and seal. On the other hand, if Irbės šaurums and Irbite, as well as Ruonų sala and Ruonītis, denote features located near one another, then Irbite and Ruonītis should undoubtedly be regarded as suffixal derivatives of the corresponding compound place names.

Semantically, all fishing-site names are divided into 1) those indicating landmarks (nosaukumi, kas noriąda orientierus: Tūjas steķis, Baznīcas, Pret Vāgariem, etc.) and 2) those characterizing the fishing site (nosaukumi, kas raksturo zvejvietu: Dzelme, Mīkste, Ravas bedre, Aizkrāuls, etc.). The chosen classification criteria are sufficiently well motivated, although in some cases it is quite difficult to distinguish between them: for example, the place names Eļiksniši (p. 262) and Puišuņš (p. 264) are considered to indicate landmarks, whereas Akmenija (p. 280) and Dārziņš (p. 285) are classified as characterizing the fishing site. Yet it would seem that the function of the first two could also be to characterize the site (a place overgrown with alders; a place overgrown with pines).

The final three subsections explain the origins of the names of certain fishing sites and point out several semantic parallels in Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, and Finnish (e.g., Latv. Akmīnaja, Akmenija: Lith. Akmenė, Akmena: Polish Kamień, W Kamienia: Est. Kivismaa “stony land”—p. 307). The chronology of these place names is also discussed—their earliest records in historical sources and their subsequent development.

The detailed indexes of common and proper nouns provided at the end of the book are very important, making this valuable work easier to use.

In concluding the presentation of B. Laumane’s book, several further points should be emphasized, particularly those of importance to Lithuanian onomastics. As mentioned, the book also draws on data from Lithuanian toponymy and anthroponymy, analyzing them in comparison with facts from other Baltic languages and, in some cases, Finnic languages. On the other hand, with the publication of this work, researchers of Lithuanian place names now have the opportunity to consider them against the broader context of Latvian place names, personal names, and related physiographic terms, all analyzed comprehensively.

To sum up, it can be confidently stated that this book makes a substantial contribution to research on Baltic vocabulary (especially place names). It is particularly valuable for its contribution to the etymology of proper names and appellatives, both in the context of the Baltic languages and of relations between the Baltic and Finnic languages.

Laimutis Bilkis

Vilius Pet ė raitis. Place Names of Lithuania Minor and Tvanksta. Vilnius: Mažosios Lietuvos fondas. Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 1997, 607 pp.

More than a year ago, another highly significant book published on the initiative of the Mažosios Lietuvos fondas appeared on bookstore shelves: the study “Place Names of Lithuania Minor and Tvanksta” (subtitle: Their Origin and Meaning) by Vilius Peteraitis, founder of the Mažosios Lietuvos fondas, Germanist, and lexicographer. This is already

244

The second book by this author devoted to a land of dramatic fate, it is another monument to the extinguished Lithuanian-speaking community’s language.

Until now, it can be said, there have been no comprehensive and systematic studies of the toponyms of this region. The works of A. Bezzenberger, F. Tezner, and M. Töpen, and later the research of J. Endzelynas, J. Otrębskis, and others (mostly non-Lithuanian scholars), were based on individual facts and isolated phenomena concerning the language of this region and the structure of its place names. In J. Gerulis’s comprehensive study „Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen“ (Berlin und Leipzig, 1922), which discusses material from historical sources of the 13th–15th centuries, the analysis of place names relates chiefly to the Prussian part of East Prussia.

V. Petepaitis begins the study of the Lithuanian name inventory of Lithuania Minor with great consistency. In his first book, „Mažoji Lietuva ir Tvanksta“ (Vilnius, 1992), after examining the oldest layer of the region’s name inventory—hydronyms—and refuting and countering the so-called “wilderness theory” devised by H. and G. Mortensen and others, he demonstrated the territorial unity and Baltic character of Lithuania Minor. The overview and research in the second study, „Mažosios Lietuvos ir Tvankstos vietovardžiai“, now encompass another layer of toponyms: the names of settlements, mostly of Lithuanian, Curonian, and Prussian origin, forming a dictionary of more than 4,000 place names, with explanations of their origins, formation, or structure.

After a relatively brief preface in Lithuanian and German, a substantial list of literary and historical sources (115 entries), and aesthetically prepared, precise maps of 20 counties, the book has three main sections: „Mažosios Lietuvos ir Tvankstos etimologinis žodynas“, „Priedai“, and „Mažosios Lietuvos vietovardžių analizė“.

The most valuable and important part of the book is the dictionary of place names of Lithuania Minor and Tvanksta, arranged alphabetically and compiled from an extraordinary wealth of meticulously gathered facts, both from living speech² and from written sources (the works of V. Kalvaitis, A. and F. Kuršaitis, A. Salys, Ch. Stangas, J. Užpurvis, and others), listed at the beginning of the book.

In the book, place names are reconstructed in standard language, and their accented forms are often also given. Germanized forms (older, traditional, and those imposed by the Nazis in 1938) and current Russian equivalents are indicated in parentheses alongside them. In addition, a substantial amount of supplementary information is provided for each place name, including neighboring forms and forms attested in historical sources. At the end of each paragraph are the author’s own etymological notes and a structural or morphological characterization of the place name. Very often, a place name is linked to other Lithuanian, Latvian, or Prussian place names and common words that attest to its Baltic character.

¹ Here, the concept of the territory of Lithuania Minor includes the entirety of the present-day Kaliningrad region, the vicinity of Geldapė in Poland, and the former Klaipėda Region up to its annexation by Lithuania.

² The author was helped in this work by the fact that he himself came from the Klaipėda Region (Būdelkiemis rural district) and had known many speakers of the living language of Lithuania Minor.

245

the origin of the name. This arrangement and analysis of the dictionary material (incidentally, very close to J. Gerulis’s principles for presenting and explaining material in “Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen”) could serve as a model for a dictionary of the diachronic type.

It has been noted that many of the forms of place names from the Klaipėda region presented in the book do not correspond to present-day official usage: some have changed in one way or another, and others are stressed differently. This provides material for tracing changes in forms and their paradigms over particular periods. On the other hand, many place names from this region are left unaccented in the book, although their stress is recorded in current official sources. Moreover, some settlement names in the Klaipėda region are not included at all in V. Pėteraitis’s list of place names (Külberkis, Pryčmai, Gaigališkiai, Daužgiriai, Liaunai (Liaunėj), etc.).

The etymologies of the place names are well founded in most cases. The study draws on the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” and material from Lithuanian onomastics. The same cannot be said of some explanations of place-name formation, where issues of morphemic segmentation and word formation are confused (for example, place names of the following type: Girm-ainiai, Surt-einiai, Svir-intai, Rom-ovė, and the like, are treated as suffixal derivatives).

As a rule, the book’s author discusses or comments on other authors’ etymologies in only a few places, dwelling at somewhat greater length on other authors’ etymological remarks or opinions concerning the names Klaipėda, Priekulė, Rambynas, Gaštai. Apparently, the author also draws on data from A. Salys’s dissertation “Die žemaitischen Mundarten,” and at times refers to K. Būga’s and J. Endzelynas’s explanations of place-name origins.

Nevertheless, the onomastic data presented in the study are reliable and provide much useful information for historians, geographers, ethnographers, and linguists.

The second section, “Appendices,” is also informative and important in other respects. It consists of two subsections: 1. Alphabetical lists of place-name equivalents in other languages: a) German (including the new replacement names introduced in 1938); b) Polish (Polonized variants of Baltic (Lithuanian, Prussian) place names in the vicinity of Geldapė); c) Russian (the new Russian names in current use imposed by the Soviet occupation authorities in 1946–1947); and 2. Place-name formation. This subsection highlights the more productive ways of forming place names in Lithuania Minor: a) suffixal derivatives and b) compound place names. Other word-formation types—derivatives formed with endings or prefixes, primary names, and compound names—are not mentioned in this subsection; these types are incorporated into the context of the following chapter, “Analysis of the Place Names of Lithuania Minor and Tvanksta.” The first part of this chapter, “Origin,” may be regarded as theoretical discussion or theoretical conclusions, since it provides a detailed examination of place names from the perspective of origin and formation. The author distinguishes several groups of place names by origin: 1) hydronymic; 2) derived from physiographic terms; 3) plant-related; 4) animal-related; 5) pertaining to cultivated environments; 6) occupational; 7) religious (cult-related); 8) anthroponymic; 9) derived from other place names; 10) ethnonymic; 11) of Curonian origin; 12) of Prussian origin; 13) of German origin; 14) of other origin; and 15) etymological explanations that do not hold up. Although

246

this classification is not based on a single principle (for example, place names of Prussian or Curonian origin may also be hydronymic, anthroponymic, occupational, or of other types), it nevertheless provides a comprehensive overview of the origins and formation of settlement names in Lithuania Minor.

The second subsection of this chapter, “Changes in Place Names,” provides a historical account of the Germanization of the region, followed by its Russification, which ultimately drove the Baltic languages out of this territory. The study concludes with an extensive (nine-page) summary in German and a list of the names of the parish villages, of which there were 210.

To conclude this review of the book, it should be said that researchers of place names will find here, alongside authentic and valuable material, aspects open to criticism—dubious etymologies and other inaccuracies in the analysis of names. Nevertheless, no one can deny that V. Pėteraitis’s study “The Place Names of Lithuania Minor and Tvanksta,” like this author’s first book, “Lithuania Minor and Tvanksta,” once again attests to the Baltic substratum of Lithuania Minor and represents an important contribution to the study of Baltic culture.

Marija Razmukaitė

IN MEMORY OF TERJE MATHIASSEN

(1938–1999)

A kind of tragic fate seems to pursue Scandinavian Baltic scholars. Not so long ago, the terrible diseases of our age carried off prematurely the Norwegian Helge Rinholm and the Icelander Jörundur Hilmarsson. And now we mourn again: after a long ordeal, cancer finally overcame Terje Mathiassen, professor at the University of Oslo, on January 9, 1999. All three were not only good friends, scholars of the Baltic languages, and pupils of the great Norwegian Balticist Christian S. Stang, but also the most sincere friends of our nation.

Mathiassen was born in Oslo on April 12, 1938. He graduated from high school in 1957. At first he wanted to study Latin and mathematics. Nowadays, however, studying these subjects is harder to combine, and Mathiassen decided to study Russian, German, and Norwegian philology at the University of Oslo. Besides Chr. S. Stang, his teachers there included the famous Norwegian Iranologist Georg Morgenstierne. In 1962, Mathiassen completed his general studies with a master's degree. His subsequent interest in Slavic studies and, in part, Baltic studies may be said to have been determined by NATO. While doing his military service, Mathiassen had the opportunity to complete very good Russian-language courses organized by NATO (he took them alongside Norway's future minister of defense). Among others, our aforementioned H. Rinholm had also completed such courses. In 1964, Mathiassen had to spend five months furthering his studies in Leningrad. The deceased used to recall that his first visa for Leningrad was issued by a Lithuanian employee of the USSR embassy in Norway, Vytautas Burkauskas. By 1965 Mathiassen was already a candidate of philology. In 1966–71 he was a scholarship holder at the University of Oslo—

247