Etimologinės pastabos P. Skardžiaus „Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryboje“

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) Juozas KARACIEJUS ETYMOLOGY REMARKS P. CINCH ‘LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES ZODZIU DARYBOJE“ After fifty years of the only specially po dedicated to the creation of words in Lithuanian language A. Leskieno (Leskien1891) 's work, 1941-1943 m. appeared P. Skardžius’ capital monograph “Word formation in Lithuanian language” (hereinafter: WS) was a new step not only because its author used ne much more material, but because it was the first work written by a Lithuanian linguist in this field, in which the author ir tried to “indicate those means that we independently use to increase our own word reserve” (SD 14; diluted P. Skarżysko). Although iš this P. From Skardzio statement it would appear that the main focus is on synchronous word formation analysis, but this is iš not the case: this work „is only a ne synchronous description of word formation, a diachronic study without any empirical evidence, linking the word formation of Lithuanian language, its characteristics with the su characteristics of word formation of Baltic and other Indo-European languages, explaining the common origins of word formation laws of Indo-European languages“ ir (Rosin 1996: XVI-XVII). It goes without saying that, when studying Lithuanian word formation not only synchronously, but also diachronically, ir (P. Skardžius was a specialist in the history of the Lithuanian language), the author of the first monograph in Lithuanian language on word formation, which laid the solid foundations for later descriptions of both diachronic and synchronic word formation (I am referring to the works of Prof. V. Urbutis and Dr. S. Ambrazo), could not bypass the etymology of one or another word formation, because the etymology of the mid-20th century differed considerably from the works of the etymologists of the 19th century, in which only the relative roots of words were usually indicated. At the time of the writing of P. Skardžius’s JD, etymology paid more attention to word formation, i.e. it tried to present not only words with the same root, but to put in the first place those words that have related forms of word formation and thus to determine the original meaning and explain its development. Therefore, it immediately follows that P. Skardžius could not have written the monograph without broader or narrower etymological remarks. In fact, there are quite a lot of such remarks in this work, and a more detailed discussion of them would require a special larger work. Here we will satisfy ourselves with the etymological commentaries of only a few of the terms of one semantic group — social — contained in the WS, and, based on newer research in this field, we will try to show how the origin of these terms is interpreted now, even though P. Skardžius in the Preface of the work stated: “Only the more reliable etymologies of the necessary words are given” (WS 12). This is why he distanced himself from the hypothetical etymologies of individual words published at the time, and relied mainly on the traditional ones. This is clearly evident from the etymological literature mentioned in the list of “Abbreviations- ”, which is based on the works of K. Booga, J. Endzelynas, E. Benveniste, A. Meillet and E. Boisacg, E. Berneker, A. Brūckner, E. Kluge, A. Wald — J. B. Hofmann, A. Wald — J. Pokorny's etymological dictionary. Chitara. To date, the origin of this Lithuanian mythological character seems to be the most controversial. This is because the problem of its origin is of interest not only to linguists, but also to mythologists. Because the reliable interpretation of the origin of this word depends on the determination of the place of drtvaro, its functions in Lithuanian mythology. P. Skardžius writes about it as follows: "Now we not only no longer feel the complexity of many compound 21 words, but even almost no longer understand them, e.g. "The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time" (PDF) (PDF) (404 kB). Thus, P. Skardžius in this work relied on K. Būga, who agreed with the etymology published by E. Lidėnas in 1911, according to which, based on the Finnish Baltic (?) asffa “food store”, the first component of this punch arff(1) —means “store” and is still related to sl. *j4ta “hut”, and the second —varas means “guard” < ide. * the warrior’s “guardian”. The original meaning of this punch would have been "keeper of the treasury". H. Gūnterto interpretation that the first component of this Lithuanian punch is related to skr. ėta-“shining, variegated”, K. Būga considered less acceptable (Būga 1961 3: 336— 337). E. Fraenkelis in the Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary tends to associate the first component of this punch with osk. aefeis "part", and the second one with lie. varyti, e.g. warrien „jėga“ (Fraenkel 1962 1: 4). There are also other interpretations of the origin of this punch. For example, V. Ivanov and V. Toporov lie. artvarą associates with the Iranian reconstructed word * pati-vara-(Ivanov, Toporov 1987 1: 55; 1991: 26), but the latter association is perhaps the least reliable, because „Aarf(r)- varas probably originated in the Lithuanian language itself: 41f(1)can be associated with Zrfas ‘vaikstis, padauza, nenuorama’ (: esr), O -varas—with varas, la. vara, pr. warri(e)n ‘jéga’ “ (ZinkeviCius 1984 1: 184-185). Thus, even now the origin of the first component of this punch is most unclear, and about the second — more or less agreed. Therefore, A. Sabaliauskas is absolutely right when he says that žirtfvara is “a word of unclear origin, which still raises a lot of debate” (Sabaliauskas 1990: 214). But the etymology of E. Lidėnas chosen by P. Skardžys and approved by K. Buga was the most reliable at the time. A prize. Examining the suffixes -va vedic, Skardžius P. emphasizes that some “substantives of this suffix no longer have any close relatives, at least in our language, e.g. [...] ba/va “gift” BrB2 Mos XXIII 8; BrP I 324 (= lat. balva “e.g.”)” (ŽD 378). In fact, this word, familiar to all Belarusians, can be said to be without etymology, although at least a couple of times in the post-war years there were attempts to explain the origin of this word. On the same occasion, it should be added that both times Latvian linguists tried to solve the problem of the origin of this word: in an article published in German in 1957 A. The word šį "baltic" is derived from the word "baltic". iš * bhel(eu)- "to beat, to beat" (Gaters 1957: 80-86), o very recently 22 K. Karulis — iš It's going. *bhel- “glowing, shining; white”. According to the latter, the evolution of meaning was as follows: ‘white’ — “good” — thing. ‘benefit’ (Karulis 1992 1: 105). Iš at first glance such K. The interpretation of Karūlis seems quite reliable, but further investigation of the facts of Latvian language based on semantic development is doubtful, because lie. balva, similar to pr. ir ba/we, means ne "gift" in general, but ‘a gift of purchase, a bribe’. Therefore, it seems impossible to rule out the assumption that this word may have come to į the Baltic languages from an undefined source, iš especially since it has no close relatives only in the Baltic, but also in other Indo-European languages. ne ir se (plg. Abaiev 1958 1: 248-249; Fraenkel 1962 1: 33; Toporov 1975: 190). Gang : general. Discussing the lie. band ‘wealth, profit, benefit; cattle, herd of cattle; bernui sėti javai kaip priedas prie metinės algos“ (to a boy to sow crops as an addition to his annual salary), emphasizing that this noun belongs to the group of constructs „which we can no ir longer connect with any primary verbs of our language“ su (ŽD 42). P. He later reveals that he is a witch. su en-bandan ‘zum Use", got. bindan "to bind", our common,,gemeinsam; dalyvis“ kt. ir or try, pr. perbanda ‘gundo’, zr. Būga TZ I 410 t., Endzelin MLV I 262“. O separately elsewhere nagrinédamas lie. beridras darybą P. Skardžius also adds that he is related su , lat. member ‘t. p.’ : gr. xev9epod0cg ‘father-- in-law’; plg. s. ind. bandhuh "joining, compound, kinship, company, relationship; relative, family member”, bandhati ‘it binds’ etc.’ ir (ŽD 298). So in this ir case P. Skardžius presents the prevailing interpretation of the origin of these words, which was confirmed by the most prominent Baltists K. Būga and J. Endzelynas, and which is still followed today (cf. Fraenkel 1962 1: 34, 39). It is true that sometimes the interpretation of the origin of the first word is being revised without any need. For example, the author of the first “Dictionary of the Etymology of the Latvian Language” K. Karulis lie. banda „raguočiai, kaimenė“ tries to distinguish from lie. banda, used in all other meanings (Karulis 1992 1: 106), but such an attempt has no stronger basis, because lie. banda, la. banida means assets that are the result of a particular transaction. Therefore, the connecting link of that deal is lie. a common “partner, participant” (for more details see Karaliūnas 1993: 266-267). A child. As already mentioned, when analyzing the formation of one or another word, P. Skardžius tried not only to explain its origin, but also to determine its original meaning and to describe its semantic development in a concise manner. For example, when examining the derivatives of the -napriesagos, P. Skardžius states: “In addition to adjectives, in our language there are also -nadaiktapronouns of the -napriesagos, which are or can be part of ancient adjectives, e.g. bėrnas “child, baby, little child; child, Knecht’. Furthermore, P. Skardžius indicates that this word, like its equivalent la, is not a word. bėrns, related to "gr. gpm ‘nešu’, go. bairan "to bear, produce, give birth", and adds: "so the first meaning of berno could be "carried, brought" (ZD 217). And in another place of the JD, discussing the development of the use of words and their meanings, the author says that after the transition from individual thinking “to the grouping perception and designation of objects [...] the multitude of words or their separate genders, which in ancient times was necessary to describe the characteristics of each object and to apparently qualify 23 each event and action, was no longer always necessary, because to mark newly emerging ideas or concepts now [...] many places began to use already existing words, only, of course, often modifying them and changing their meanings. [...] For example, that the same bérn: having the same root ber, as in the Latin fero “to carry”, s.ind. bhdrati "carrying" and so on, initially could have been "carried, brought", from which later could have derived the further meaning "baby, small child", then "boy, child", "hired worker", "manor worker" and so on, see p. 217." (577 pp. ) The origin of this word and the development of its meaning are explained in the same way today (cf. Fraenkel 1962 1: 40; Pokorny 1959: 131; Sabaliauskas 1990: 17). People. After briefly touching on the relationship between the old consonant stems and the 7 stems, i.e. the transition of the consonant stems into the 7 stem, and having stated that “there have also been representatives of the so-called true; £ stem in the past”, P. Skardžius gives examples of this stem with short etymologies, among which we find the old social term of the Lithuanian language /iZudis, already used in M. Daukša’s “Postila”, which can be compared with la. /Audis „people“, p.sl. /'udbje, s.v.a. luti ‘t.p.’ (S. 51). This is how this specific Balto-Slavo-Germanic social term is etymologicalized today (cf. Sabaliauskas 1990: 24; Stang 1972: 32). It is true that an attempt was made to etymologically link it with /rūdėti (Karaliūnas 1976: 89), but this connection, although formally phonetically possible, is not reliable, because, lie. /fūd-ėti etc. are of different origin” (Mažiulis 1996 3: 88). Lord. There is not so little written about this old Lithuanian punch now. The point is that this punch cannot be left aside not only when talking about the noun and the pronoun itself, but also when explaining the host of the noun and the origin of the adjective vrėšas. Therefore, it is self-evident that P. Skardžius could not ignore it in his analysis of the stitches, who here, apparently, was the first in Lithuanian linguistic literature to prove so convincingly that “both in its composition [...] and in its origin (cf. s. ind. vis-patih “The host, the head of the community” ds. vd. visah „people, officials- “, p.sl. VBSB ‘village’, lat. viesis “guest”, our v/esity „to be with guests, to , court” gr. axis0C ‘house’ iš Foixoc ir kt.) is a very old word” that etymology and ir cultural jo history facts show that "in ancient times it was probably something ne else than a guest, t. y. the lord of the courtyard, the tribe that lived there, then, in historical times, became a simple lord ‘Herr’ [-)- But despite This old, our lord's complete equivalent was not found in any other me idea. in language: s.ind. vis-pdtih in the first part has the root vis- (from *uik-), which in the degree of vowel change quite su agrees with s.sl. vsss „kaimas“ (> I. wies and others), and the first part of our viespatis, the first consonant stem, is precisely the edegree — *species-, which continues to reproduce su *go-, plg. publication "celebrat- (: ion" was born in public [= w gošcinie] on the road DP 39), ds. Squirrels ‘publication time’ End., vdisés "dining at restaurants" [...]“ (ŽD 394), In addition to these P. There is little to add to the comments of Tintin about the origin of ką the word. Except that a little later more philologically lies. viespatį, bringing 24 su pr. together waispatin and Slavic gospod, examined E. Fraenkelis (Fraenkel 1950: 51— 89). Exactly P. Skardžiaus ir iš Part 1 E. Based on Fraenkel's findings J. Jurginis, using historical data, tried once again to prove that „Slavic lord Lithuanian ir lord were synonyms in the Lithuanian language because of the same social origin of tų the words“ ir that „the lord was the ruler or elder of a separate pre-feudal Lithuanian community“ the same viesé analogous to (!) o the Slavic župa — (Jurginis 1957: 344—345). Analysis of į historical data provided by the author of the article (this is the bread of historians), it can be concluded that J. In Jurginio article only repeated P. No new linguistic — data has been provided in this report. As mentioned, there are many such etymologicŽD al remarks. Bet ir iš of these few remarks, it seems to become clear that P. Skardžius was convinced that careful be detailed ir historical analysis of word formation could not provide a more reliable ir etymology of the word. Just like that he už ‘bar’ E. Fraenkel that the latter The etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language „most of the etymologically studied words are only compared with other words or su equivalents in other, sometimes even the most distant Indo-European su languages, but rather little is done about their use, formation, formation of meanings and development of meanings in Lithuanian or other Baltic languages itself“ jų ir jų tų (Carcases 1971: 121). LITERATŪRA Abaiev 1958: A6aes B. H. Hcropuko-srumororuyeckusi CJIOBapb OCETHHCKOIO A3bIKa |, Mocksa-Jlenunrpan: UsnarensctBo Akanemuu Hayk CCCP. Būga K. 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Fraenkel E. 1950: Slavisch gospod, lit. viešpats, preuss. Waispatin in Zubehor.— ZfSIPh 20: 51-89. Fraenkel E. 1962: Litausches etymologisches Worterbuch 1, Heidelberg-Gėttingen. Gaters A. 1957: Bemerkungen zur indogermanischen Wurzel *bhel(eu)- „schlagen“.— KZ 75: 80-86. Ivanov, Toporov 1987: Banos B. B., Tonopos B. H. Airsapac. - Mu- @sr HaponoB MHpa 1, Mocksa: CoBeTcKast SHITMKIIOIIEIUS. Ivanov, Toporov191l: UBaunos B.B, Tonopos B. H. Auirsapac. - Mu- @orormgeckn¥ crosaps, Mocksa: CoBeTcKasi SHIIMKIIONEAMS. Jurginis J. 1957: „Viešė“ ir jos „pats“. — Literatūra ir kalba 1, Vilnius: 331-345. Karaliunas S. 1976: Lie. diutnos „švarus, tvarkingas...”, taūsti (-cia) „ilgėtis, liūdėti“ ir ju giminaičiai. — Baltistica 12(1), 85-94. Karaliunas S. 1993: Kapanwounac C. [rec]. Karulis K. Latviešu etimologijas vardnica I-II. Riga „Avots“ 1992. — Linguistica Baltica 2. Karulis K. 1992: Latviesu etimologijas vardnica 1, Riga: Avots. Leskien A. 1891: Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen, Leipzig: Hirzel. Mažiulis V. 1996: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos Žodynas 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Pokorny J. 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch 1, Bern und Miinchen: 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 Sonderibereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen. Oslo-Bergen-Tromso: Universitetsforlaget. Toporov 1975: Tono pos B. H. llpyccknii aseix. ClroBaps. A-D, Mocksa: Hayka. Zinkevičius Z.1984: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 1: Lietuvių kalbos kilmė, Vilnius: Mokslas. ETYMOLOGISCHE BEMERKUNGEN IN DER MONOGRAPHIE VON P. SKARDZIUS “LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ŽODŽIŲ DARYBA” (“DIE WORTBILDUNG DES LITAUISCHEN”) Zusammenfassung Die Studie von P. Skardžius enthilt verhéltnismaBig viele etymologische Bemerkungen, da der Autor bestrebt ist in seinen diachronischen Untersuchungen der Wortbildung im Litauischen nicht nur die Herkunft der Worter festzustellen sondern auch ihre semantische Entwicklung. PSkardzius stiitzt sich dabei auf die damals traditionellen Etymologien. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden nur die Etymologien einer semantischen Gruppe — eines Teils der sozialen Termini (astvaras, balva, banda, bendras, liaudis, viešpats) — ūberblickt und dabei die Resultate der neueren Forschung herangezogen. Unsere Analyse gestattet zu folgern, daB bis in die Gegenwart die Herkunft von lit. arfvaras nicht geklart ist, und daB die Versuche, lit. ba/va, banda (K. Karulis) bzw. lit. /faudis (S. Karalitinas) auf eine andere Weise zu erklédren, keine ūberzeugenden Rezultate gegeben haben. 26