Šiaurės vakarų panevėžiškių „murmamieji balsiai“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA IVY KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS LIETUYV XLIII (2000) Kazimieras GARSVA Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius NORTH WESTERN PANEVĖŽIŠKIŲ ‘MURMAMIEJI The northern part of the city is divided into four districts: North Central District. į ų (including "Panevėžys, Joniškio rajonai" (in ir Lithuanian). The Northwest Panevėžys has three phonetic characteristics: the so-called accent retraction, the complete reduction of former short-end vowels in vowels ir i, u translation e, 0 (excluding the position of the main intersection) and ę, 4 —¢, o, tvirtagalių arm, an, erh, eri om, on, em, (cf. — en Garšva 1977: 76—77; Urbanavičiūtė-Markevičienė 1994: 85-86). The boundaries of Patarmés are shown on the map. 2 SY A T A } Ny į Ą ~ \ L 9 1 Ri 8 Brunava oY ) . 23 rų i Zz ~N J 37 \ . 37 . 24 Kriukai ‘Shu A || ! > 2s to a 58 s8 / | so © Joniškis Žeimėlis Salėčiai 3 ' q | si 52 54 o Biržai . ; The 2 Passionate War 5? 59.7: | a aš į 73 hey a 637 75 7 . 73 =. 29 B2 / : 76 Linkuva Joniškėlis su 81 / | 110 Mū Pasvalys ° He 106 " © y 13 7 : 8 t i | 105 107 j : į / j , Plains 138 140 p 131 136 Pakrdojis 142 \ o ! i 141 : Shulai 137 139 Pumpénai 7 143 i 83 X 135 Klovainiai Blown : \ © 164 187 168 | 172 3 Si ' j “5 142 171 | x \ . \ Radviliškis |144 Krikliniai \ 173 | 197 O 200 201 ; 1196 198 \ 202 203 204 , į 199 ; =) 235 . 229 Sn PANEVĖŽYS ; ; \ | Šeduva o 238 . 230 \ 231 233 \ | 228 V. 232 . 234 \ 1 Figure 1. Narrow west panevéziskiy subdistrict area 165 1. K. The archives of the parish of Lygumai show that the vowels of the people of north-western Panevėžys have undoubtedly been reduced already in the 18th a. century. 1764 m. recorded Wiejas / Wieis, m., 1765 1766 m. — Peledzioni ir t. t. 1777–1781. in the iš parish of various (even much more distant) localities were written every year po 10 with the reduced su short vowels of the closed ending of the real names (Motejuns, Jokans, Preymans, Szlondans, Stankuns, Szymkuns, Balczuns, Bajors, Maczuns, Motiejuns, Walantyns, Waytekuns, Zaks), 1782—1785 m. — every year from to so 2 these 6, entries cannot be considered accidental. 1781 m. written ir form Reksc¢ „Regztys“, which testifies that already then the final consonant combination was fs perceived by the recorder as a consonant c (without the distinguishing “murmuring vowel”). 1860 August 2008 28 d. In the garden of the priest P. Gomalevski- 's finely prepared ta "Kniga kurioj ira surasziti wisi brolej seseris brostwininkaj prigulitis ir dobrawalnaj isirasziusis ing brotswa ir blajwistes..." There are 866 male and 906 female names and surnames here. There are 1696 surnames with reduced endings and 3096 names, i.e. almost twice as many. There are mostly names and surnames with the reduced short vowel a, especially in threeor four-syllable words (Kurliuks, Morkuns, Marcions, Nagions, Wilips, Lukuscijās, etc.), as well as with the vowel i (Laszins, Nieks, Noreiks), u (Burks). The form Ferens "Ferensas" indicates that the writer perceived the two-consonant ss as one consonant. People of the same village and sometimes even of the same family are written both with the retained and with the reduced short vowel (children — more often than parents): Jonas /Jons, Motiejis „Motiejus“ /Motiejs and so on. The short vowel of the end had no phonological meaning at that time. In 1929, Kazimieras Gasparavičius in Puodžiūnai village (8 km south of Lauksodis) recorded folklore texts, in which the short limbs were reduced not by 30%, but by about 50%. It can be assumed that in the 70 years, the central part of the submandibular region has reduced 20 percent of its short limbs, and this process has accelerated, as over the next 30 years, another 40 percent of the limbs have been reduced. In 1960, E. Grinaveckienė found very few short vowels in the village of Steigviliai (1 km from Puodžiūnai towards Laūksodis) (but according to the characteristics of consonants and vowels, she noted that here “the decay of the end vowels [...] is a relatively new phenomenon”, Grinaveckienė 1961:168). Judging by the indicated reduction rates, it may have been passed on to the Lithuanians by the Zimgalians in the 13th-14th centuries, but until the 19th century it was little manifested. The “murmuring” (“short”) vowels of the north-western Panevėžys people were first described in 1898 by Kazimieras Jaunius (cf. 1898 (1970): 127). Based on the data collected in 1892 in the dialects of northwestern Panevėžys in the outskirts of Pampėnai and Pasvalys and Eduardas Volteris, he generalized the “short” vowels of the end to many dialect words. At the end of the 19th century, in the north-western Panevėžys border with Biržai, the remains of short vowels were pronounced more often than now, but as systematically as marked 166 ne K. Young. Having traveled around a few dialects with few ir accurate texts, he did not notice that the same word could be pronounced ir su short vowel (optional), ir be No. Years earlier than K. Text of Antanas Baranauskas collection written by the young man iš Pamphene, but in it the remains of the vowels of the extremities were only 2096*, o Pasvalio apskritis in text — 1% (Speckled woodpecker) 1920: 162-164, 171-174). 1896 in 2006 to Born of Grain Petras Būtėnas 1932 in the year wrote: "although the cymograph could still put words to the remains of limbs sometimes (everywhere thinned our — K. G.) marked, but its human ears are almost insignificant" (Būtėnas years 1932: 169). 1908 10 km į north of Linkuvos The mentioned linguist born in (Puodžiūnai) K. Gasparavičius, in a collection of pronounced folktales, (1929: 2—123) wrote about half of the remains of vowels of the end, describing the schnekt according to ir In 1936 he noted that the vowels of the extremities "turn into very short sounds, and later may disappear altogether" (the texts of the Peoples born in the second half of the last century are mostly without "murmuring vowels and have been recorded by later researchers). In 1936, K. Gasparavičius added that those "only audible whispering sounds [...] are only used by older people slowly uttered". Zinkevičius 1978: 60), although in the course of 40 years the youth, who according to K. Gasparavičius had no “murmuring voice”, became the old. The new theory of K. Jaunius had no followers for almost 70 years (in that period there were more remains of short vowels than now). Not only A. Baranauskas (1898: 76), who published his description in the same year as K. Jaunius, but also K. Būga (1924: 82-83), K. Gasparavičius (1929), A. Salys (1931, see footnote 2), P. Būtėnas (1932: 168, 169), born in Grūžių village, did not recognize these vowels. K. Būga also relied on him as a professional Lithuanianist with good knowledge of the native language, except for J. Gerulis (1930: 41, 61-65). This was not accepted until the beginning of the 20th century. the second half of the 20th century, when more detailed works on dialects appeared (Jašinskaitė 1957: 189-194; Grinaveckienė 1961: 167-183; 1962: 147-168; Šukys 1962: 176-183, etc.). The same opinion was maintained in the diploma works of the students at the time, in the description of A. Salis “Lietuvių kalbos tarmės” (1992: 304-305) prepared in 1935 and published in exile. About 300 years before K. Jaunius, there were also “short” reduced vowels, but no one marked them, cf. "Petrošunas (1600), Gulbinas (1678)". ! About half of the words have these remains only at the absolute end after the soft consonant, for example pifti, mazi ir t. t. * 1931 12 01 lecture similarly stated and Antanas Salys (K..Gasparavičius notes (Library of Congress). , 3 Joniškis Baptism Record Book, p. 10"; Linkuva baptismal record book, p. 17°. 167 The concept (the term) of the “murmuring vowel” has been revived and spread since 1966 (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 143, cf. LDS 1999: 126, 130, 142-145; Girdenis 1981: 61—62, etc.). Authoritative dialectologists, who called the new classification of Lithuanian dialects an improved variant of Baranauskas’s classification, rejected his opinion on short vowels in Panevėžys, although he, as an eastern Highlander, was more in-depth than the Žemaites K. Jaunius (whose classification of dialects was rejected by linguists). Short vowels and consonants adjacent to them have already been described quite accurately by E. Grinaveckienė (1961: 168). In the chrestomaty of Lithuanian dialects prepared by the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute (LKT: 33, 35, 237—259) it was noted that most of the eastern Highlands dialects that have the accent completely drop the vowels of the final part and they are artificially not marked in the texts. However, following previous reviews (Girdenis 1971: 206-208; Zinkevičius 1975: 85-86; 1976: 129, etc.), the phonetic volume of the Lithuanian Language Atlas (LKA 1982: 18, 22-26) acknowledged that the northern sniffing ends usually throw out the short vowel, except for three types of consonant sampling, when there are “certain traces of a murmuring sound or breathing”. In the “Encyclopedia of Lithuanian Language” (LKE: 459-461) the unspoken “murmuring sound” is already indicated without exception. J. Šliavas, who believed that “murmuring vowels” in practical language “are still noticeable almost only in the encounter of the muffled and muffled consonants at the end of the word” (1972: 399), began to mark these “vowels” in 1975 (also cf. Zinkevičius 1976: 129). A lot of confusion about the “murmuring vowel” arose when the laws of other dialects were imposed on the inhabitants of Panevėžys, a one-sided theory, confusing the unspoken “vowel” with the remains of the terminal vowels, phonology — with phonetics, different understanding of phonology, experimental commutation, based on different conversations, speakers of different ages. Linguists are usually divided into non-distinguishers of phenomena related to the “murmuring vowel” (cf. I. Jašinskaitė, E. Grinaveckienė, J. Šukys and others — see Zinkevičius 1975: 84*) and distinguishing ones. In fact, the latter are divided into 3 groups: those who explain the differences in word endings 1) phonetically and phonologically (G. Kačiuškienė, I. Ručinskaitė), 2) only phonologically (A. Girdenis, Z. Zinkevičius- ), 3) prosodic, that is, non-segmentally and do not give more important meaning to these phenomena, considering them only as potentially possible auxiliary means of the phonological system (previous interpretation, cf. Garšva 1984: 128-137). Phonetically, we can talk about “murmuring vowels”, phonologically – about “murmuring voice”. The first opinion of those who distinguish the "murmuring vowels" is the most unreliable, not even proven experimentally. Of the 14 word pairs studied by G. Kačiuškienė (1983: 29), only 4 (29%) could show a “murmuring vowel” (10 differ in the main accent from the diphthong), but even those 4 “pair” differ, at least in the western part of the dialect, primarily in the hardness-softness of the penultimate consonant in the samples ks” —k's’, ps” —p's’. Therefore, these words do not form minimal pairs and cannot prove any "murmuring vowel". With 3 pairs of type lipés —lipsi (lép’s’) after much wider auditory experiments, under more natural conditions (repeating 1 time, without emphasizing anything) pairs were allocated 168 55-48% (n=191; Garšva 1984: 132-135). In more artificial conditions (repeating the pairs even 5 times) 64-58% of pairs were allocated (n=305; Bielskytė 1984: 18-20). The last result was obtained not immediately, but after carrying out an additional experiment: previous auditors (n = 215) only placed 58-4896 pairs. Therefore, even auditory experiments do not prove the "murmuring voice". The words pešiū —peši (foot) were assigned to us by 41% of auditors (and 2396 respondents in tests) under natural conditions, and in the experiment of I. Ručinskaitė (1984: 73) the difference of similar homoforms rose to 77.796. It is known that the results of auditory experiments are the “better” the more artificially the experiment is carried out and when the researcher wants to “motivatedly accept the hypothesis raised at the beginning of the work” (forgetting that the refutation of that hypothesis is equally valuable to science). As long as at least some pairs do not differ in those experiments (e.g.: 10 rito kas’ —tė daba kas’, vaikui gėr’ —vanden' gėr' —milko gėr', etc.), nothing more important will be proved. Pešiū —peši type pairs of “two qualitative types” of “murmuring vowels” could not be very different, because even before the final reduction those vowels often coincided, e.g.: k'ali “I go”, doris, gaspadoris, mėlnyczi (Specht 1920: 85, 147, 164, 173), lenk’, verki”, koj's (‘<a), nor, praseker“'- s', lyg's ('<u) and so on (Gasparavičius 1929: 25-92; also cf. Bilevičius 1980: 6 and others). Discussing homonymous forms of the nes” type (es. I. 2 a., bus. I. 1 a. and 2 a.), K. Gasparavicius (1936: 2), J. Bilevicius* rightly pointed out that their difference can be traced only syntactically. The second (phonological) interpretation is theoretically quite interesting, but 1 paneveziskiu dialect is viewed more from the position of Northern Samogitian, other dialects, common language, based on historical grammar, phonology theory. It is explained that, for example, in the word bad the consonant g is not muffled because after it theoretically is introduced the most often unspoken and unheard “murmuring vowel”, and the latter is needed because g is not muffled. But balts, viens, libdams, alkans, aug, duod and so on are also said by people from Šiauliai, Latvia, Kaunas (the “striukiai” of Lesser Lithuania), southern Samogitians (cf. Zinkevičius 1978:34, 36, 91, 94, 100, 154), while the “murmuring vowel” is introduced only for people from northern Panevėžys. The area of limb reduction extended from Riga to Tilžė. Northern Šiauliai people say not only sauss (like Latvians), but also kaušs, daizZs, lėds (or lads, Zinkevičius 1978: 38) and so on. It is not surprising that the people of Panevėžys also retained the final consonant combinations b, d, g, Žž, š, s+s, all the more so since the final vowel has been gradually and definitively reduced over the last 100 years. The above mentioned consonant features *1982 06 10 and subsequent information. 169 explained in detail by the preserved opposition of sharpness and dullness, the ss compound of two consonants, etc., so it is not appropriate to mark the same sign with a second phoneme (,,murmuring vowel“). The greatest evil of such an interpretation is that practically everywhere without exception it is attempted to show common language — even in verbs and other forms (e.g., Kačiuškienė 1984: 15%), where even K. Jaunius (1898 (1970): 115— 160) did not hear any “murmuring vowel”: laister “to water”, valgem “we ate”, etc. (over 90 years the remains of vowels of the former reduced endings have almost completely disappeared). There is no reliable evidence of what consonant sampling or stem vowel characteristics indicate that the "murmuring vowel" has survived, for example in the words lieken "lean, thin", rūg'on "raise, call", šark "shark", taūms "dark", etc. Z. Zinkevičius correctly writes that “the youth and even the middle generation often do not utter the murmuring sound” (1978: 60). The northern residents of Panevėžys have completely obliterated this sound, in many places it is no longer audible (Zinkevičius 2000: 8-9). And “the unheard, unperceived and undistinguishable features of sounds cannot be phonological elements of language — they simply do not exist in the language system” (cf. Girdenis 1981: 189). In the transcription of unspoken and unheard sounds, there is no need to use apostrophes, etc. t. mark. The third interpretation arose in order to give more meaning to the possible differences of the minimal pairs (without the fictitious “murmuring vowel”). The prosody interpretation received 6 counter-arguments (Girdenis 1981: 61—62; Kačiuškienė 1983: 33-34; Ručinskaitė 1984: 76). One of them would help re-examine the hypothesis of two syllable types. According to this theory, type I and type II syllables differ in that when the former are in front of an unreduced vowel, a new (non-vowel) consonant is not added to them in any of the same word forms, i.e. the composition of the syllable remains unchanged. The two-type syllables consist of four kinds of sounds: long vowels (e.g., type I voks „wool“, cf. original vé-ka and so on — type II voks „wool“, cf. vog-dava, vok-sem’, though and vagem’, vo-ge), diphthongs (laūks „wool“, laū-ka —laūk, lauk-sem- ’; mixed diphthongs (v'olks "wolf", v'ol-ka — v'olks "wolf", v'olg-dava, etc.) and short vowels (/ėp"s" "tail", Ii. pes' -lėp's" "Jipsi", li.p"-kėm', etc.). Without accepting the 2 syllable types, the auxiliary phonological elements can be introduced in the consonant,murmamaji vowel" or 2 more secondary consonants of limited distribution. In long syllables they would only be in the position of the main accent (cf. Garšva 1977: 122-128; Kačiuškienė 1984: 7-8), and in short syllables — in the position of the deductive accent (in final syllables). Otherwise, the positions would have to mark diphthongs of two lengths, long vowels and short vowels. The prosodic type of syllable and the segmentally pronounced vowel residue of the ending were and are independent things, they do not contradict each other. The syllable type was determined by the former open (slightly longer) or closed (shorter) syllable; vowel residue is pronounced extremely rarely and in a coherent text usually does not change the information either. 170 A large article was prepared by A. Girdenis and G. Židonytė “The vowel system of Northern Panevėžys (Rozalimo šnektas- )” (Girdenis, Židonytė 1994), illustrating the distribution of vowels, trying to introduce šnektas into the system of other dialects. It is attempted to revive the opinion of K. Jaunius that positional long vowels e, a are shorter than long ones in the position of the už weak (retractive or ancient) final accent “over the blackness of the nail”. It has already been indicated (cf. Garšva 1977, 1984, 1986, etc.) that not only Rozalimo, but also Pakrūjo, Pašvitinio, Linkuvos, Joniškėlio, Pasvalio and other places inhabitants do not pronounce any short vowels, the pairs di.r’s’ „dursi“ —du.r’s” „durys“, son.ks’ „suūksi“ —son’k’s’ „sunkieji“, mar’gės’ „Margės“ —mar’ges’ „margysi“, n’a.s „nešu“ —n’aš „neš“, kaps „kapsū“ —ka.ps „kapūs“, cėp’s’ „cipės“ (prisons) —cėp’s’ „cipsi“ are sometimes distinguished not according to the „murmuring vowels“, but according to the length of the pronounced vowel, the hardness of the consonants —softness, the boundary of the syllable, etc. Under artificial conditions (in experiments) occasionally maximum perhaps means and variants. Out of 100 informants, 3 still seem to have retained the remains of the short vowel (son.'k*s' „heavy“) in the closed ending. In the central parts of the dialect, the remains of such vowels are still pronounced in about 1-3%, and in the peripheral parts — up to 7096, therefore we do not need to look for murmuring vowels in 19th-century grave inscriptions and judge from them about the current phonological system (Girdenis, Židonytė 1994: 115). The newly introduced highly reduced colorless anterior and posterior vowels 5, 8 are marked “only when the target vowel color cannot be determined” (Skirmantas, Girdenis 1998: 113). When the reduction is extremely pronounced — not only the quality of the vowel changes, but the vowel does not form a syllable, the script is also folded. It is not known whether anyone could prove the differences between the “murmuring vowels” in the forms žmon'*s' “people” and v'e:įYs' “wind”, ko.kTM “what” and v'ašt(* “chicken- ”, v'er.gdam®,vergdama” and apsekabi- .n’s “embracing” (Skirmantas, Girdenis 1998: 112-114, 120). It is also possible to use the fantastic form kakal"* "kaklū", although the insertion vowel is due to the fact that there is no vowel after -/. The abundance of contradictions in the examples of the “murmuring voice” shows that, lacking clear criteria for those “voices”, their supporters were also confused. 3. Summary Church archive records show that in the north-western dialect of Panevėžys the ends were slightly reduced in the 17th century. In A. Baranauskas’ texts, more short vowels remained closer to the pronounced syllable, in formerly pronounced endings, in open syllables, after the soft consonant (Kačiuškienė 1983: 28). When the consonant was retracted, the consonants am, an, em, en, the vowels of the ending were not yet reduced and formed a separate syllable, e.g.: alkans "hungry- ", n'agal" "unable, unable" (the retractive 171 consonant always emphasizes the second accent of the old consonant, e.g. n 'akal.t,nekalta®). Some remains of short vowels are still pronounced today (especially in the edges of dialects). They indicate that vowels without a consonant end were reduced earlier, e.g.: laū.ks „jaukkas“, lou „lova“, but ron.k“s „rankas“, šaka „šaka“ (Norvaišiai, Mikniūnai, Lygumai). Before the reduction of vowels, all the vowels of the end after the soft consonant were converted into one vowel i. Such a correspondance remains in A. Baranauskas’ texts, dialect margins, songs, e.g.: kara-li „king”, vélnis’ „devil”. Consonants at the end of words are soft before reduced vowels i, e or pre-accented u, a(>i) and after the vowels or soft consonants of the front row: gal' "can", kar'ves' "cow", sta-č's | "right". The exception is the position of the consonants after the vowels a, o, > (i'm going out) and after the vowels i, e in the plural noun, indefinite noun (naktim "for nights", "by nights"), in the future tense of the verbs in the second person (sidės "will sit"). At least twelve well-known linguists (A. Baranauskas; J. Bilevičius 1978; 1999: 95; K. Būga; P. Būtėnas; A. Butkus 1989: 56-60; K. Garšva; K. Gasparavičius; E. Grinaveckienė; I. Jašinskaitė; A. Countries; J. Šukys; 1987: 171–175, pg. LDS 1999: 328-330) marked the remains of short vowels only where they were actually heard. Perhaps seven linguists (J. Gerullis, A. Girdenis, V. Grinaveckis, K. Jaunius, G. Kačiuškienė, I. Ručinskaitė, Z. Zinkevičius) were of a different opinion. If we compare only linguists who grew up in the area of Panevėžys dialect, the difference would be even more pronounced — eight against two. Therefore, it is not appropriate to publish only the second opinion in dialectology textbooks, encyclopedias, lectures, completely silencing the first one, all the more so because the linguists of the second group do not agree completely among themselves: some demand that “murmuring vowels” reflect all the short terminal vowels of the common language, while others have recognized exceptions. The interpretation of a phonological aid for syllables with reduced terminal vowels potentially leaves a certain role. This could help to reach a compromise between the different opinions of linguists. From the formulation of Kazimieras Jaunius in 1898 (1970: 127) “to representatives of other dialects it seems that the shortest vowels of Panevėžys dialect are not pronounced at all, but [...] the existence of the vowel element [...], listening carefully, is easy to hear” (so without listening specially, the sound is not very noticeable) it is clear that almost 100 years ago the “murmuring vowel” had no more than an auxiliary meaning. Looking carefully at the five-fold number of vowels in the Panevėžys dialect indicated by K. Jaunius, and at some of the consonants, we cannot blindly accept the “short vowels”. The “murmuring vowels” in the greater part of the northern Panevėžys dialect are now usually absent. These vowels should only be marked when they are actually pronounced. This was done by writing and publishing the texts of the speeches (cf. Bilevičius 1980; JAST; LRD). 172 Abbreviations APh —Archivum Philologicum 1-8, Kaunas, 1930-1939. JAŠT —Joniškėlio apylinkės šnektos tekstai, compiled by K. Garšva, Vilnius, 1981. LDS —Lietuvių dialektologijos skaitiniai 1, by Z. Babickienė, B. Jasiūnaitė, Vilnius: Vilnius University Department of General Linguistics, 1999. LKA —Lithuanian Language Atlas 2, Phonetics, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. LKE —Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, prepared by K. Morkūnas, Vilnius. University of California Press, 1999. LKI —Lithuanian Language Institute. LKT —Lithuanian language dialects. New York: HarperCollins, 1970. LLT1 —Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. LRD —Linelius roviau, dainavau, compiled by B. Stundžienė, Z. Puteikienė, K. Garšva, Vilnius: Vaga, 1990. MB — Scientific Library. LTR —Lithuanian Folklore Manuscript. Pedagogical University of Lithuania. VU — Vilnius University. LITERATURE Baranauskas A. 1898: the father of the A. 3anemku o aumogckom s35iKe u caosape, Cankrrerep6ypr. Plg. LDS: 34-57. Bielskytė J. 1984: Several phonetic characteristics of the north-western Panevėžys dialect (auditory examination of homoforms) (Course work), Šiauliai. Department of Lithuanian Language. 1978. (in French) "Dictionnaire de l'Académie française" (PDF). The Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. 1980. (in Russian) «Сказка о Золушке» (in Russian). LKI Department of Language History and Dialectology. 1999. "Frequently Asked Questions". —New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1995, pp. 93-95. 1924. pp. 24. "Science and Technology". —Reviews of Political and Social Studies, 1961, 19—21. 1932: The Great Wall of China. —APh3, 168-193. Butkus A. 1989: The influence of Latvian language on the Lithuanian dialects of Skironiai. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 28 (Language relations and interactions), 55-61. Garšva K. 1973: Prozodija and vocalism of the North-West Panevėžiškiai (Diplomatic thesis), Vilnius: VU General Linguistics Department (D 434). Garšva K. 1977: Relationship between accentuation and vocalism in the northwestern Panevėžys dialect. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 17 (Lithuanian Areal Linguistics Issues), 76-87. 1982. "The Greatest North American Rocks of All Time". —Baltistica 18 (1), 65-74. Garšva K. 1984: Aids and variants of the phonological system of North-West Panevėžiškiai. —LTSR MA darbai, A series, 4 (89), 128-137. Garšva K. 1986: The "murmuring voice" of the people of Northern Panevėžys and five interpretations of it. — Journal of the Philosophical Society, 2, 110–117. 1929) 1975 – Richard L. Lane, American astronomer (b. 1936: Morphological characteristics of the linkuvių schnekta (manuscript) LLTI MB. 173