Etimologinės pastabos P. Skardžiaus „Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryboje“

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVIII (1997) Juozas KARACIEJUS ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES IN P. SKARDŽIUS’S “WORD FORMATION IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE” Fifty years after the publication of the sole work specifically devoted to Lithuanian word formation, A. Leskien’s study (Leskien 1891), P. Skardžius’s monumental monograph “Word Formation in the Lithuanian Language,” published in 1941–1943 (hereafter: ŽD), represented a new step not only because its author used far more material, but also because it was the first work in this field written by a Lithuanian linguist, in which the author sought “to indicate the means by which we independently enlarge our own stock of words” (ŽD 14; emphasis by P. Skardžius). Although P. Skardžius’s statement might suggest that the main focus is on the synchronic analysis of word formation, this is not in fact the case: the work “is not only a synchronic description of word formation, but also its diachronic study, linking the word formation of the Lithuanian language and its characteristics with the word-formation features of the Baltic and other Indo-European languages, and explaining the common origins and regularities of word formation in the Indo-European languages” (Rosinas 1996: XVI–XVII). It goes without saying that, in investigating Lithuanian word formation both synchronically and diachronically (P. Skardžius was a specialist in the history of the Lithuanian language), the author of the first Lithuanian-language monograph devoted to word formation—which laid firm foundations for subsequent descriptions of word formation, both diachronic and synchronic (the works of Prof. V. Urbutis and Habil. Dr. S. Ambrazas are meant here)—could not avoid addressing the etymology of one formation or another. Etymology in the mid-twentieth century differed considerably from the work of nineteenth-century etymologists, who most often identified only cognate word roots. By the time P. Skardžius was writing ŽD, etymology paid greater attention to word formation: it sought not only to present words sharing the same root, but to foreground words with cognate derivational formants and thereby establish the original meaning and explain its development. It therefore follows immediately that P. Skardžius could not have written the monograph in question without including broader or more limited etymological notes. In fact, the work contains quite a few such notes, and their detailed discussion would require a special, more extensive study. Here, only the etymological comments on several terms from one semantic group—social terms—found in ŽD will be considered; drawing on more recent research in this field, an attempt will be made to show how the origins of these terms are explained today, particularly since P. Skardžius stated in the work’s “Preface”: “The etymologies of words given are only the more reliable ones” 21 (ŽD 12). In this way, he distanced himself from the hypothetical etymologies of individual words published at the time, relying mostly on traditional ones. This is clearly evident from the etymological literature listed in “Abbreviations,” which is based chiefly on the works of K. Būga, J. Endzelīns, E. Benveniste, and A. Meillet, as well as the etymological dictionaries of E. Boisacq, E. Berneker, A. Brückner, F. Kluge, A. Walde–J. B. Hofmann, and A. Walde–J. Pokorny. Čitvaras. To this day, the origin of this mythological Lithuanian figure seems to remain the subject of the most discussion. This is because the problem of its origin interests not only linguists but also mythologists. For the determination of the aitvaro’s place and functions in Lithuanian mythology depends on a reliable explanation of the origin of this word. P. Skardžius writes about it as follows: “Nowadays, we no longer feel the compound nature of many compound words, and often hardly understand them at all, e.g. áitvaras (from áiti-varas [...]; for the origin, see Būga LKŽ 26)” (ŽD 404). Thus, in this work P. Skardžius relied on K. Būga, who endorsed the etymology published by E. Lidėnas in 1911, according to which, on the basis of the Finnish Balticism (?) aitta “food storehouse,” the first component of this compound, ait(i), means “granary” and is further related to Sl. *játā “shed, hut,” while the second, varas, means “guard” < and is related to Indo-European *woros “guard.” Thus, the original meaning of this compound would have been “granary guard.” K. Būga considered H. Güntert’s explanation—that the first component of this Lithuanian compound is supposedly related to Sanskrit éta- “shining, variegated”—less acceptable (Būga 1961 3: 336–337). In his “Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” E. Fraenkel is inclined to connect the first component of this compound with Oscan aeteis “part (of a share),” and the second with Lithuanian varýti, Prussian warrien “strength” (Fraenkel 1962 1: 4). There are also other explanations of the origin of this compound. For example, V. Ivanov and V. Toporov connect Lithuanian aitvarą with the reconstructed Iranian word *pati-vāra- (Ivanov, Toporov 1987 1: 55; 1991: 26), but this latter connection is probably the least reliable, since “ait(i)varas most likely arose within Lithuanian itself: áit(i)- may be connected with áitas ‘one who walks about, rascal, restless person’ (: eiti ‘to go’), while -varas may be connected with váras, Latvian vara, Prussian warri(e)n ‘strength’” (Zinkevičius 1984 1: 184–185). Thus, even now the origin of the first component of this compound remains the most unclear, whereas there is more or less agreement about the second. Therefore A. Sabaliauskas is entirely right in saying that áitvaras is “a word of unclear origin that continues to give rise to much discussion” (Sabaliauskas 1990: 214). But the etymology of E. Lidėnas, endorsed by K. Būga and chosen by P. Skardžius, was the most reliable at the time. Balva. In discussing derivatives with the suffix -va, P. Skardžius emphasizes that some “nouns with this suffix no longer have any close cognates, at least in our language; for example, [...] balva ‘gift’ BrB2 Moz XXIII 8; BrP I 324 (= Latvian balva ‘likewise’)” (ŽD 378). In fact, this word, known to all the Baltic peoples, could be said to remain without an etymology to this day, although attempts were made at least twice in the postwar years to explain its origin. On this occasion, it should be added that both attempts to solve the problem of the word’s origin were made by Latvian linguists: in an article published in German in 1957, A. Gāteris tried to derive this Baltic word from Indo-European *bhel(eu)- “to strike, beat” (Gāters 1957: 80–86), while quite recently 22 K. Karulis derives it from Indo-European *bhel- “shining, gleaming; white.” In his view, the development of meaning was as follows: “white” → “good” → noun “benefit” (Karulis 1992 1: 105). At first glance, K. Karulis’s explanation seems quite plausible, but closer examination raises doubts about the semantic development, which is based on Latvian evidence, since Lithuanian balva, like Old Prussian balwe, means not “a gift” in general, but “a gift given as a bribe, a bribe.” Therefore, it seems impossible to rule out the possibility that this word entered the Baltic languages from a source that has not yet been identified, especially since it has no close relatives not only in the Baltic languages but in other Indo-European languages either (cf. Abaiev 1958 1: 248–249; Fraenkel 1962 1: 33; Toporov 1975: 190). B a n d à: b e ñ d r a s. Discussing the derivation of Lithuanian bandà “property, profit, benefit; cattle, herd; grain sown for a farmhand as a supplement to his annual wage,” P. Skardžius emphasized that this noun belongs to the group of derivatives “which we can no longer connect with any primary verbs in our language” (ŽD 42). He goes on to note that it is related to Old Prussian en-bāndan “zum Nutzen,” Gothic bindan “to bind,” our bendras “gemeinsam; participle,” and so on, or bandyti, Old Prussian perbānda “tempts”; see Būga TŽ I 410 ff., Endzelin MLV I 262.” In a separate discussion elsewhere of Lithuanian beñdras, P. Skardžius adds that it is related to “Latvian biedrs ‘ditto’; Greek πενθερός ‘father-in-law’; cf. Sanskrit bándhuh ‘connection, bond, kinship, society, relationship; kinsman, family member,’ bandhati ‘he binds,’ etc.” (ŽD 298). Thus, here too P. Skardžius presents the then-prevailing explanation of these words’ origin, endorsed by the leading Balticists K. Būga and J. Endzelīns, which is still accepted today (cf. Fraenkel 1962 1: 34, 39). It is true that even today attempts are sometimes made, quite unnecessarily, to revise the explanation of the first word’s origin. For example, K. Karulis, author of the first “Dictionary of Latvian Etymology,” attempts to separate Lithuanian bandà “horned cattle, herd” from Lithuanian bandà used with all its other meanings (Karulis 1992 1: 106), but this attempt has no firmer basis, since Lithuanian bandà and Latvian bānda denote property that results from a particular transaction. Thus, the connecting link in that transaction is Lithuanian beñdras “partner, participant” (for more details, see Karaliūnas 1993: 266–267). B é r n a s. As already mentioned, when analyzing the formation of one word or another, P. Skardžius sought not only to explain its origin but also to establish its original meaning and briefly describe its semantic development. For example, when examining derivatives with the suffix -na-, P. Skardžius notes: “Alongside adjectives, our language also has nouns with the suffix -na-, some of which are or may be substantivized ancient adjectives, e.g. bérnas ‘little one, infant, small child; lad, Knecht’. P. Skardžius further states that this word, like its equivalent Latvian counterpart bēns, is related to “Greek φέρω ‘I carry’, Gothic báiran ‘to carry, produce, give birth’,” and adds: “thus the original meaning of berno may have been ‘brought, one who has been brought’” (ŽD 217). Elsewhere in ŽD, discussing the development of the usage and meanings of words, the author says that, as people moved from individual thought “to the grouping-based perception and naming of things [...] that abundance of words or their separate forms, which in ancient times was needed for the characteristic of every thing and for every event and action— 23 action were needed; over time they were no longer always necessary, because to denote newly emerging ideas or concepts people [...] began in many cases to make use of words already in existence, naturally often modifying them substantially and changing their meanings. [...] For example, the same bérnas, having the same root ber- as Latin ferō ‘I carry’, Sanskrit bhárati ‘carries’, etc., may originally have meant ‘brought, carried in’, from which the later meaning ‘infant, small child’ may have developed, and then ‘young man, lad’, ‘hired hand’, ‘estate worker’, etc.; see p. 217” (ŽD 577). The origin and semantic development of this word are explained in much the same way today (cf. Fraenkel 1962 1: 40; Pokorny 1959: 131; Sabaliauskas 1990: 17). Liaudis. Briefly touching on the relationship between the old consonant stems and i-stems in ŽD—that is, the transition of consonant stems to i-stems—and noting that “in earlier times there were also representatives of the so-called true i- stem,” P. Skardžius provides examples of this stem type with brief etymologies. Among them is the old Lithuanian social term liaudis, already used by M. Daukša in his “Postilė,” which he compares with Latvian ļaudis “people,” Old Church Slavonic l'udbje, and Old High German luti “ditto” (ŽD 51). This specifically Baltic-Slavic-Germanic social term is etymologized in the same way today (cf. Sabaliauskas 1990: 24; Stang 1972: 32). It is true that an attempt has been made to link it etymologically with liūdėti (Karaliūnas 1976: 89), but this connection, though it might seem formally possible on phonetic grounds, is not reliable, since “Lithuanian liūd-ėti and the like are of a different origin” (Mažiulis 1996 3: 88). Viešpats. Quite a bit has now been written about this old Lithuanian compound. The fact is that this compound cannot be left out of account not only when discussing the noun and pronoun pāts, but also when explaining the origin of the noun viešnia and the adjective viešas. It is therefore only natural that P. Skardžius, in his discussion of compounds, could not pass over it in silence; here, it seems, he was the first in Lithuanian linguistic literature to convincingly demonstrate that “both its function [...] and its origin (cf. Sanskrit viś-pátiḥ ‘master, head of the community’, dual viśaḥ ‘people, subjects’, Old Church Slavonic въсь ‘village’, Latvian viēsis ‘guest’, our viešėti ‘to be a guest, visit’, Greek οἶκος ‘house’ from foíкоς, etc.) show that it is a very ancient word,” and that its etymology and the facts of cultural history indicate that “in ancient times it was originally nothing other than the ruler of the guest-house, that is, the courtyard and the clan living in it; later, in historical times, it became an ordinary ponu ‘Herr’ [...]. But despite its antiquity, we find no exact equivalent of our viešpats in any other Indo-European language: in the first part of Sanskrit viś-pátiḥ is the root viś- (from *u̯ik-), which in its ablaut grade corresponds exactly to Old Church Slavonic въсь ‘village’ (> Polish wieś, etc.), whereas the first element of our viešpats, an original consonant stem, is precisely in the e-grade—*veiś-—which is further related to *vaiś-; cf. viešė ‘hospitality’ (: užgimė viešėję [= w gościnie] ant kelio DP 39), dual viešės ‘time spent visiting’ End., váišes ‘eating at a feast’ [...]” (ŽD 394). Little can be added to P. Skardžius’s remarks on the origin of this word. Except that somewhat later, from a more philological perspective, Lithuanian viešpatį, comparing it 24 su pr. waisp atin bei slavų gospod, nagrinėjo E. Fraenkelis (Fraenkel 1950: 51–89). Būtent P. Skardžiaus ir iš dalies E. Fraenkelio išvadomis remdamasis J. Jurginis, pasitelkęs istorinius duomenis, pabandė dar kartą įrodyti, kad „slaviškas ponas ir lietuviškas viešpats buvo lietuvių kalboje sinonimai dėl vienodos socialinės tų žodžių kilmės“ ir kad „viešpats buvo atskiros ikifeodalinės lietuvių bendruomenės valdovas arba seniūnas“ (!) o pati viešė – analogiška slavų župai (Jurginis 1957: 344–345). Nesileidžiant į straipsnio autoriaus pateiktų istorinių duomenų analizę (tai istorikų duona), galima daryti išvadą, jog J. Jurginio straipsnyje tik pakartotos P. Skardžiaus išvados – jokių naujų lingvistinių duomenų jame nepateikta. As mentioned, there are very many such etymological notes in ŽD. But even from these few notes, it seems clear that P. Skardžius was convinced that without a careful and detailed historical analysis of word formation, it is impossible to provide a more reliable etymology of a word. This is precisely why he “reprimanded” E. Fraenkel for, in the “Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” “mostly merely juxtaposing the words being etymologized with other words or comparing them with equivalents in other, sometimes even the most distant, Indo-European languages, while taking rather little care to consider their usage, formation, development, and especially their meanings and the evolution of those meanings in Lithuanian itself or in other Baltic languages” (Skardžius 1971: 121). LITERATŪRA A b a i e v 1958: А б а е в В. И. Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского языка 1, Москва-Ленинград: Издательство Академии наук СССР. B ū g a K. 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. F r a e n k e l E. 1950: Slavisch gospod, lit. viešpats, preuss. Waispatin in Zubehör. – ZfSlPh 20: 51–89. F r a e n k e l E. 1962: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1, Heidelberg-Göttingen. G ä t e r s A. 1957: Bemerkungen zur indogermanischen Wurzel *bhel(eu)- „schlagen“. – KZ 75: 80–86. I v a n o v, T o p o r o v 1987: И в а н о в В. В., Т о п о р о в В. Н. Айтварас. – Мифы народов мира 1, Москва: Советская энциклопедия. I v a n o v, T o p o r o v 1991: И в а н о в В. В., Т о п о р о в В. Н. Айтварас. – Мифологический словарь, Москва: Советская энциклопедия. J u r g i n i s J. 1957: „Viešė“ ir jos „pats“. – Literatūra ir kalba 1, Vilnius: 331–345. K a r a l i ū n a s S. 1976: Lie. čiūtnus, „švarus, tvarkingas...“, taūsti (-čia) „ilgėtis, liūdėti“ ir jų giminaičiai. – Baltistica 12(1), 85–94. K a r a l i ū n a s S. 1993: К а р а л ю н а с С. [rec.]. Karulis K. Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca I–II. Rīga „Avots“ 1992. – Linguistica Baltica 2. K a r u l i s K. 1992: Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca 1, Rīga: Avots. L e s k i e n A. 1891: Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen, Leipzig: Hirzel. M a ž i u l i s V. 1996: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. P o k o r n y J. 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1, Bern und München: Francke Verlag. 25 Rosinas A. 1996: Pranas Skardžius ir jo darbai. – P. Skardžius. Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, XII–XXVIII. Sabaliauskas A. 1990: Lietuvių kalbos leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas. Skardžius P. 1971: Etimologinio lietuvių kalbos žodyno problemos. – Lituanistikos instituto 1971 metų Suvažiavimo darbai, Chicago, 121–127. Stang Chr. S. 1972: Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen. Oslo-Bergen-Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget. Toporov 1975: Топоров В. Н. Прусский язык. Словарь. А-D, Москва: Наука. Zinkevičius Z. 1984: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 1: Lietuvių kalbos kilmė, Vilnius: Mokslas. ETYMOLOGISCHE BEMERKUNGEN IN DER MONOGRAPHIE VON P. SKARDŽIUS “LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ŽODŽIŲ DARYBA” (“DIE WORTBILDUNG DES LITAUISCHEN”) Zusammenfassung Die Studie von P. Skardžius enthält verhältnismäßig viele etymologische Bemerkungen, da der Autor bestrebt ist in seinen diachronischen Untersuchungen der Wortbildung im Litauischen nicht nur die Herkunft der Wörter festzustellen sondern auch ihre semantische Entwicklung. P.Skardžius stützt sich dabei auf die damals traditionellen Etymologien. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden nur die Etymologien einer semantischen Gruppe – eines Teils der sozialen Termini (aitvaras, balva, banda, bendras, liaudis, viešpats) – überblickt und dabei die Resultate der neueren Forschung herangezogen. Unsere Analyse gestattet zu folgern, daß bis in die Gegenwart die Herkunft von lit. aitvaras nicht geklärt ist, und daß die Versuche, lit. balva, banda (K. Kralis) bzw. lit. liaudis (S. Karaliūnas) auf eine andere Weise zu erklären, keine überzeugenden Resultate gegeben haben. 26