Šis tas iš Lazūnų ir Zietelos šnektų leksikos gretinimo

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVII (1997) PROBLEMS OF LEXICOGRAPHY AND LEXICOLOGY Aloyzas VIDUGIRIS THESE ARE THE LEAKS OF THE LAZŪN AND ZIETELOS SCHNETTS THE LAZŪN AND ZIETELOS SCHNETTS are the names of the most distant schnets of the southern edge of the Lithuanian language: now in Belarus, in the Vijos district of the Grodno district. Lazduny district, or parish, and Dziatloava district and parish. Both of them are in their own way probably the most archaic schnekts of all present Lithuanian dialects. These schnekts have a number of similarities (including lexical) and differences that have not yet been compared with each other or with other dialects. The study of these dialects is closely related to the great Lithuanian linguists. Already in 1906, Jonas Jablonskis had come to investigate the Lazūnai schnecks, and Kazimieras Būga — Zietelas. They were also the godfathers of these schneks. Before that, only Edward Voltaire and Jan Rozwadowski had studied the talk of Zietela. During the Polish occupation, Jurgis Šlapelis collected and recorded folklore in Lazūnai. Juozas Balčikonis visited these places and collected words already in the post-war years. All these Lithuanians were epoch-making linguists, who contributed to the recovery of Lithuanian independence, jointly creating the common Lithuanian language as the foundation of an independent state. J. Jablonskis was the greatest authority of the common language and its creator, J. Šlapelis, a doctor, devoted his entire life to nurturing and consolidating the Lithuanian language in the celebrated Eastern Lithuania, K. Būga raised Lithuanian linguistics to a global level, and J. Balčikonis, like a symbol of sustainability, was destined to unite three different epochs and preserve to this day what his predecessors had created. There has never been a direct link between the Zietela and Lazūnai dialects. They are separated from each other by about 100 km of Slavic inhabited territory, a considerable stretch of forests and three large rivers — Maučėdis, Nemunas and Gauja. There are no direct routes. In order to reach Lazūnai from Zietela, you have to drive through Naugardukas (Naugardas called by the Zieteliškių people) or through Lyda. Lazūnai is about 130 km to the southeast of Vilnius, and Zietela is 150 km to the south. Lexicon is a rather specific area of language. Open to various influences, it is the most sensitive and most rapidly changing of all the linguistic domains. It is influenced by various intralinguistic and extralinguistic factors. The influence of these factors on the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects, which have long been separated from the main Lithuanian language area, surrounded by Slavic languages, may be fatal. People’s talk here sometimes differs not only from family to family or from yard to yard, but also from person to person and from year to year. Thus, the language, especially its vocabulary, is heavily influenced by the factors of place, subject and time. The Lithuanian language was best preserved by those people who lived in their native places and communicated with each other and with their neighbours in Lithuanian. Not to mention the women who fled further, with age and change of place (moving to the cities with the children) the speech of the representatives of the Schnekts themselves also changed considerably, fluctuations, variations, and ocasionalisms increased. On the other hand, when recording a dialect text, some impurities can be left by the unconscious psychological attitudes of the writer himself, the rush to record an unheard word or form without sufficient context, the unconscious tendency to compare, “normalize” when hearing a mismatched syllable or genus, insufficiently well listening to various phonetic subjects, etc. In fact, it is not easy to communicate with the representatives of such isolated dialects, because many grandparents almost do not understand 163 common language words at all, some old people are deaf. Since the entire vocabulary of the Zietela and Lazūnų dialects cannot be compared due to its huge and uneven volume, it is necessary to limit ourselves to a certain part of it. Mechanically matching the text of the dictionary according to certain letters, words or their niches is also hardly possible, due to the so-called gaps ("lacunes"), ethnonyms, which may be present in one speech and not in another. The vocabulary of both speakers, i.e. words or their nests, can be compared selectively, but we should also be satisfied with a certain amount of them. Here the easiest way has been chosen — the first volume of the Lithuanian Language Atlas has been limited to the lexicon, and that is not all. In the aforementioned volume of the "Atlas of Lithuanian Language" lexicon, 190 realities were cartographed and described. Rejecting narrow ethnographisms that do not occur everywhere and some non-informative answers, the authors are satisfied with 150 names of objects, mostly spread in dialects in various variants. Such a defined and limited number of selected responses has certain disadvantages and advantages. The program of the "Atlas of Lithuanian Language" includes mainly names of objects or phenomena of different meanings — nouns, which in different dialects have different expression, i.e. different word root or stem. There is a disproportionately small number of words from other parts of the language. It is positive that even such a relatively defined number of random questions can already be treated as part of a certain lexical whole. The same objects in dialects can be called differently: some with their own names of Lithuanian origin, others —borrowing or valuing, some in the similar Lazūnų and Zietelos dialects the same way, others differently. Therefore, further these names are discussed first by origin, and then by form. Lithuanian origin lexicon. 1. A considerable part of the concepts in Lazūnų and Zietelos dialects have the same names in Lithuanian, although sometimes other synonyms or pronunciation variants may be known (they are indicated in brackets), e.g.: apusé ~ epušė (lt. apušė Lz) ‘leafy tree with shaking leaves, trebulė' (LKA I 92), dalgé ‘tree trunk’ (LKA I * The work was based on LKA I maps — their numbers and the corresponding data from the commentaries are indicated. 164 50), friend “family' (// family) (LKA I 120), carvel ‘balandis’ (LKA I 76), kūgis'didelė kupa, stirta' (LKA I 110), niekocia 'gelda' (//miekocia Zt) (LKA I 21), pelūdė (pelūdnyčia) "part of a hill or an annex to a barn for the harvesting of peat" (LKA I 15), pirkia "residential troba, house" (LKA I 2), priemnė "priemenė, prieangis" (LKA I 5), prietema (LKA I 106), sunkūs Lz: suūkus Zt (LKA I 114), šaudyklė "device for putting sheaves in the weaving" (LKA I 67), vežimas (//ratai) "horse-drawn vehicle" (LKA I 34), žagrė 'plough' (//žagrė Lz) (LKA I 45) and others. These are mostly old Lithuanian words or terms. There are also newer words of extended meaning or polysemantic words, which may have appeared instead of other terms that once existed but have disappeared, e.g.: daritis “'akėtvirbalis' (LKA I 49), duobė “krūnies židinys' (LKA I 8), /enta ‘weaving machine seat, step' (LKA I 67) and others. There are 41, or 27.3%, of the 150 questions in the conversations of Lazūnai and Zietelė, which are mostly of Lithuanian origin. 2. Here are mentioned common names of Lithuanian origin, which differ in Lazūnų and Zietelos dialects: (a) action (with prepositions), e.g.: ėras, érditis ‘young sheep, lamb’ Lz: ėrūkas Zt (LKA I 74), ragas ‘crawling winter road carriage, sledge’ Zt: ragutés Lz (LKA I 43), trainė, trainia part of a carriage break, treinija’ Lz: trainija Zt (LKA I 35); b) vocalism and consonantism of the root or suffix, e.g.: dilginé, nergynė “medicinal fibrous plant, whose stem and leaves have stinging hairs” Lz: dirgelé Zt (LKA I 94), kailiniai “clothes made of fur for winter” Lz: kaliniai Zt (LKA I 72), spragilyčia ‘the shaft of a knife, a blade, a cutter’, cf. spragilas Lz: spragelyčia, spragelyščius, spragelyštis, cf. spragelas Zt (LKA I 56); (c) with a stem, e.g. priesvirnis “shelter at the barn, prieklėtis' Lz: priesvirné, priesvirnė Zt (LKA I 12); d) spelling, e.g.: ka/vis “who is engaged in metal forging' Zt: kalvis Lz (LKA I 107) and others. In total, such names were found 9 units, or 6%. These words form a kind of transitional group of names between the concepts called the same and differently (with words of different roots) in the Laziiny and Zietela dialects. 3. The same concept in Lazūnų and Zietelos dialects is represented by different words (lexema) of Lithuanian origin, e.g.: brauktuvé ‘tool to clean flax from the leaves, braukti, bruktuvė' Zt: blaskytuve Lz (LKA I 59), giria “a place covered with trees, a forest' Zt: médzias (taria médzias) Lz (LKA I 113), karte, kartis ‘long thin pruned tree trunk'), cf. karčių tvora Zt: satra, cf. Satry tvora Lz (LKA I 19), kiémas ‘a fence by the house’ Zt: atslaimas Lz (LKA I 9), klonis ‘low place, valley’ Zt: /6bas Lz (LKA 1103), péntis ‘foot of a tree’ Zt: neck Lz (LKA I 52), tarpupėdis ‘part of a horse between the feet for loading grain or fodder, side’ Lz: salis Zt (LKA I 16), védaras ‘fried sausage of grain or grated potatoes’ Lz: sausage Zt (LKA I 32), vedega ‘a bend-bladed axe for hacking beds or cages’ Zt: medziagélé Lz (LKA I 33) and others. According to the “Atlas of Lithuanian Language” program, 10, or 6.6%, of such names of different roots for one concept were recorded in Lazūnų and Zietelos dialects. 4. There are more mixed use names. In these speeches they differ not only in form, but also in origin. When one of these two dialects (most often Lazūnų) uses a Lithuanian name, the other usually has a loanword or a hybrid and vice versa, e.g.: buožė, buožėlė‘- spragilo galva’ Lz: bičis, bicius Zt (LKA I 56), églys, églius ‘black-berryed coniferous shrub of the cyparisy family, juniper’ Lz: veldukas Zt (LKA I 91), gėlė ‘beautifully flowering or beautifully leafy grassland’ Lz: kvietka, kviétkas Zt (LKA I 111), jungélis raištis, jungiantis spragilo stiebą su buoze’ Lz: uZikas, viizas Zt (LKA I 110), ratapédis ‘wheel rod’ Lz: Spykis Zt (LKA I 41), sprandagalvis ‘buozgalvis’ (//stambagalvis) Lz: galavocius Zt (LKA I 83), vieversys ‘Zvirbliy group 165 bird singer, vyturys’ Lz: Zavarankas Zt (LKA 179), vinkšna ‘rogiy transverse balZienas’ Lz: vézas Zt (LKA I 44) and so on. Among the Lithuanian names, the name Zi/ausis “man’s sister, moša’ Lz: zaluvyčia Zt (LKA I 117) of unclear origin is added. In total, there are 20 such names, or 13.3%, where the term of one schnekt is borrowed from another schnekt. Excluding the dubious name Zi/ausis, we would have 19, or 12,796 such pairs, respectively. More Lithuanian vocabulary has been preserved in the Lazūnų dialect. Of the 20 objects mentioned, 15 undoubtedly have Lithuanian equivalents, although a loanword or a hybrid can also take the place of many of them, e.g.: felaūčius or jélaucius next to églius Lz, kačelkėlės 'nyčių skridiniai' next to ratėliai Lz: katkéles Zt (“t. p.”) (LKA I 66), kaciorius‘gaigalas’ next to ančiūkas Lz: kačioris Zt (LKA 173), vėzas next to vinkšna Lz, žėvarinka next to vieversys Lz. In the dialect of Zietela, Lithuanian names are used only in four cases out of 20, e.g.: juosta ‘raivoryk§te’ greta fefičius Zt: teacius Lz (LKA I 105), skylėlė bičių hielio laka' Zt: l/iotka Lz (LKA I 101) and other values (see below). did not say any dinings at all, e.g.: hare ‘Sustinis’ (LKA I 30), redhead ‘red-headed barb, red-headed barb' (LKA I 98), stu/pėliai ‘spinning wheel bearing stems, thighs' (LKA I 62). Thus, of the 150 objects mentioned in the Lazūnai dialect, 77 or 79, i.e., 52%, are named in Lithuanian, while in the Zietela dialect only 77 or 79, i.e., 52% of the 150 objects are named in Lithuanian. 64, 4290. The division of Vertinial Leksemy into names of Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian origin is quite conditional. Both Lithuanian and Slavic languages have many words that could be suspected of being copied from each other. Especially suspicious may be words of extended meaning used to name special concepts. Some of the names that have emerged in this way may be old and their origin is difficult to understand, while others may be new. The origin of the latter is revealed by the narrow area of their use in individual dialects of the southeastern edges of Lithuanian. The form of the values is not different from the Lithuanian words. Because of their unusual meaning, they are easily mistaken for exoticisms of the schnapps. Often they are also semantically motivated, e.g. arklūkas ‘horse’ Zt, or namélis ‘hive’ Zt. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to say whether, for example, the word namelis in this meaning is a value (see sl. domik) or a Lithuanian word used by similarity, like the Lazūniškiai hybrid equivalent skrynéle (LKA I 100). After all, such hives are often called beehives in other Lithuanian dialects. Thus, zieteliškių namelj hardly should be considered unconditiona166 lly only valuable. What else ark/ūkas, cf. gudų konik “žigas' and nowhere else witnessed in this sense. In this case, the Lazūniškiai usually use hybrids kazlaitis, kazlėlis or pure borinis kazlias (see LKA I 86). Similarly, the name J/špė, lapdite “yellow edible mushroom, gaidelis, squirrel” Lz: /isyčia, lisica Zt (LKA I 97). Beautiful Lithuanian sayings kė/ines apsiaūti or apsimduti, sijoną apsisegti, apsivilkti are mostly translated with the verb uždėtar užsidėt kélines, suknéle (cf. Gudų nadziec, Russian nadier) Lz, Zt, less often krauti, e.g., an save kélnes kraut (cf. Polish nafozyc) Zt (LKA I 115). Such values are also called semanticisms or semantic limestones (Velakoski 1984: 221-222). Usually, such a Lithuanian-sounding word, having a different, foreign, borrowed meaning, also becomes another word (lexema). Therefore, liming is considered one of the methods of nomination (Pavel 1983: 74, 83). However, dictionaries treat such words differently. Pronouns are usually presented separately, and verbs — together only with a separate (borrowed) meaning, e.g.: ljsti lipti, kopti', /ūpti ‘to tear apart, to tear down', rinkti ‘to take', uždėti ‘to dress, to wrap, to fasten', etc. (see Vidugiris 1989: 39-54; 1995: 175-180). Debt. The Lazūnai and Zietela schnets have been influenced by Slavic languages (Guds, Polish, now Russian) and have a large number of variously adapted borrowings. They are placed in the same order as words of Lithuanian origin. 1. Most of the borrowed words in Lazūnų and Zietelos dialects coincide, e.g.: dbadas ‘wheelchair’ (LKA I 42), bulionas “bulvienė’ (//bulionas Lz) (LKA I 29), dieška ‘duonkubilis’ (LKA I 25), kduka “kuosa’ (LKA I 78), krinycia ‘spring’ (LKA I 104), odina ‘snake’ (LKA I 80), plotka “kuoja, mekšras’ (LKA I 82), statyvos “weaving machine thighs’ (LKA I 6), strieka ‘roof’ (dachas Lz) (LKA I 3), takas “plūktinė kluono ar krosnies asla, grendymas’ (LKA I 4) and others. Most of these borrowings are not used in the main Lithuanian dialects and are even unknown. This type of borrowings includes borrowings that have entered the common language system, which other dialects often have nothing to replace, e.g.: burokas ‘runkel’ (LKA I 88), košė ‘tyre’ (LKA I 30), noragas ‘part of plough or plow cutting the soil layer with a sharp side when plowing' (LKA I 46). The number of overlapping loanwords in Lazūnų and Zietelos dialects is 46, or 30,696. If we add to this number the coinciding names of Lithuanian origin, we will have a total of 88 (or 58.7%) terms called the same in Lazūnai and Zietela dialects. 2. As with Lithuanian co-rooted words, co-rooted borrowed words may have similar differences: darbybos, e.g.: karvalatas, karaulatas ‘spinning wheel’ a) Lz : Carvalho, carvalho Zt (LKA I 60); b) root stem ar vowel, e.g.: arnas “blacksmith’s fireplace, wound’ harunis Lz : Zt (LKA I 108), 167 rapuka 'toad' Lz: rapucha Zt (LKA I 81), svoranas 'carriage core' Lz: svorinas Zt (LKA I 38); stone coal, e.g.: padnebiéné (|/padebė) ‘bread oven sky, palate’ Zt: padnebenia Lz (LKA I 7) etc. There are 7 such responses, or 4.7%. 3. The same term is represented by different borrowed words or hybrids, e.g.: bruška “griežtis, sėtinys’ Zt: krucka Lz (LKA I 89), bū/'ba ‘bulve’ Lz: kunoda (less often kurduplé) Zt (LKA 187), chrištulys, chruštulys (|| mojavinis, mojinis žūkas) ‘karkvabalis’ Zt: karklinis žūkas, lazinis žūkas Lz (LKA I 84), desétkas ‘gubas, šlitis’ Zt: mendlis Lz (LKA I 109), kaladė ‘stebule’ Lz: kulbe Zt (LKA I 40), katkéle ‘spinning wheel pulley’ Zt: muterka Lz (LKA I 63), košys ‘girnalovis’ Zt: skrynėlė Lz (LKA I 68), stajékas, stajokas ‘priebrukas’ Lz: stopcis, stopcius Zt (LKA I 58) and others. A total of 8, or 5%, of such couples were recorded. The comparison of the latter borrowings shows that the vocabulary of the Lazūnai and Zietela schnekts has been influenced by different Slavic languages (mostly the Gudi, less the Polish) and the Gudi schnekts. It is not yet possible to say that any Slavic language has influenced one or another speaker more than another. Of the remaining 4 (2,796) questions, the respondents from Zietelė did not say the names of 3 (296) terms, and from Lazūnai — 1 (0.7%). In total, there are 54, or 36.4%, of both Lithuanian and Slavic names that do not coincide in the dialects of Zietela and Laziiny. Of this number, 19 (34.5% or 12.7% of the total number) were different Lithuanian names, 19 (35.7% or 12.7%) were mixed names, 16 (2996 or 10.7%) were only borrowed names, and 34 (61.8% or 22.6% of the total number) were Lithuanian names not coinciding in Lazūnų dialect alone, 23 (41.8% or 15.396) in Zietelos dialect, 20 (37.4% or 13.3% of the total number) were borrowed names not coinciding in Lazūnų dialect, and 32 (58.2% or 21.396) in Zietelos dialect. This indicates that the Lazūnai and Zietela schnecks formed in different environments and independently of each other. The total number of Lithuanian names in the Lazūnų dialect alone reaches more than half of the total number, i.e. 79 (with the word ži/ausis 80), or 52.7% (53.3%), and in the Zietelos dialect — 65, or 43.4% — reaches less than half. This can be explained by the fact that the isolation of Lazūnai schnekta from the main Lithuanian language area began later than that of Zietela. Excluding 2 clear values each, we have 77 (51.396) words of Lithuanian origin in Lazūnų šnektas and 63 (42.4%) in Zietelos. Without mentioning 6 unanswered questions of Zietela and 1 of Lazūnų šnekta, all the remaining names are borrowed. In the Lazūnų dialect there are 70 (46.796) net borrowings, with unambiguous values of 72 (48.4%), and in Zietelos — 80 (53.3%) or 82 (54.796). It can only be comforting that the figures and percentages presented here are quite relative, because they are mostly operated with the names of small specific objects. The borrowings of these dialects far exceed not only the borrowings of the main dialects of 16%-30%, but also the average of 2796—4096 borrowings of Vilnius dialect (Zinkevičius 1978: 147-151). At the time of compiling the material for the “Atlas of Lithuanian Language”, many of the southeastern edge speakers had already died out. For the absolute majority of the Šnektų dialects of this area, including such unique ones as Zietelas and Lazūnų, the Soviet era ended in death. Soon there will be no Lithuanian speaking people in Breslau, Pastovis, in the whole vast eastern part of the Varnava district, in the northern part of the Grodno district and elsewhere. Now one can only guess what a deadly amount of debt is in the snags. For the people who do not support the culture of their people and are destroyed in all ways, any number is fatal. Dying probably begins when a native language loses at least a third of its vocabulary. The record holder is the Zietela dialect, where borrowed words make up about two-thirds of the entire vocabulary. In this case, extralinguistic conditions are decisive. However, Lithuanian vocabulary is the most important not only for dialect or snakes, but also for linguists. It can tell linguistics much more than borrowed words. The majority of Lithuanian names indicate that the Lazūnų and Zietelos schnekts belong to the same Lithuanian language stem and indicate the ancient Lithuanian (Baltic) past of these territories. According to the prevalence of some words that coincide, it can be seen that Lazūnų and Zietelos šnektai together with the southern highlanders are related to the eastern highlanders of Vilnius, e.g.: apušė, dalgé, niekocia, pirkia, stovai, and according to the prevalence of other words, e.g., érditis, éras, 168 ėrūkas, kiėmas, spragilas or spragelas, vežimas together with the southern highlanders is close to the western highlanders, etc. The words of different roots Zietela and Lazūnai speak separately from each other and show their different dialectal dependence. The Lazūnų dialect is linked to the eastern Altai people of Vilnius by the words atslaimas (//kiémas), jauja, Iobas ‘slénys’, medžiagėlė ‘vedega’, vinkšna, etc. However, other words indicate that the Lazūnų dialect is closely related to the southern highland dialects (the so-called western Dzūkijos), e.g.: gréndymas, kréslas ‘the upper crossbar of the front of the carriage’ (LKA I 37), satra, and especially with their eastern part, e.g.: blaskytuve ‘in the brook’, mėdžias ‘miSkas’, ratapėdis ‘stipinas’, farpūpėdis ‘side’, etc. Meanwhile, Zietela’s schnekt is more to the south, and especially to the south-western highlands, with the following names (sometimes also objects): duobė ‘a certain ground with fireplace for drying flax' (LKA I 20), giria “forest", kartis, klonis “valley, loam", vedega, etc. A number of elements characteristic of the Western Balts, preserved in Zietela’s Snekta and often in the Southern Altai dialect, suggest that in the vast territory of southern Lithuania, now divided between Lithuania, Gudija (Belarus) and Poland, a combination of Sutuvian (Jotvingian) tribes close to the Lithuanians once lived (Būga 1961: 126—156; 601-602; Zinkevičius 1987: 40-46; Vidugiris 1996: 1-2). LITERACY Būga K.: Lithuanian Nation and Language and its Close Relatives. —Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 128-156; The ending -da of the names of the rivers of the Jotvingų land. —Ibid., 601-602. LKA I —Lithuanian Language Atlas 1, Leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. Pavel V. K. 1983: Lexicheskaya nominatsiya, Chisinau: Stiinca. Velokoski H. 1984: O kalkach po nemeckoy modeli v russkom jazyku. —Studia slavica 169 Finlandensia 1, Helsinki, pp. 221-232. Vidugiris A. 1995: The semantics of the verb rinkti in Lithuanian and Belarusian border dialects. — Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics 28. Vidugiris A. 1995: Vlienie jazykovich kontaktov na razvitejše lexičke semantike. — 1996: The Sūduviai (Jotvingiai) and their inhabited territories. in: Badania 175-180. dialektowi onomastyki na pograniczu polsko-wschodniosfowiariskim, Bialystok, Vidugiris A. 1996: The Sūduviai (Jotvingiai) and their inhabited territories. —Voruta 12(246). Zinkevičius Z. 1978: Thoughts after the publication of the Lithuanian Language Atlas, Volume I. —Baltistica 14(2), Vilnius: Mokslas, 147-151. Zinkevičius Z. 1987: History of Lithuanian Language 2, Vilnius: Mokslas. ON THE COMPARISON OF THE VOCABULARY OF THE LAZŪNAI AND ZIETELA SUBDIALECTS Summary The vocabulary of the two furthest south-east removed Lithuanian subdialects —Lazūnai and Zietela —locations which are now part of the Gardinas region, Belarus, are compared. The comparison is based on the vocabulary of "Lietuvių kalbos atlasas" (The Atlas of the Lithuanian Language) — 150 names of objects which are compared according to their origin, coincidence or non-coincidence of their forms in the two subdialects. The Lazūnai subdialect has retained more vocabulary of Lithuanian origin (5396), which is outbalanced in the Zietela subdialect by loanwords (54%). The spread of Lithuanian origin names shows that the Lazūnai subdialect is a typical east-aukstaitish Vilnius subdialect with certain peculiarities of the southern and, sometimes, western aukstaitish subdialects, while the Zietela subdialect, despite a number of common features with southern and eastern aukstaitish, is closer to the south-western aukstaitish. 170