Mįslių žodžių-kodų semantikos ypatumai

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVII (1997) LEXICOGRAFIES IR When the Sphinx of Thebes would insidiously ask: “Who walks on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon, and on three legs in the evening?”, he did not expect that Oedipus would figure out the riddle. Perhaps after the Sphinx fell from a rock and killed himself, the Words-Codes of riddles appeared, i.e. lexicons that do not exist in the colloquial language, e.g.: styplys “poppy stem”, vingurgalvis “river”, Šiužeika “Sukos”, tilindis “véjas”, vaituoklė “pig”, kabalas “pea pod”, takutis “wolf” and so on. This, of course, is a joke. And seriously — the lexicons used in mjslés encode the word to be warned in various ways. This lexical group is a complete periphery of the lexical system, therefore it is easy to see universal peculiarities of lexical and semantic development, because the Word-code system of riddles is very uncomplicated (unlike the lexical amoeba, whose cell structure is visible even through a school microscope). In the lexical system, the closest to the code words of riddles (for the sake of brevity we will call them simply code words) are euphemisms and taboos. Neither one nor the other group of vocabulary has been studied in Lithuanian linguistics. “Dictionary of the Lithuanian language” (LKŽ 1-11, LKZ 1-11, LKZ III-XVII) separate abbreviation denotes euphemisms. It seems that Lithuanian linguistics has not even established the taboo, although we think that a closer look at the behavioral customs of pregnant women and their relatives, for example, or perhaps just a more insightful study of the magic tales, would certainly provide a basis for this. The semantic aspect of the riddle lexicon is of interest to semiotics, ethnographers, etc., who study paremiology (as an example, we would mention the article of the paremiology researcher J. Levin "Semantics of the structure of the mind" (Levin 1978: 283-314).) However, a more detailed linguistic examination of the lexicon of riddles (and of course of code words) has not been detected. The main feature of code words is that they are signs of signs. The word, the knowledge, is a two-sided specific sign. The word-code of the puzzle not only “hides” the concept to be guessed, but also signals it in one way or another. As a sign, it is not as complex as the center of the lexical system. Being at the very periphery of lexicon, the word-code approaches the quasi-lexical domain, as a lexical sign losing its specificity. It tends to be a one-sided indicator (but it cannot become one without reservation, because, as mentioned, it still belongs to the periphery of the lexicon, not to the quasi-lexical domain). So it is more of a concept. This is most clearly shown by the diagram: CENTRUM LEXICAL SYSTEM —PERIPHERIUM LEXICAL —QUAZILEXICAL WORD WORD-CODE NON-WORD NOTE NOTE CONCEPT 1.1. Semantic coding. The word to be warned is “hidden” behind the “mask” of metaphor or metonymy. The semantic encoding mechanism has several components. The intermediate link in a process, whose poles are the Zodis-code and the encoding word, is the word-key. For example, the word-code of the riddle is barbočius (Barbočius came to the spingočiai and said: “Let’s go to the karčemėlėn to get some midas”. Spingočiai said: “I’m afraid of vingočius”. Barbočius said: “We won’t go through the vingočiai, we’ll go through the girdė and through the krungo gates.”) Why was the warmblood named barbocium? The answer is simple: the key word is at the centre of the lexical system. The second meaning of the LKZ word barbėti is “to talk inquisitively, to babble”. So it is obvious that the word is encoded by means of metaphor. In this case, the nature of the code is similarity of impression. (In this case, it’s a preference.) Another example: the code word pirdonas. (Ten men's lily-of-the-valley draw a net on a pierdon.) The key word is to translate “damage org”. Coded metonymy. The nature of the code is property rather than object. We will discuss the variants of metaphors and metonymies of semantic coding separately. 1.2. Code words metaphors. We will discuss four. These are the similarity of impression, the similarity of color, the similarity of sound, the similarity of appearance or form. 101 1.2.1. The code—the similarity of impression. There are many codes for such words. For convenience, they are presented in Table 1. 1 table Word-code | Encoding | Word-key Impression Thought word whistling priest whistling “strongly loud, Full barn shouting, screaming" thunderous sheep, one voice baron and that whistling chizyliukas pea chizyliukas “chizyliukas minority, Father sieksni- (zylių) youngster“ roundness ninkas, grandmother sprindininkė, children like chizyliukai. kemža ližė kemža “sunykęs, plokštumas Žibur žėbso, kasuskurdytas žmogus, tė vėpso, kemneūžauga“ ža kerus nešioja. kitten | rabbit kitten “go big-| big movement kitten 102 Table 1 continuation of the cut meadow in steps" cut “what short-cut hair“ trajectory steering —Where you go "What's your job?" 1.2.2. Similarity of appearance hangry, backwards in the water. Pumpkin boys? and shape. The second group of metaphorical encodings are words-codes, which are formed based on similarity of appearance or form. It is presented in Table 2. raitytis" table Zodis-code | Encoding Zodis-key Impression Riddle word kriūkas horn kriūkas “hook" curved form Two kriūkai, two lapūkai, four lengths and kabaldūnas. repetys brupetys repet “kas vaikšišsišako2 jimas Šepetukas čioja susirietęs, repetukas patvorepeckomis” riais slankioja. staciukas horn status “straight stature Two staciukai, two upward rising" klapčiukai, four Adamėliai. styplys poppy stem| stypla “spike, length, thinness| Father styplys, long-legged” mother pamlpa, children Ciuciuriukai. stuuciai milnų akmenys | stukas “piece, lui-| size Two stukudiai, two tas” mukuciai, one matarlokas. dvinagé kregzde dvinagė “which has a curved form Forkė dvinagė, šakė su dviem nagais” German clothes, speaks Advernian. vingurgalvis | creek swaying “swinging |swinging —Vingurgurkli, where are you swaying? "What do you want?" 1.2.3. Words-codes by sound similarity. This type of Zodziy-kody is less. It has a distinct, distinct nature. They are presented in Table 3: Table Word-code |Coded Word-key Impression 103 3 The word "bark" is derived from the word "bark", which means "bark" in the meaning of "bark | of a bark", | "bark of a bark", į "bark of a bark", "bark of a bark", "bark of a bark". čyrukas vyturys čyru vyru “vieversio |subjekto balsas Čyrukas vyrukas, éirenimas” hangs in the air, cries. gagonas Zasinas gagonas “what gagena” | subject voice Ziironas looks over the fence, et gagonas over the yard. kryku bildu | perkiinija krykti “to scream, to shout | sound about an object | Kryku bildu de- (about birds)”, characteristics besy, kikimėža bildu “repeating drainage, followed by bildéjimas” being ashes. skalatauskas |dog skalatyti “to scrape, bark” | subject voice Atbéges trikulas asked skalatausko, where vaituoklé birby¢iuose. Siuzeika Sukos šiušinti “šiaušti, šla-| garsas dėl objekto | SiuZeika marčią minti" funkcijos veža. teršketas nendrės terškėti “tarškėti" heard when moving | Sky shines, object in the forest falls, teršketas in the lake. The sound of the tilindis wind tilindizuoti "thin | sound on the object | tilindis tilindis sound" features without key klėtin enlindęs. "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" "Ghost Pig" 1.2.4. Words-codes by color similarity. It is the smallest thematic group of misliy metaphorical coding. One clear example is when a carrot is called brown autumn, quite poetically combining the impression of carrot color and the time of growth. ("Rudu rudu rudenéle, green your hat.") 1.3. Misliy Words-metonymies. Riddle words-metonymies are a fairly common case of lexical encoding. From the point of view of semantics, this is the second level of reference, formed from the empirical concept filiratyviniy daiktiniy semy self-organized combination. This is a simpler case of semantic derivation compared to the construction of metaphorical riddle words. The methods of metonymy encoding are most easily determined by which set of the encoding word 104 "incarnation" word-code. It can be a coded function, for example, heard “ears”, saw “eyes” (Barbotius came to the spingotius and said: “Let’s go to the karčemėlėn to get some midas”. Spingotius said: “I’m afraid of vingočius- .” Barbotius said: “We won’t go through the vingočius. We’ll go through the mata, through the girdė and through the krungo gates”). A fairly common code is the form of the encoding denotation, for example, draikalas “Zirnio ankstis” (Father draikal, mother kabalas, children pabiručiai), pamp/ė “pea early” (Father tutulis, mother kabalas, children pabiručiai), tysutis “kartis” (Tįsta tysutis, girgzda girgzdutis, on the end a dumpling), #slys “pea pod” (Father #slys, grandmother bladder, children — binbir, binbir binbiriukai). Riddles can be encoded by using the peculiarities of the position of the denotative of the encoded word, for example, sfatikas “dubuo” (Pabėrė bėrikus, pastatė sfatikus, sušaukė kukuočius), kabikas “lopSys” (Kaba kabikas, lies chuurikas, —four legs and kabaldūnas), karikas “lašiniai”, tupikas “katinas” (Tupi fupikas, war karikas, prays God tupikas, that nupulty karikas), kabutis “obuolys” (Tyko tykutis, hanging quotation mark, when the quotation mark fell, the quotation mark caught), tysokas “lying man” (Juodtakis, on black-tailed medtakis, on medtakis whispering, on whispering white-tailed, on white-tailed —tysoks). A rather rare method of encoding is to give an indirect attribute to the object or subject, for example, Zibas “wolf” (Dark night. Zibs comes, asks the tulytes where they are sleeping: “Maybe in the barns, in the woods”). This case is complicated because it is bound by contextual connections, and therefore requires refining coding — the wolf comes not at any time, but at night. The main feature of metonymy encoding is that the key word is completely transparent and does not require commentary. This shows that the criterion of communication is important in creating a puzzle, although the bridge connecting the universal category of “question-- answer” (both linguistically and otherwise) is masked. However, an interesting conclusion can be drawn here (hopefully of a more general nature than the problem of riddle lexicon). Metonymy encoding aims to make the answer more clear and understandable, i.e. the encoded word. This aim is based on the unbroken internal semantic and conceptual connections between the code and the code word, the semantic and lexical transparency of the Zod-key. Metaphorical coding is more “hidden” question-answer bridge, the code is complicated semantics, and Zodiac is far from immediately revealed. Paradoxically, however, the method of metonymy coding in the riddle lexical system leads to more homonymous confusion and communicative misunderstanding. It follows that from a semantic point of view, a simpler structure is not necessarily clearer, and the new lexical structure, which has emerged from a more complex process, has a higher semantic value. (It would be interesting to investigate how this process affects the laws of poetic language.)- The most common groups of metonymy encoding vocabulary are two: the property of the encoded object and the property of the encoded object. In clarifying these concepts, we have to explain that we consider a constant, differential feature of an object as a characteristic. Jis 105 can be primary, ir secondary. ir The object property is a — non-permanent, contextual, ir determined denotation. In other words, the — property is the state of the object, the property is the state. These metonymy coding groups will be presented in tables. The key word here is obvious, so we will not write it. 1.3.1. Object-Property. This type of metonymy is shown in Table 4. 4 table Word-code Code word Misle backwards cancer: walks backwards Triangulum in the sky, barberry in ash, buckfoot in hangover, backwards in water. kabaldūnas baby's head: kabalduoja | Kabo kabikas, guli čiurikas —four-legged kabaldūnas. kniustas pig: knisa Running the ir tatty, asked the watchman: “Where is the kniustas lying?” pirdokas užpakalis: perdžia Ten ten ten-year-olds are pulling a net on the pirdokas. thirst fish: without water thirst | In the sky whistles, in the forest floats, in the lake thirst. 1.3.2. Object-Property. It is a slightly more abundant group of metonymic coding. This is shown in Table 5. 5 Table Word-code Code word Misle bizdonė girdėlius tupikas binoculars dog: well constantly bezda dog: well hears cat: persistent tupi Tupi tupikas, war ring. The cat asks God: sees binoculars pig: hooker Looks through go, gagone, send me a bizdonę. " “Hello, knerpe.” “Hello, sweetie.” "Where is the yellow otter?" “In the back of the house”. “O girdelius?” “Po klécia”. tupik that nupulty crown. over the fence: “Oh, you, dear bezdZionéli, try me that Siusj.” nekabéty, the spectator would not watch. In Kabo’s hooker looks stubbornly, the hooker looks that particular, the presentation of properties as code instead of objects clearly shows the imperfection of metonymy coding. the fence, goes gagging through the yard: “Gagone, 106 The examples in the tables show that the principle of word-code formation is exactly the same as the processes of semantic derivation that take place in the center of the lexicon. This is a rather complex phenomenon, which semasiologists (more precisely — onomastists) call the stage of indirect reference, which arises from the connections of the semantic structure of the encoded word and the word-code analogy. Such an analogy is free and unbound by the object. Therefore, the traditionally distinguished metaphors by sound and by color, on closer examination, seem to be intermediate variants of metonymy and metaphor. 2.1. Fonosemantic creation of code words. It is not always possible to find a keyword to describe the type of code. There could be two reasons: the key word is a completely opaque semantic structure, not to mention a time-smoked glass, through which neither the “iSorés” — the code word — nor the “internal” — the code — can be seen. Another reason is that the word of the riddle is created by other, non-semantic means. We have already mentioned: although the riddle masks the “question-answer” communication bridge, the question must have signals in order for the answer to be possible. Such are the rules of the semantic game. Thus, at first glance, completely unmotivated riddle words, for example, vr/ardė laide “dalgis”, tuturs kepers “akėčios” are not (and cannot be) merely a lexical adventure, because even in the quasi-lexical boundary lies the universal imperative to be understood. There is a phenomenon of phonosemantics in language (Jakobson, Waught 1979: 177— 188). The ability of sounds to cause one or another sensation is also the possibility and potentiality of encoding words. Sounds are connoted in many peripheral areas of communication, such as in mitopoietic language (Jakobson, Waught 1979: 204-209). It is a very reasonable assumption that the potential connotativity of sounds is used in the attempt to encode the word to be memorized and in compliance with the rules of the semantic game (Zabarskaitė 1995: 187—204). Some of the laws of phonosemantics are quite interesting. 2.2. What is the difference between a harrow and a plow or /// and /r/ opposition? Some of the most consonant sounds in Lithuanian are /// and /r/ (Zabarskaitė 1995: 194-197). Both the expressive lexicon and the poetic language show the opposition of these sounds, although belonging to the same class of sounds, they also have common connotative meanings. The sound /// has an obvious back-and- -forth lingering connotation (Zabarskaitė 1995: 195). Work tools, which are used by waving back and forth and which need to be warned, are encoded by selecting the sonata /// with the key: vilaide laidė “ dalgis" (Vilaidė laidė žolę baidė, namo parėjo, ant vartų pasihorė- ), /idi /idi Jaide “Saudykle” (Lidi lidi laidė po šilą skraidė, žarnas paliko, namo parskrido), fa/alojus “mintuvai” (Už birželio talalojus barja). Tools (or tools), with which the back-and- -forth movement of lingering is not pronounced, are “hidden” under semantic structures, where the sound is the key /7/. It is particularly common in encoding “akécias- ”. They are called kevarža varza (Kevarža varza through the field varzo — nei dogs bark), tuturs kepers (Tuturs kepers, nebėk — pavysiu). Thus, the universal phonosemantic opposition of sonatas ///:/r/ 107 can be in riddles. 2.3. Sheep drama or classical example of phonosemantics. A well-known riddle about how a wolf kidnapped a sheep and was chased by horses. The most common version of the riddle is this: "The kudubudu came, took the kidibidi, give the kamandakj, I will take the kudubudu, I will take the kidibidi"." In other variants of the riddle, the wolf is also called Kubuldoku. We will not go into consonant combinations now. (This is a more detailed study. and more abundant empirical object. It is only worth noting that the T-class consonants, having the universal connotation of action-movement- -contact, are dominant (Zabarskaitė 1995: 187-194).) This puzzle perfectly represents the most universal connotative opposition of vowels — /u/:/2/:/i/. Low-tone vowels denote darkness, roughness, greatness, and high-tone vowels denote lightness, gentleness, smallness. The center of the triad — the compact /a/ — is neutral (because the horse does not participate in the drama of the sheep, only in the last example it is dark and large as the wolf). This basic law of phonosemantics is discussed more extensively in the aforementioned work of prominent phonologists (Jakobson, Waught 1979: 188-194). 2.4. Sis tas about roughness and lightness or the connotation of S-class consonants. Among the S-class consonants, /$/ and /Z/ have the highest phonosemantic load. The sound /$/ probably has a strong connotation of “unequal surface” due to its articulatory and acoustic characteristics (Zabarskaitė 1995: 197-198). This was also noticed by the creators of the puzzles. The wool is encoded with the word Sesuols kemuols (Sešuols kemuols — a thousand-legged lamb), and the blanket is called Sipkilis tipkilis (Šipkilys tipkilys: “Climb on me”). The connotation of the sound /Ž/ as "light, glow" (Zabarskaite 1995: 197) is the key to the encoded word fire. Fire is called Zala Zalaiciuke (The grey hawk licks the sky.) So when we cannot find the lexical or semantic key of the code word, we can try to find it in the phonological structure of the code word. The examples we have discussed show that this path is not fruitless either. It is only necessary to look closely at the laws of phonosemantics, universalities and the most important connotative oppositions. 3. Explanatory notes. Since there is some variation in the special terminology, especially when it comes to such a non-traditional field of Lithuanian linguistics as phonosemantics, we think it is necessary to clarify that semantic categories and concepts are referred to using the terms of J. Lyons (Lyons 1968), phonological categories, symbols and classifications necessary to describe phonosemantics phenomena are adequately explained in Aleksas Girdenis’s “Phonology” (Girdenis 1981). Another semiotic term can be found in the works of Algirdas Julius Greimas (Greimas 1989). Mislés were selected from the 5th volume of “Lithuanian Folklore” (LIs V), keywords were searched in “Lithuanian Language Dictionary” (LKŽ). 4. Conclusions. There is one more general practical conclusion and theoretical 108 generalization. The lexicon of riddles is not a quasi-lexicographic field, but rather a periphery of the Lithuanian lexicon that exists according to established semantic laws. By exploring the laws of its generalization process, it is possible to reveal the semantic structure of the riddle words and “clear" their content. It turns out that in such a complex and multifunctional structure as language there can be no random things. And language game (because creating puzzles is a language-- nomination-communication game) is played according to semantic rules. The laws of semantic and phonosemantic coding are analogous to the processes of nominative activity of the basic lexical fund. The creation of metaphors and metonyms in riddles can be a “test material” for investigating metaphorical and metonymy meanings that have emerged in the basic lexical base. The higher semantic value of more complex lexical structures (metaphors) in riddles (precision, non-synonymousness, avoidance of lexical tautology) perhaps correlates with other lexical layers, text, and perhaps less complex linguistic structures. Key sounds indicate that when studying the periphery of lexicon, phonosemantics should not be ignored. They can explain something because they have their own universalities, which, as we have seen, should not be denied. Of the practical things two are to be said: at first glance unreadable word of the riddle can be “read”, i.e. it is not meaningless. This way of reading the word of the riddle can help to establish criteria for allocating metonymic and metaphorical meanings, which are not always clear, analyzing metonymies and metaphors and distinguishing them in practice. Finally, the vocabulary of riddles is a very real conscious imitation of the path of meaning, which is truly interesting to explore. LITERATŪRA Girdenis A. 1981: Fonologija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Greimas A.J. 1989: Semiotika, Vilnius: Mintis. Jakobson W, Waugh L. 1979: The Saund Shape of Language, Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. LTs V — Lietuvių tautosaka 5, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968. Levin J. M. 1978: Semantičeskaja struktura zagadki. — Paremiologičeskij sbornik, Moskva: Nauka, 283 — 315. LKŽ I,-II, — Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius, 1941; 2, Kaunas: Valstybinė enciklopedijų, žodynų ir mokslo literatūros leidykla, 1947. LKŽ I,-II, — Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1-2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968 — 1969. LKŽ III — XVII — Lietuvių kalbos žodynas3 — 6, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1962; 7 — 9 : Mintis, 1966, 1970, 1973; 10 — 15 : Mokslas, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1991; 16, 17: Mokslo ir enciklopedijy leidykla, 1995, 1996. Lyons J. 1968 : Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge: G. B. Zabarskaite J. 1995: Fonosemantics of IStiktuky consonants (monophonic consonant compounds). —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 35, 187-204. 109