, mainly in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects; for example, arklēnas ‘middling-sized horse’, bernēnas ‘half-grown boy’ Ds (LKŽ I² 303, 768), and others (DaiktvDrR II 110). In Lithuanian, derivatives with *-ēno- have, by contrast, retained the older meaning ‘bearer of a quality’, already rare in Latvian; cf. Lithuanian brolēnas and Latvian brālēns (LVG 303–304; DL 226, 228–229), as well as Slavic *bratrēnъ ‘brother’s son’ (Sławski 1974: 128–129). Some extended suffixes derived from the ancient diminutive suffix *-ko- are also distributed unevenly across Lithuanian and Latvian dialects (for its history, see Jurafsky 1996: 565–569, with references). While diminutives in *-u-ko- (cf. Lithuanian suniūkas and Latvian sunuks) are widely used across almost the entire Lithuanian-speaking area (LKA III Map No. 116, pp. 130–131), in Latvian they are productive only in some Aukštaitian dialects (DL 276–286, Map No. 3). Diminutives in *-ā-ko- (cf. Lithuanian berniōkas and Latvian bērnāks) are more productive in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects of Lithuanian (ŽD 133–134; DaiktvDr 279–280) than in the Aukštaitian dialects of Latvian (DL 289–294). The corresponding derivatives in *-ē-ko- (cf. Lithuanian bernēkas and Latvian bērņēks), by contrast, are much more characteristic of Latvian dialects (especially Latgalian; see DL 295–296) than of the southeastern Lithuanian dialects (DaiktvDrR II 92).

121

This raises the question of why Lithuanian, so close to Latvian in its morphological (inflectional) and phonological features, differs so greatly from the latter in word formation, in many cases coming closer to Old Prussian.

Some researchers, for other reasons as well, believe that a substantial part of the Lithuanian dialect area developed on a West Baltic substrate. For instance, V. Mažiulis (1994; 1995), besides the Old Prussians and Yotvingians, classifies the Curonians as West Baltic; they had a strong influence on the development of the Samogitian dialect (LE 212–217). He also includes the Scalvians and Nadruvians, whose Lithuanianized descendants are considered to be the Prussian Lithuanians (on Prussian elements in the oikonymy of Lithuania Minor, see also Razmukaitė 1995: 546). Archaeological finds also indicate the affinity of these Baltic tribes (cf. Gimbutienė 1958; 1985: 48–50, 77, 114–115, 179; LE 86–88, 104–109; Merkevičius 1996; Butrimas, Žulkus 1997: 30 ff.). Drawing on data from the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” and his own thorough investigations of the Zietela dialect, A. Vidugiris (1996; 1996a; 1998) describes a continuous West Baltic area that once also encompassed the western and southern Aukštaitian region of Lithuania proper and Zietela; these areas later experienced a greater or lesser degree of integration with the Eastern Aukštaitian region, especially the Southern Aukštaitian dialects. Archaeologists and historians, too, tend to locate in Eastern Lithuania the nucleus of the Lithuanian people, which perhaps began to unite the Baltic tribes by the end of the first millennium AD and the beginning of the second millennium, tribes that later helped lay the foundations of the Lithuanian state (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1970: 25 ff.; 1978; LE 156, 183–199, 203 ff.; Gudavičius 1998; 1999: 22–24).

On the other hand, it has also been suggested that there is no need to draw such strict boundaries between the West and East Baltic groups (cf. Schmid 1998).

In addressing this difficult problem, I would suggest taking into account the rich barrow culture that appears to have emerged in Sambia, Natangia, and some other West Baltic lands as early as the Bronze Age. According to archaeologists, it dominated the eastern Baltic lands for about three thousand years, approximately until the fourth century AD (Engel 1935; Gimbutienė 1958, etc.), and may even have influenced the Goths (Žulkus 1995)¹⁷. Some believe that for a long time the West Baltic region was home not only to a cultural center but also to a religious cult center for all Balts (Vėlius 1983: 221 ff.). Whereas the West Balts, through their amber trade, had close connections with Central and Northwestern Europe from prehistoric times (and it is no accident that their names were the first among the Baltic tribes to appear in written sources), the emerging East Balts lived in greater isolation at that time (Gimbutienė 1985: 179–180). Might all this have created favorable conditions for cultural and linguistic innovations, above all lexical (cf. Ademollo Gagliano 1998) and word-formation innovations, which are sensitive to various kinds of language contact, to spread at that time from west to east among the Balts, particularly into the neighboring western and southern regions of present-day Lithuania? Later, as already mentioned, the eastern...

¹⁷ The ancient contacts between the West Balts and the Germanic peoples may also be indicated, in part, by some linguistic data (cf. DaiktvDrR II 151–152).

122

integration. So perhaps the Lithuanian language and its dialects formed initially under the influence of western, and later eastern, influences? Moreover, might the center of the East Baltic languages itself also be sought in eastern Lithuania?

Of course, these are only preliminary hypotheses for further research. For now, unfortunately, by no means all the word-formation isoglosses of the Baltic languages have been identified. We still lack a comprehensive account of the word-formation system of Latvian and Prussian based on modern linguistic methods. Data are lacking on the distribution of word-formation types in Lithuanian and Latvian dialects.

ABBREVIATIONS

BAM – B a m m e s b e r g e r A. (ed.) Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1998.

BKGF – E n d z e l y n a s J. Sounds and Forms of the Baltic Languages, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature, 1957.

DaiktvDr – U r b u t i s V. Word formation of nouns. – Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965, 261–473.

DaiktvDrR – A m b r a z a s S. The Development of Noun Formation. Lithuanian Verbal Derivatives, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing House, 1993.

DaiktvDrR II – A m b r a z a s S. The Development of Noun Formation II. Nominal Derivatives in Lithuanian, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000.

DL – R ū k e - D r a v i ņ a V. Diminutive im Lettischen, Lund: Håkan Ohlsson booktryckeri, 1959.

GrG – A copy of S. Grunau’s Prussian glossary (ca. 1517–1526), held in the Göttingen University Library (cited according to Mažiulis 1981).

Ind. – G a m k r e l i d z e T. V., I v a n o v Vjač. Vs., Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy 1–2, Tbilisi: Izdatel'stvo Tbilisskogo universiteta, 1984.

KZ – Journal of Comparative Linguistic Research in the Field of Indo-European Languages (from volume 101 onward published under the revised title Historical Linguistics), Berlin etc.

LE – Lietuvių etnogenezė, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987.

LEW – F r a e n k e l E. Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1962.

LKA III – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 3, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991.

LKK – Issues in Lithuanian Linguistics, Vilnius.

LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius, 1941–.

LVG – E n d z e l ī n s J. Latviešu valodas gramatika, Riga: Latvian State Publishing House, 1951.

LŽ – Lietuvininkų žodis, Kaunas: Litterae Universitatis, 1995.

ME – M ū l e n b a c h s K., E n d z e l ī n s J. Latviešu valodas vārdnīca 1–4, Riga: Cultural Foundation Publishing, 1923–1932.

MLLVG I – Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika 1, Riga: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Latvian SSR, 1959.

PKEŽ – M a ž i u l i s V. Etymological Dictionary of the Prussian Language 1–4, Vilnius, 1988–1997.

SV – E n d z e l ī n s J. Senprūšu valoda, Riga: University Press, 1943.

ŽD – S k a r d ž i u s P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius, 1943.

The other source abbreviations are the same as in the comprehensive Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.

123

LITERATURA

Ademollo Gagliano M. T. 1998: Ereditá lessicali indeuropee in lettone. – BAM, 347–357.

Akelaitienė G. 1999: Paviršiaus ypatybę reiškiančių būdvardžių variantai ir jų atsiradimo priežastys. – Baltistica 34(2), 209–213.

Baltynja M. 1979: Suffiksal’noe slovoobrazovanie otlagol’nych suščestvitel’nych v latyšskom pis’mennom jazyke (na -šana, -ums, -ība, -iens): Avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk, Riga.

Bammesberger A. 1973: Abstraktbildungen in den baltischen Sprachen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.

Bammesberger A. 1995: Die gotischen Adjektiva auf -(w)-isk-. – KZ 108, 93–101.

Bammesberger A. 1998: Anmerkungen zum Baseler Epigramm. – BAM, 121–126.

Bammesberger A. 1998a: Zur Herkunft des baltischen Suffixes -ingas. – Res Balticae 4, 109–111.

Bammesberger A. 2000: Altpreußisch pagonbe. – Res Balticae 6, 59–64.

Benveniste É. 1961: Fonktions suffixale en gotique. – Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 56, 21–45.

Bielenstein A. 1863: Die lettische Sprache nach ihren Lauten und Formen erklärend und vergleichend dargestellt 1, Berlin: F. Dünmler.

Bilkis L. 1998: Lietuvių priesaginės darybos heloniniai: Hum. m. daktaro disertacija, Vilnius.

Blažienė G. 1998: Dėl XVI–XVII a. Sembos vietovardžių. – Baltistica 5 priedas, 59–78.

Brugmann K. 1906: Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Bd. 2. T. 1, Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner.

Būga K. 1958–1961: Rinktiniai raštai 1–3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Butler J. L. 1971: Latin -īnus, -īna, -īnus and -īneus. From Proto-Indo-European to the Romance Languages, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Butrimas A., Žulkus V. 1997: Žemaitijos priešistorė. – Žemaitijos istorija, Vilnius: Regnum fondas, 13–34.

Degtjarev V. I. 1994: Refleksy indoevropejskoj formy sobiratel’nosti na *-ā- v baltijskih i slavjanskih jazykach. – Baltistica 4 priedas, 29–41.

Desnickaja A. V. 1983: Drevnie balkano-baltijskie sootnošenija i albanskij jazyk. – Baltistica 19(1), 15–22.

Endzelin J. 1909: Lettische Miszellen. – KZ 42, 375–379.

Endzelin J. 1924: Germanische-baltische Miszellen. – KZ 52, 110–128.

Ettinger S. 1980: Form und Funktion in der Wortbildung, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Engel C. 1935: Vorgeschichte der altpreussischen Stämme 1, Königsberg.

Gerullis G. 1922: Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin-Leipzig: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verleger, Walter de Gruyter u. Co.

Gerullis J., Stang’as Ch. 1933: Lietuvių žvejų tarme Prūsuose, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos knygų leidimo komisija.

Gimbutienė M. 1958: Rytprūsių ir Vakarų Lietuvos priešistorinės kultūros apžvalga. – Mažoji Lietuva, New York, 9–121.

Gimbutienė M. 1985: Baltai priešistoriniais laikais, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Girdenis A., Mažiulis V. 2000: Prūsų kalbos trumpųjų balsių fonologinė sistema. – Tarptautinis baltistų kongresas „Baltų kalbos amžių kaitoje“. Pranešimų tezės, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts, 90–92.

Gudavičius E. 1998: Mindaugas, Vilnius: Žara.

Gudavičius E. 1999: Lietuvos istorija 1, Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla.

Hamp E. P. 1973: On Baltic, Luwian and Albanian participles in *-m-. – Baltistica 9(1), 45–50.

Hamp E. P. 1983: Indo-European substantives in *-mō- and *-mā-. – KZ 96, 171–177.

124

Jokl N. 1963: Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse des Albanischen zu den übrigen indogermanischen Sprachen. – Die Sprache 9, 113–155.

Jonikas P. 1939: Pagramančio tarmė, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos knygų leidimo komisija.

Jurafsky D. 1996: Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. – Language 72(3), 533–578.

Kabelka J. 1964: Kristijono Donelaičio leksika, Vilnius: Mintis.

Karaliūnas S. 1992: New findings in Prussian etymology (names for foal and swine). – W. Smoczyński, A. Holvoet (eds) Colloquium Pruthenicum Primum, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 15–21.

Kaukienė A. 1994: Prūsų kalbos būdvardžiai su priesaga -ing-. – Vakarų baltų kalbų ir kultūrų reliktai. Mokslinės konferencijos medžiaga: pranešimai ir tezės. Skiriama Antanui Jakuliui (1939–1984) paminėti, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universitetas, 9–10.

Kiparsky V. 1975: Russische Grammatik 3, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Universitätsverlag.

Kortlandt F. 1998: Two Old Prussian fragments. – BAM, 115–120.

Kortlandt F. 1998a: Who is who in the Old Prussian Epigramm? – BAM, 127–128.

Kronasser H. 1963: Etymologie der hethitischen Sprachen 2, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Kubryakova E. S. 1963: Imennoe slovoobrazovanie germanskich jazykov. – Sravnitel'naja grammatika germanskich jazykov 3, Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 39–131.

Laroche E. 1956: Hittite -ima-: indo-européen *-mo-. – Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 52, 72–82.

Laumane B. 1990: Derivati ar priedēkli -ait- augšzemnieku izloksnēs. – Onomastica Lettica, Rīga: Zinātne, 92–101.

Leskien A. 1891: Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen, Leipzig: Hirzel.

Liukkonen K. 1987: Vostočnoslavjanskie otglagol'nye suščestvitel'nye na -m- 1, Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Mažiulis V. 1973: Seniausias baltų rašto paminklas. – Baltistica 11(2), 125–131.

Mažiulis V. 1981: Prūsų kalbos paminklai 2, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Mažiulis V. 1994: Prūsai ir kiti vakarų baltai. – Prūsijos kultūra, Vilnius: Academia, 4–9.

Mažiulis V., 1995: Dėl Prūsijos lietuvių kilmės. – LŽ 465–469.

McCluskey S. C., Schmalstieg W. R., Zeps V. 1975: The Basel Epigramm, a new minor text in Old Prussian. – General Linguistics 15, 159–165.

Meid W. 1967: Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Bd. 3. Wortbildung, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter u. Co.

Merkevičius A. 1996: Basic burial patterns of Western and Eastern Balts in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. – K. Jones-Bley, M. E. Huld (eds) The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe, Washington: Institute of Study of Man, 54–58.

Mezger F. 1953: Ahd. jungidi, lit. vilkýtis, got. nipjis. – KZ 71, 117–119.

Nepokupnyj A. N. 1997: K probleme derivatov v istoričeskich i ėtimologičeskich slovarjach baltijskich i slavjanskich jazykov. – LKK 37, 11–19.

Niedermann M. 1954: -inus als Diminutivsuffix im späteren Volkslatein. – Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung. Festschrift Albert Debrunner, Bern: Francke Verlag, 329–342.

Otrębski J. 1935: Przyczynki słowiańsko-litewskie 2, Wilno: Nakładem Instytutu naukowo-badawczego Europy Wschodniej.

Parenti A. 1998: Old Prussian abstract nouns in -sna, -senna, -sennis. – BAM, 129–142.

Powieŕski J. 1985: Polska a Prusowie w Warnia i Mazury, Olsztyn: Ośrodek badan naukowych im. Wojciecha Kętrzyńskiego w Olsztynie.

Range J. D. 1977: Zur Entwicklung der Wortbildungskategorie „Nomen loci“ im Baltischen und Slawischen. – Baltistica 2 Priedas, 124–130.

Razmukaitė M. 1995: Mažosios Lietuvos oikonimija (gyvenamųjų vietų vardai). – LŽ 528–546.

Reķēna A. 1996: Dienvidlatgales izlokšņu un lietuviešu valodas paralēles varddarināšanā. – Baltistica 31(1), 53–70.

125

Salys A. 1992: Raštai 4, Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslų akademija.

Savukynas B. 1966: K probleme zapadnobaltijskogo substrata v jugozapadnoj Litve. – Baltistica 1(2), 165–176.

Schmid W. P. 1994: Linguisticae Scientiae Collectanea, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Schmid W. P. 1998: Altpreussisch-lettische Sprachbeziehungen. – Baltistica 33(2), 199–208.

Skardžius P. 1998: Rinktiniai raštai 4, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidyklios institutas.

Sławski F. 1974–1976: Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego. – Słownik prasłowiański 1–2, Wrocław etc.: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.

Smoczyński W. 2000: Untersuchungen zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreussischen, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

Specht F. 1938: Zum illyrischen Suffix -ist-. – KZ 65, 175.

Stundžia B. 1981: Daugiskaitiniai asmenvardiniai oikonimai ir jų reikšmė linksniavimo bei kirčiavimo sistemų rekonstrukcijai. – LKK 21, 185–198.

Trautmann R. 1910: Die altpreußischen Sprachdenkmäler, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.

Trautmann R. 1925: Die altpreußischen Personennamen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.

Udolph J. 1994: Namenkundliche Studien zum Germanenproblem, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Vaba L. 1995: Baltische m-Deverbale in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. – VII Starptautiskais baltistu kongress 1995. g. 13–15. jūnijā. Referātu tēzes, Rīga: Latviešu valodas institūts, 117–119.

Vaillant A. 1974: Grammaire comparée des langues slaves 4, Paris: Editions Klincksieck.

Vanagas A. 1970: Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius: Mintis.

Vanagas A. 1994: Miesto vardas Kretingà. – LKK 34, 162–165.

Vėlius N. 1983: Senovės baltų pasaulėžiūra, Vilnius: Mintis.

Vidugiris A. 1969: Zietelos tarmės daiktavardis. – LKK 11, 147–182.

Vidugiris A. 1996: Kai kurie vakarų baltų kalbos reiškiniai pietinėse lietuvių tarmėse. – Baltistica 31(1), 31–38.

Vidugiris A. 1996a: Dėl Zietelos šnektos priklausomybės ir kilmės. – LKK 36, 127–137.

Vidugiris A. 1998: Zanavykai – sūduvių ar žemaičių palikuonys. – LKK 40, 22–31.

Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R. 1970: Lietuviai IX–XII amžiais, Vilnius: Mintis.

Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R. 1978: Lietuvos tautybės susidarymas (archeologijos duomenimis). – Lietuvos istorijos metraštis. 1977 metai, 5–22.

Vulāne A. 1986: Adjektīvu ar -inis, -ine derivācija un atributīvā funkcija augšzemnieku dialektā. – Latvijas PSR zinātņu akadēmijas vēstis 1(462), 73–84.

Winkler-Leszyńska I. 1963: Przyrostki przymiotnikowe -ityl-isty, -atyll-asty w języku polskim na tle ogólnosłowiańskim. – Język Polski 63, 65–73.

Wojtyła-Świerzowska M. 1974: Prasłowiańskie nomen agentis, Wrocław etc.: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.

Žulkus V. 1995: Vakarų baltai gotų-gepidų migracijoje (I–IV a.). – Lietuvininkų kraštas, Kaunas: Litterae 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-mo- and Latv. *-s-io-nā) and diminutives (cf. Lith. *-e-l-io- and Latv. *-i-nio-, *-īt-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-ā), but they are quite extinct in Latvian. In Lithuanian and Latvian there are also some differences in suffixes used to form nomina collectiva with the meaning of forests or concentrations of other plants or things in one place, cf. Lith. *-ī-no- and Latv. *-ei-no-/-oi-no-, Lith. *-ī-ē and Latv. *-oit-ē.

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 *-ībē, *-īstā, *-isko-; nomina attributiva in *-in-īko-, *-ō-lio-, *-e-nā, *-ā-tio-; nomina agentis in *-i-ko-; diminutives in *-o-lio-, *-is-t-io-; hydronyms and place names in -ing- (resp. -ang-, -ung-, -eng-).

Saulius AMBRAZAS

Gauta 2000 02 24

Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6 LT-2055, Vilnius, Lietuva El. paštas saulाम[email protected]

127