Izoliuotų lietuvių šnektų vertiniai etninėse Lietuvos žemėse Baltarusijoje

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997) LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS Elena GRINAVECKIENĖ LOAN TRANSLATIONS IN ISOLATED LITHUANIAN DIALECTS IN ETHNIC LITHUANIAN LANDS IN BELARUS The isolated Lithuanian dialects of the ethnic Lithuanian lands in Belarus—Lazūnai (Vyžios district, Grodno region), Ródūnia (Varanavo district, Grodno region), Ramaškónys (Varanavo district, Grodno region), Ápsas (Vidžių district, Vitebsk region), and others—have undergone complex structural changes under the influence of Belarusian dialects, which have surrounded them for almost the past hundred years, as well as through Belarusian ways of life, its economic and domestic systems, its production relations, and state policy. Data from our studies of these dialects over approximately the past forty years show that they have still preserved (or had preserved) their principal linguistic features relatively well and, resisting the influence of the negative forces of the Belarusian dialects affecting them, have retained even the most archaic indigenous elements of their expression (especially ancient morphological forms—the old locative cases and relics of athematic verbs—as well as old Lithuanian vocabulary, etc.), of which only traces remain, or which have been entirely lost, in our other dialects in Lithuania. On the other hand, throughout their period of contact with Belarusian dialects (especially at its beginning), they were a reliable source both for many borrowings into Belarusian dialects and for calques from Lithuanian. For example, calques such as пятухи (пятушки) спяваюць СБГ IV 225 (about shepherds' chapped feet) are particularly noteworthy; their unmistakable source is Lithuanian gaidžiai (gaidėliai) gieda “the same” LKŽ III 18, 288; LKK XXX 155; LTT 1994: 63. That this Belarusian expression is indeed a Lithuanianism is clearly shown by the use here not of the noun пе́вень ‘rooster’, which has become established generally in Belarusian dialects, but of the Russian петух. Thus, Belarusian dialects adopted this expression from Lithuanian at a time when they did not yet have the word пе́вень here, when the assimilation of Lithuanian dialects among them was only just beginning, and when the Lithuanians being assimilated could translate this Lithuanian expression only into Russian. Having lost, or while losing, their continual living connection with other Lithuanian dialects and our standard language, and especially in the absence of Lithuanian schools and with difficulty obtaining Lithuanian publications, these dialects—though a resilient organism that remains in people's memory for a long time—continue to express among themselves, in Lithuanian means, the ways of thinking and living of people of their time; yet almost every day they gradually lose the ability to continue changing according to the laws of development characteristic of their native language, and move ever farther from it. Moreover, although Lithuanians in the isolated Lithuanian dialect regions speak Lithuanian only among themselves, officially they are indiscriminately subjected to and constrained by the influence of the entire arsenal of Belarusian-language and cultural means, and 185 are compelled to respond positively and favorably to all this. Gradually they begin to grow accustomed to such influence; over time they become uncritical of it, more open and receptive, and even begin to regard characteristic Belarusian means of expression as their own (especially those absent from their native language), identifying them with their own and inserting them into their speech with relative ease, without even realizing that this fundamentally contradicts the spirit and nature of the Lithuanian language, and that these are foreign formations harmful to it. Thus, the Belarusianization of the dialects under study, initially brought about artificially, eventually—without any safeguards to preserve their purity and as a result of the weakening and fading of the sense of their own language—becomes an entirely natural, habitual phenomenon of spontaneous assimilation, raising no doubts in speakers that it is foreign and harmful. Compared with other Lithuanian dialects, many lexical and grammatical Slavisms become established in them, and their word formation and phonetics draw closer to Belarusian. Nowhere else in Lithuania are Belarusian loanwords, especially terms, used as here in, for example, Rod., Ram., Lz., and Aps.: alašėika (cf. Belarusian галашэйка) ‘bare-necked hen’, apiėnkos (cf. Belarusian апянькі) ‘honey mushrooms, a kind of mushroom’, asnavà (cf. Belarusian аснава) ‘warp’, ašùškas (cf. Belarusian ашуўшак < асуўшак) ‘the crust of a loaf, heel’, atbiránkos (cf. Belarusian адбіра́нкі) ‘selected’ [cloth], badì’ai (cf. Belarusian бадылле) ‘stubble’, bahūnas (cf. Belarusian багу́н) ‘marsh rosemary’, ceglà (cf. Belarusian цэгла) ‘brick’, cūgl’ai (cf. Belarusian цўглі) ‘bridle’, kmarà (cf. Belarusian хмара) ‘cloud’, mušėstas (cf. Belarusian мышчасты) ‘gray’, pìlas (cf. Belarusian пыл) ‘dust’, plìtkas (cf. Belarusian плыткі) ‘shallow’, skurōtas (cf. Belarusian скурат) ‘bat’, zarānička (cf. Belarusian зара́нічка) ‘morning star’, žižà (cf. Belarusian жыжа) ‘slurry’, žūika (cf. Belarusian жуйка) ‘cud’, and others; or syntactic constructions such as: ožkà mažāsnė ožio; káuka mažāsnė vārnos (cf. Belarusian каза́ меньша казла́), rāpsas išvālo laukùs pog svirìepu (cf. Belarusian рапс расчыща́юць паля́ ад свірэпы), vaikai sniegùs láidžia viėnas vienám (cf. Belarusian дзе́ці кідаюць сне́жкі адзі́н аднаму), dárbas tamè, kad uždárbuic’ (cf. Belarusian работа ў тым, чтоб заработать), and others. These are fairly readily recognizable contaminations from a foreign language. However, relatively many Belarusianisms are also used here which at first glance seem like entirely innocuous words and expressions, and whose Slavic character is quite difficult and complicated to prove. Thus, in these Lithuanian dialects, instead of the usual Lithuanian expressions short (long) night (day), following the example of neighboring Belarusian dialects, one finds short (long) day (night) Lz., Rod., Aps. (cf. Belarusian ноч ле́там малая; зімой вялікая ноч), e.g. pie Jōno pacì dzidz’áus’a dzienà, pacì mažáus’a nakcìs Lz., Rod., instead of cold (mild) winter – severe (short) winter Lz., Rod. (cf. Belarusian крэпкая (малая) зіма). Instead of a hen perches on the nest; a bird perches in a tree; a wart appears on the hand; we live at the very end of the valley; moths settle on clothes, for the same reason they say here a hen sits on the nest; a bird sits in a tree; we sit at the very end of the valley; a wart sits on the face; moths sit on clothes Lz., Rod., Ram. (cf. Belarusian ку́па сядзіць на яйцах; у падпе́чку даўне́й куры сядзе́лі; мы сядзі́м на ху́тары; баро́даўка сядзі́ць на барадзе́; мо́лі се́лі на адзе́жу), instead of ladles (scoops) – dippers Aps., Ram. (cf. Belarusian пало́йнікі || апало́нікі ў лужах), instead of knitting – tying Rod., Ram., Lz. (cf. Belarusian вяза́нне), instead of stomach (paunch) 186 neviškina (nėmala) – vedarūkas nevišina Lz., Rod. (cf. Belarusian жалудак не варыць), instead of apiėnkos im plóno kóto – apiėnkos im plonós kojáites Lz., Rod. (cf. Belarusian апенкі на тонкай ножке), instead of dudenai (niūkiau, ūtarinau) ir suspáin’ojau – dudenai (niūkiau, ūtarinau) ir suspánc’ojau Aps., Rod., Lz. (cf. Belarusian гутарыла і спыталася), instead of jū pavadžino Jonù – jū pravadžino Jonù Rod., Lz. (cf. Belarusian яго празвалі Янам), instead of nusnėrė plaukai – išlýndo plaukai Lz., Rod. (cf. Belarusian вылезлі валасы), instead of mūs ápvogẹ – mūs arгỳnko Lz., Rod. (cf. Belarusian нас абабралі), etc. These are all calques from neighboring Belarusian dialects, arising under the most favorable conditions. First of all, being Belarusian words translated blindly into Lithuanian, they artificially give the corresponding Lithuanian word a meaning characteristic of the Belarusian language, which had previously been unknown to Lithuanian and was in fact entirely unnecessary. In this way, at first glance, they seemingly expand the meanings of certain Lithuanian words at no cost. Nevertheless, the meaning assigned to a word is imposed on it from outside, taken away from the corresponding Lithuanian word, which is not in fact a semantic equivalent of the Belarusian word. Thus, a Lithuanian word lacking its own Belarusian semantic equivalent is isolated in these dialects, driven out of use, and eventually entirely forgotten and lost. This is very dangerous not only for the isolated dialects, but also for the Lithuanian language as a whole. The lexicon of those dialects is impoverished, their semantics undermined and disrupted, and the Lithuanian language as a whole is seriously harmed: it is corrupted and denationalized, and one-way bilingualism develops. This is clearly illustrated, for example, by such expressions as these. Thus, instead of mán gyvenime nesisėkė Lz., Rod., Ram., Aps. say mán gyvenime nesivedė (cf. Belarusian мне невелося). The meaning of the Lithuanian word sėkėsi is artificially assigned here to the word nesivedė, while sėkėsi itself, having lost its meaning, is isolated. Or, in the sentence mán pildosi sapnai, the verb pildosi is here rendered by the verb įsidūoti, which does not have this meaning at all in Lithuanian (cf. LKŽ II₂ 885): mán insidúoda sapnai (cf. Belarusian мне удаюцца сны); and instead of buvo garončka ‘there was a fever’ and nenūmušė daktarǎi ‘the doctors did not bring it down’, only būvo garončka ir neapsodžino daktarǎi is used here again (cf. Belarusian не апсадзілі), although the meaning ‘to subdue’ of the verb apsodinti is known only in Lithuanian dialects in contact with Belarusian (cf. LKŽ III 279), and in those dialects it is, without any doubt, also a calque from Belarusian. In the sentence kur tu in daktarų dasistósi – brangù, the verb patėkti has been replaced here by the verb дасты́цца, translated morpheme by morpheme from Belarusian: dasistósi (cf. also LKŽ XIV 876), etc. Compared with other Belarusianisms in those dialects, calques are more recent, caused by the more intense influence of Belarusian dialects and arising there only after one-way Lithuanian-Belarusian bilingualism had taken shape and begun to spread. Consequently, the calques in these dialects, formed here amid strong assimilation of Lithuanian dialects, are the purest product of fully developed—late-stage—bilingualism. They are quite difficult to recognize, first of all because, despite their foreign meaning, they look Lithuanian. And that very appearance raises certain doubts about identifying them as calques. However, the sound of such a 187 “Lithuanian” word nonetheless begins imperceptibly to seem discordant, unlike other Lithuanian words; it grates on the ear, and people therefore begin to seek the reasons that made it so. Daugelis tiriamosiose šnektose vartojamų vertinių yra susiaurinę lietuvių kalbos leksikos raiškos būdus ir priemones. Štai tokiu būdu išstumiami iš vartosenos kai kurie vaizdingi ir taiklūs lietuviški būdvardžiai. Sakysime, gyvulių, paukščių, drabužių, augalų, daiktų spalvoms nusakyti šių šnektų lietuviai jau neturi lietuvių kalbai ir jos tarmėms plačiai žinomų būdvardžių, kaip šìrmas, -à ‘baltas su maišytais tamsiais plaukais’ (apie arklius), šėmas, -à ‘šviesiai, tamsiai ar melsvai pilkas’ (apie karves), raìbas (apie paukščius), juodmárgis (apie karves, šunis), žalmaìgis (apie karves), raìnas (apie kates), pìlkas (apie paukščius, daiktus), dryžuotas (apie paklodę, bulvę, buroka), kanapėtas, rauplėtas (apie veidą), supelėjęs (apie duoną) ir kt. ir vietoj jų vartoja šiam reikalui dažniausiai dvi spalvas žìlas (kai spalva tamsesnė, lygesnė) ir márgas (kai spalva šviesesnė, dėmėtesnė), pvz., žìlas (márgas) arklys, kumelys, tėlias, veršis, šuo, gaidys, katinas; žìla (márga) karvė, kumelė, kalė, višta, katė; žìlas vilkas, mó lis, vánagas, karvelis, karklas, šienas, širšių lizdas, žvirblýs; žìla varna, kielė, žąsis, duona (supelėjusi), žìli batai, marškiniai; žìlos samanos; žilìckas katinas, žilavóta strolìà ‘strazdas’, márgas veidas (burokas), margà paklodė, bùlvė, márgickas telìukas. Ir taip yra tik todėl, kad pramaišiui su jais gyvenantys baltarusiai bemaž dvi šiam reikalui skirtas spalvas ir patys turi. Tai jų сівы і рабу́, pvz., сівы (рабу́) конь (вол, кнур, жэрабе́ц, пе́вень, кот, саба́ка), сіва́я (раба́я) кабыла (каро́ўка, ку́ра, сві́ня, ко́тка), сівы воўк (ка́ршун, галу́б, во́ран, мох, хлеб), сіва́ варо́на (плі́ска, глі́на, гусь), сівыя ту́флі (ма́йткі), рабу́ твар (бура́к), раба́я пасці́лка (бу́льба, плаце́начка) ir kt. Taigi ir šių vietų lietuviai, senąsias savo lietuviškas spalvas amžiams iš atminties išdildę, naujai pasisavino vien neabejotinus vertinius iš baltarusių сівы ir рабу́ – žìlas ir márgas. Juodmárgiam veršiui ar juodmárgei karvei pavadinti šalia jų dar kartais pasitaiko išlikusi senoji lietuviška jo spalva kéršas (keršùlis), pasiskolintas iš tų lietuvių net ir pačių baltarusių (plg. jų кяру́па каро́ва, каршнава́ты вол – СБГ II 597). Juodmárgė karvė ir juodmárgis šuo dar kartais čia vadinamas kitu vertiniu iš baltarusių, pvz., juodai balta karvė, juodai baltas šuo (plg. br. чо́рна з бе́лым каро́ўка, чо́ра-бе́лы саба́ка), o žalmaìgė karvė – retsykiais ir vertiniu raudónai balta karvė (plg. br. красна́ з бе́лым каро́ўка)¹. Gry­nai baltarusių šnektų įtakos dėka šiose šnektose vartojamas apibendrinantis br. мыць vertinys praùsti(s) vietoje iš čia išstumtų lietuvių kalbai įprastų mazgóti(s), pláuti(s), trìnkti(s), skalbti(s) veiksmažodžių, pvz., sesuvà praùs’a kasàs (gálvu, rankàs, púodu, rūbùs); pirm’au išpraus’a k’aùlės pílvù (plg. br. се́ня ху́сты мыла; мыць го́лаву, ру́кі ir kt.). Because the Belarusians who live interspersed with the Lithuanians in those places our 1 Analogous calques from Slavic languages, still unrecognized by anyone, occur quite unnecessarily even today in our standard language, for example, “He resembles a shaggy brown-and-white (= žalmarģis) deer... LA 1996. 188 the palm of the hand and the sole are called by just one word, дало́нь (cf. Belarusian сала на далонь таўшчынёй; далонь звярбіць – грошьы буду лічыць – СБГ II 18); likewise, in those Lithuanian dialects, the palm is expressed only by a calque from Belarusian далонь—dėlnas, e.g., lašin'ai per dėlnu. Rod., Ram., Lz. Since in those Belarusian dialects our back of the heel and heel are expressed by the same word пятка, here too Lithuanians, like Belarusians, call both the back of the heel and the heel by a single word, užkulnis, e.g., sukienką ‘dress’ lig užkulnių (cf. Belarusian сукенка да пяткі). And, to our ears, such a sentence spoken in Lithuanian sounds unusual, strange, unnatural, lifeless, whereas to speakers of these dialects, who now think more in Belarusian, it seems perfectly good and correct, without their even realizing that good Lithuanian words the palm and the heel are thereby being eradicated from the vocabulary of these dialects forever. The same applies to the conflation here of the verb kándžiotis with kramtytis and the adverb tirštai with tánkiai. Since in those Belarusian dialects the verbs kándžiotis and kramtytis are expressed by just one verb, кусацца, and the adverbs tirštai and tánkiai by just one, густа́, Lithuanians in these dialects, speaking Lithuanian, use only kramtosi and tánkiai in every case, following the Belarusian dialects’ example and thinking in Belarusian, even where kándžiotis and tirštai are absolutely necessary; for example, instead of gyliai kándžiojasi ar pievoj tirštai šieno they say only gyliai kramtosi, pievoj tánkiai šieno (cf. Belarusian г’ілі кусаюцца; у лузе густа сена). Such and similar expressions again greatly diminish the vitality, precision, aptness of wording, and beauty of Lithuanian sentences—in these cases the dialects clearly lose the verb kándžiotis and the adverb tirštai. Their meanings, along with those of other words, are taken over by blind calques from Belarusian. Thus Lithuanian here is being confused and impoverished, and its vitality is being threatened. These dialects contain calques from Belarusian whose every morpheme is wholly dependent on the corresponding Belarusian one, an exact image of its content expressed by Lithuanian (often even Belarusian) word-formation devices. Among these are numerous prefixed verbs whose lexical meaning is purely Belarusian. To create this meaning in verbs with a Lithuanian exterior, a prefix required in Belarusian—generally Belarusian, or a Lithuanian one that coincides with the Belarusian prefix—is used (there is an opinion that it is the prefix that here determines the emergence of the Belarusian meaning in the word and is the most essential semantic feature of a Belarusian calque), along with various suffixes (for example, diminutive suffixes arising under Belarusian influence, among others), most often Lithuanian ones; e.g., razaugdinėti ‘sprout’, e.g., búl’bos razaugdinėja (cf. Belarusian бульба разрастаецца), razvesdinėti ‘dilute’, e.g., tėl’u pienu· raik’a vúnden’u razvezdzinėc’ (cf. Belarusian трэба вадой развясці), razsiklodinėti ‘spread out’, e.g., žolė rasiklodzinėja prag žamės (cf. Belarusian траўка расцілаіцца па зямлё), pririšdinėti ‘tie up’, e.g., рыбывяздзінеја beržal’ais stógu· in lotàs (cf. Belarusian прывязваюць страху), atmušdinėti ‘chip off’, e.g., sk’l’utù pirmucinės skiedras atmuždžinėja (cf. Belarusian склюгам шчэпкі адбіваюць), išpaisindinėti ‘weed’, e.g., miežūs išpaisindzinėja (cf. Belarusian ячмень выпойсывают), and so forth. Such verbs, unusual to our eye (and ear), do not raise suspicions about their 189 classification as calques. In our opinion, they are indisputable, clear, genuine, and show that, under Belarusian influence, prefixes in Lithuanian morphology are somewhat more easily affected, suffixes more slowly, and roots most slowly and reluctantly—or else remain unchanged for a time. These dialects also contain calques which, from a Lithuanian perspective, seem scarcely suitable for describing the intended situation; under strong Belarusian influence, they have entirely displaced Lithuanian means of expression and taken their place, sometimes creating an ambiguous or wholly unclear thought that gives the impression that a Lithuanian speaker using them does not actually know Lithuanian. Examples include varpėlė lėja ‘ripens’ gru·dukūs Rod. (cf. Belarusian жыта налівая); žvirbl’ai kala ‘peck, pick at’ gru·del’ūs Rod. (cf. Belarusian вераб’і клююць зёрашкі); miltai minkštai ‘finely’ sumálta Rod. (cf. Belarusian мука мя́хка сме́лена); mán sópa po šaukštel’ù ‘the hollow of the chest’ Lz., Rod., Ram. (cf. Belarusian мне баліць пад лыжачкай); jai margumà ‘dėmėtumas, kanapėtumas’ in véido Lz., Rod. (cf. Belarusian ёй рабаццё на твары); miegmù daug nór’u Rod. (cf. Belarusian сплю ве́ле хачу), and many others. In our view, these calques are probably easiest to recognize because they depart so greatly from Lithuanian modes of expression. In these dialects, Lithuanian words and expressions conveying a translated Belarusian thought may sometimes be judged not entirely usual in Lithuanian, though still quite Lithuanian. Thus, Belarusian ńicki (но́гі, во́чы, нос), высо́кі (но́гі) is rendered in these Lithuanian dialects not by the correct Lithuanian words trumpas (trumpós kójos, trumpós ‘trumparegės’ ákys) or kum̃pas (kum̃pà nôsis, snãpas), ilgas (ilgós kójos, ilgós ‘toliažiūrės’ ákys), but by calques—žemas (áukštas): žẽmos, áukštos kójos, žẽmos ákys, žẽma nôsis, žẽmas dz’ùbas2. Other words used with non-Lithuanian meanings in these dialects are also unquestionable calques. For example, the verb nugrū́ti is known in Rod., Lz., and Ram. with two meanings that are atypical of Lithuanian: ‘change’, e.g., kap šẽnsta šeškùs, nugrūna (cf. Belarusian спада́я) spalvà, and ‘fall off’, e.g., šãsas kap užgīs, nugrūš (cf. Belarusian адпада́ець). In much the same way, many other parts of speech are used here with foreign meanings, especially the most mobile part of speech, the verb; for example, išaugti ‘grow, produce’, išaugo gerai dúona Lz. (cf. Belarusian вы́рас до́бра хле́б), apstóti ‘beset’, e.g., niežai apstój vaikùs (cf. Belarusian капо́ста апсту́піла), badýti ‘stab’, e.g., k’àulb· bado kaklàn (cf. Belarusian ко́ляць кабана́), prisidairýti ‘look’, e.g., mergìna pryglùdairìb ‘gražì (cf. Belarusian дзеўка прыгляда́цца харо́ша), padengti ‘cover, impregnate’, e.g., kumėlė padenkta (cf. Belarusian кабы́ла пакры́та), uždengti ‘close’, e.g., mokì·klà uždenkta (cf. Belarusian школа закры́та), įsidúoti ‘succeed’, e.g., mán dúona neinsiđau (cf. Belarusian мне хлеб не удаўся), prisidúoti ‘seem frightening’, e.g., tì prizdúoda (cf. Belarusian там ве́льмі страшна – прыдае́цца), prisierdýti ‘fit’, e.g., galvón nepriserdo, kap mušć šėnu (cf. Belarusian мне ў го́лаву не прыходзіцця, каб біцъ ста́рага), nueiti ‘disappear’, 2 Now (DŽ, 952), the use of žemažiūris, -ė is likewise justified only as a Slavic calque (cf. Belarusian ён ні́скі на во́чы, яro ні́скі зро́к). 190 e.g., my health has gone away (cf. Belarusian маё здароўе ўшло), to come apart ‘to separate’, e.g., I’m afraid the wall will come apart (cf. Belarusian расхадзілася сцяна), to press down ‘to press’, e.g., when I press with my finger, it hurts (cf. Belarusian каб прыцісну, баліць), to let in ‘to put in one’s mouth’, e.g., I put a candy in my mouth, that’s fine (cf. Belarusian у рот пускаць цукерку), to pour out ‘to spill’, e.g., my head spilled out—all blisters (cf. Belarusian вылілася галава – адні стрўпы), to fit ‘to suit’, e.g., I eat whatever goes down (cf. Belarusian я ем што мне лезя), to change into ‘to turn into’, e.g., the tadpoles ‘tadpoles’ will turn into frogs (cf. Belarusian паляўнікі пераменяюць на жаб), to abandon ‘to stop, cease’, e.g., we stopped saying the prayers (cf. Belarusian пакідалі пацеры гаварыць), to burp repeatedly ‘to belch’, e.g., the sausage keeps repeating on me (cf. Belarusian мне адбіваецца кілбаса), to hammer on repeatedly ‘to nail down’, e.g., they keep nailing the barn doors (cf. Belarusian дзверы прыбіваюцца), to beat repeatedly ‘to beat down’, e.g., they keep beating the middle of the barn, and the barn’s interior (cf. Belarusian збіваюць сярэдзіну умнаў), to carry ‘to endure’, e.g., I can’t bear those smells (cf. Belarusian не зне́су гэтых пахаў), to puff oneself up ‘to swell up’, e.g., he’s so puffed up (cf. Belarusian ён надзьмуўшысь), to struggle ‘to work hard’, e.g., the birch sleigh runners struggle (cf. Belarusian бярозавыя санкі задираюцца), to come apart ‘to separate’, e.g., the wall is coming apart (cf. Belarusian сцяна разлучаецца), to brace oneself against ‘to lean against’, e.g., the little stake braces itself against the fence (cf. Belarusian калёчек упіраецца), to kick out ‘to become swollen; e.g., the cow’s udder is swollen (cf. Belarusian вымя выперта), to receive ‘to get’, e.g., he’ll get a big pension (cf. Belarusian даста́нець пэнсію), to burn ‘to sting’, e.g., I feel a burning in my side (cf. Belarusian мне паліць у сярэдзіне), to drive away ‘to remove, dispel’, e.g., he knows how to drive away an illness (cf. Belarusian уме́я хваро́бу прагнаць), to roll out ‘to topple over’, e.g., the stake has toppled (cf. Belarusian кол выехаў), to turn ‘to twist’, e.g., the wolf’s neck won’t turn—it’s all one bone (cf. Belarusian шыя воўка не варочаецца), to bring together ‘to make angry’, e.g., he makes us angry (cf. Belarusian ён нас звёў), to go ‘to fare’, e.g., our pigs did not fare well (cf. Belarusian нам не вяльсь свіні), to appear ‘to be born’, e.g., the foal just came out and stood up (cf. Belarusian жарабёк вываліўся і стаў), to cover ‘to be snowed over’, e.g., the roads are snowed in (cf. Belarusian забеены дарогі), and also the adverb cooler ‘more coolly’, e.g., it lies cooler (cf. Belarusian ляжыць прахладней), and so on. However, it has been observed that, to express a desired thought, older speakers of these dialects sometimes still give two alternatives side by side—as before, with a native Lithuanian word in its own meaning and with a calque in a foreign meaning from Belarusian, e.g., the pancake is scorched / burnt (cf. Belarusian блін прыпаліўся), the floorboard sagged / settled onto the beams (cf. Belarusian падло́ра стаўіцца на бэлкі), he has already turned his legs / turned his legs back (cf. Belarusian ён завярнуў ногі), the boards keep catching against one another / knocking together (cf. Belarusian дошка з дошкай спатыкаецца), and so on. In our view, this is a significant fact indicating that the use of calques from Belarusian here is not yet universal. In our view, there are many calques from Belarusian that are of no use to the Lithuanian language as a whole, but are indispensable to these Lithuanian dialects (which have, unfortunately, almost forgotten their own Lithuanian words with the corresponding meanings), e.g., mán gerai gi·vėnasi (= I live well, cf. Belarusian мне добра жывецца), mán širdis mušasi (= beats, cf. Belarusian сэрца б'ецца), mán sveikatà nupūole· (= has declined, cf. Belarusian 191 zdaróye ūpala), mán nezdúoda válgi·c’ (= I cannot eat, cf. Belarusian mne ne ūdáeicė eści), mán tokìs válgrìmas nepraeina (= does not suit, cf. Belarusian не праходзіць такая яда), etc. There are calques in these dialects whose Belarusian (Slavic) origin may seem somewhat doubtful or questionable. Among these, we are inclined to include the nouns drebuliāi and supyklà ‘a quaking place in a bog’, e.g., un drabul’ù bál tos sámānos āugo; un drabul’ù stojos. Rod. – LTT 1994: 59 (cf. Belarusian на траціне белы мох рос; стаў на траціну), l’ùne supi·klà. Aps. (cf. Belarusian у люне траціна), degmatìs ‘heat’, e.g., nog degmacìes vaìko ausèl’e susmorčūjiì (cf. Belarusian з гарачыны вушкі яго зморшчыліся), žilainė ‘a marshy tract’, e.g., tì· tok’à žilainė, niẽkas neáuga. Rod. (cf. Belarusian там такі сівак, нічто не расце), etc. In our view, several features allow these words to be regarded as calques. The semantics of Drebulių provides some grounds for treating this word as a direct Lithuanian counterpart, a copy, of Belarusian траціна, since drebuliāi, like Belarusian траціна, is most closely connected with the meaning of the Belarusian verb траці́, “to move back and forth or up and down” (ТСБМ V 541–542). This view is fully supported by the absence of the word drebuliāi in this sense in LKŽ II₂ 674. On closer examination of its content, the word supyklà likewise seems, in meaning, to be closer to Belarusian траціна than to Lithuanian liūnas, since in fact it has a broader meaning than liūno. Since supyklà denotes an object which, like Belarusian траціна, sways and quivers under the influence of external forces, whereas the movements of the object denoted by liūną differ somewhat—they are gentler and weaker—the liūnas itself wobbles, quakes, and sways; cf. also liumpynė ‘a place that quakes’, liumpėti ‘to bend, sway’ (LKŽ VII 611–612). This, in turn, offers one possible reason to think that supyklà may have given rise to траціна. On the other hand, supyklà should be regarded as a new word in these dialects (the suffix -ykla is generally new to Lithuanian—cf. Skardžius 1943: 601). Moreover, supyklos is not recorded in this sense in LKŽ XIV 195. These features of supyklos certainly do not rule out the possibility of treating it as a calque. The unusual word formation of dėgmatì ‘intense heat’ is probably the main feature that allows it to be classified as a calque. Since Belarusian dialects use two nouns from the same root almost interchangeably with the same meaning, ‘intense heat’—го́рач and гарачыня (see СБГ I 465, 424)—we believe that the direct Lithuanian equivalent of their го́рач may have been degumà, with the same meaning (especially since formations with the suffix -uma are popular here and denote not abstract but concretely manifest objects, e.g., tankumà ‘dense thicket’, tamsumà ‘darkness’, tolumà ‘distance’, etc.—Rod.; cf. also LKK XXX 137). Following the Belarusian model го́рач, this would be understood in Lithuanian here as a suffixless word, while the second suffix, -tis, would have been used to express their гарачыня; like the first suffix, it denotes more concrete objects than the suffix -ynas (cf. LKGr I 290; also compare the word nėkėstis ‘hatred’, which is used here with the same suffix). Thus, the source of degmatìs was most likely the word *degumatìs. In our view, identifying dėgmatì as derived from dėgmečio (dėgmetis), as LKŽ II₂ 367 seems inclined to suggest, is scarcely supported not only by its accentuation but also by its semantics. 192 The description of its color using an example from purely Belarusian dialects probably makes it possible, first of all, to classify žilainė ‘šlynynę’ as a calque; cf. žilainė – this is their cibák. Šlỹnas is in fact bluish gray, while the Lithuanian speakers under study, unlike speakers of many other Lithuanian dialects in Lithuania, call this color žila; cf. also Lithuanian pilka vārna, the isolated Lithuanian dialects’ žila vārna, and Belarusian cibák варо́на. This circumstance supports the view that Belarusian cibák may well be the cause of žilainės. Žilainė, moreover, was hitherto unknown in Lithuanian dialects, and its suffix -ainė, unlike in Lithuanian, is added not to nouns (cf. Skardžius 1943: 286–287), but just as in Belarusian dialects, to adjectives. Thus, the aforementioned features of žilainės probably do not prevent its classification as a calque. Such calques are undoubtedly the most dangerous borrowings for any language, and all the more so for its isolated dialect. Especially when they are numerous and continue to proliferate daily. They probably contribute more than anything to the degeneration or even demise of every native-language system. How can they be recognized when encountered in a language (dialect)? What are their main characteristic features? Where do their defining characteristics and key to identification lie? As can be seen from the many unequivocal calques presented here, used in the isolated Lithuanian dialects in Belarus that we studied, these calques are words that have artificially coalesced from two parts, as the needs of those dialects required: the first is a Lithuanian form concealing, and clothing, a Belarusian content—its meaning characteristic of the Belarusian language. Although these dual-natured words in those dialects are quite real and numerous, at first glance they seem entirely harmless, almost indistinguishable from other Lithuanian words. Yet, by actually concealing within themselves a meaning borrowed from Belarusian and foreign to Lithuanian, they pass themselves off as native, while a destructive charge—the destroyer of the word’s Lithuanian character—emanates, indeed bursts forth, from them. In fact, it performs no cultural role here and does not show what positive things an isolated Lithuanian dialect has learned from Belarusian. It is a true explosive, deeply hidden and filled with foreign influence, a constant source of the dialects’ Belarusianization, concealed beneath the beauty of its outward Lithuanian form. In reality, the powerful and daily intensifying influence of this inner source is so great that, over time, it also spoils its beautiful outer casing, turning it into something worthless, unexpressive, or even meaningless; cf. pamušti ‘užmušti’ (e.g., vagiai jų pamušė, cf. Belarusian набілі), razvírti ‘išvirti’ (e.g., razvírė kopūstai; cf. Belarusian развары́лась капуста), žėmas nosiūkas ‘kumpas snapas’ (e.g., varno žėmas nosiūkas, cf. Belarusian у варо́ны nícki носік), po vienai šaliai ‘vienoje pusėje’ (e.g., tarpupėdžiai šeši – po vienai šaliai trys ir po kitai trys, cf. Belarusian на адной старане), etc. Thus, the unjustifiably inflated meaning of a word disrupts the fidelity of its form and content to its native language; such a word turns into linguistic rubbish. Polluted by it, an isolated dialect, left entirely unmanaged and without Lithuanianizing influences under present conditions, becomes uncultivated ground, drawing ever closer to final disappearance and irreversible overgrowth by Belarusianisms. The foundations for identifying the many unequivocal calques presented here, used in the isolated dialects of Belarus, and the location of their characteristic 193 features, and how to explain them, are already becoming somewhat discernible. These are almost the same criteria for identifying them as those on which we based our identification of Lithuanian calques in Belarusian borderland dialects (see Baltistica 1990: 165). First of all, it is important to discern and reveal what is inherent and native to the meaning of such words, and to sense what has come from outside. To solve this task, one must therefore have an especially good command of one’s native language, assess the relations between the meanings of its words both within the Lithuanian language as a whole and in relation to the Belarusian language and its dialects, bring out differences and similarities in meanings suspected of being Belarusianisms, gain insight into the expressive resources of both languages, be able to compare the corresponding nuances of word meanings, and determine the degree of closeness between those meanings. In other words, one must know very well both the language (in this case, one’s native language) that is being influenced by another (Belarusian) and the foreign language influencing the isolated Lithuanian dialects. Only by comparing the systems of both languages, their different and identical means of expression, can the tendencies and paths by which such calques are formed and arise be brought to light with reasonable success. But, of course, that is not all. Although the data from our research to date seem to offer little further information for characterizing Belarusian calques, we believe that further research will bring out and reveal new and more reliable distinguishing features. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Aps. – Notes by E. Grinaveckienė (author’s archive) from dialectological expeditions to the Lithuanian dialects of Apso (Juodelėnai and Damošiai villages), conducted in 1956, 1974, 1977, 1985, and 1991. Baltistica 1990 – Baltistica 26(2), Vilnius: Mokslas. DŽ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijos leidykla, 1993. LA 1996 – Lithuanian Echo, March 21, 1996, No. 56: 24. LKG I – Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. LKK XXX – Issues in Lithuanian Linguistics 30, Vilnius, 1993. LKŽ II₂ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1969. LKŽ III – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 3, Vilnius: State Publishing House for Political and Scientific Literature, 1956. LKŽ VII – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 7, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. LKŽ XIII – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 13, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1984. LKŽ XIV – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 14, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1986. LTT 1994 – Texts of Lithuanian Dialects, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Lz. – Lazūnų lietuvių šnektos dialektologinių ekspedicijų, vykusių 1958, 1959, 1966, 1972, 1982 metais, E. Grinaveckienės užrašai (autorės archyvas). Ram. – Ramaškonių lietuvių šnektos dialektologinių ekspedicijų, vykusių 1960, 1992 metais, E. Grinaveckienės užrašai (autorės archyvas). Rod. – Notes by E. Grinaveckienė (author’s archive) from dialectological expeditions to the Lithuanian dialects of Rodūnia (the village of Senieji Smilgiai), conducted in 1973 and 1982. СБГ I – Dictionary of Belarusian Dialects of North-Western Belarus and Its Borderland I, Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1979. СБГ II – Dictionary of Belarusian Dialects of North-Western Belarus and Its Borderland 2, Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1980. СБГ IV – Dictionary of Belarusian Dialects of North-Western Belarus and Its Borderland 4, Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1984. S k a r d ž i u s P. 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius: Lietuvos Mokslų Akademija. 194 Institute of the Lithuanian Language. ТСБМ V – Explanatory Dictionary of the Belarusian Language 5, Minsk: Belarusian Soviet Encyclopedia named after Petrus Broŭka, 1983. CALQUES IN THE ISOLATED LITHUANIAN DIALECTS OF THE ETHNIC TERRITORIES ON THE TERRITORY OF BELARUS Summary This article analyzes calques in the isolated Lithuanian dialects of Belarus (in Lazūnai, Rodūnia, Ramaškonys, and Apsas), which arose under the strong influence of Belarusian dialects that had penetrated there nearly a hundred years earlier. It is assumed that these calques consist of two parts—an outer and an inner one. The inner part is its meaning, its content, an essential element of the whole word; the outer part is its form, its appearance. The meanings—the content of these calques—are foreign to Lithuanian, borrowed from corresponding words or idioms in the Belarusian dialects. The form—the exterior—nevertheless characterizes these borrowings as a Lithuanian word or as a Lithuanian idiom. The meaning of the calque is the element that makes not only the word (the idiom) foreign to the Lithuanian language, but ultimately brings about the extinction of the entire dialect. The article explains that calques entered these dialects much later than loanwords. The atmosphere of one-sided bilingualism, which produced these calques and took shape definitively at a late date, fostered the influence of Belarusian on the Lithuanian dialects. 195