Izoliuotų lietuvių šnektų vertiniai etninėse Lietuvos žemėse Baltarusijoje

(1997) PROBLEMS OF LEXICOGRAFY AND LEXICOLOGY IN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE - Elena GRINAVECKIENĖ VALUE OF ISOLATE LITHUANIAN SCHNETTS IN ETHNIC LITHUANIAN TERRITORIES IN BELARUS The isolated Lithuanian schnets of the ethnic Lithuanian territories in Belarus —Lazūnai (Yvios district, Gatdino district), Rėdūnia (Varanavo district, Gaidino district), Ramaškonys (Varanavo district, Gafdino district), Apsas (Vidžių district, Vitebsk district) and others — have been undergoing complex structural changes over the past hundred years, due to the way of life in Belarus, its economy, household, system of productive relations and the policy of the state authorities. The data of our studies of these dialects over the last forty years show that they still have (or have had) relatively well preserved the basic features of their linguistic system and, resisting the influence of the negative forces of the Belarusian dialects, they have preserved even the most archaic natural elements of their expression (especially ancient morphological forms — old localities, relics of athematic verbs, as well as old Lithuanian lexicon, etc.), of which in our other dialects in Lithuania there are only remnants or they have been lost altogether. On the other hand, throughout their contact with Belarusian dialects (especially in their early days), they were a reliable source for many Belarusian dialects, both borrowed and valued from Lithuanian. We will say, that such valuables as naryxi (rarynIki) criaBaronb CBI IV 225 (about the split legs of shepherds) are especially worth of attention, and their undoubted source is Lithuanian roosters (gaidėliai) singing “t.p.” LKŽ III 18, 288; LKK XXX 155; LTT 1994: 63. The fact that this Belarusian saying is in fact a Lithuanianism is well shown by the fact that the noun used here is not nésens ‘cock’, which has become common in Belarusian dialects, but the Russian meryx. Thus, the Belarusian schnekts took over this saying from the Lithuanians even when the word nésens Cia did not even exist, when the assimilation of the Lithuanian schnekts in them was still forming and when the assimilated Lithuanians were only able to translate this Lithuanian saying into Russian. Having lost or losing the constant live connection with the other Lithuanian dialects and our common language, and especially having no Lithuanian schools, having difficulty acquiring Lithuanian press, but being a lively and long-lasting organism in people’s memory, the way of thinking and living of people of the time they continue to express (or expressed) Lithuanian means, but almost every day slowly lose the ability to continue changing according to the laws of development characteristic of the native language, constantly moving away from it. In addition, the Lithuanians of isolated Lithuanian-- speaking communities, who only speak Lithuanian among themselves, are officially and without hesitation subjected to the influence of the Belarusian language and its culture and are forced to react positively and favourably to all this. They gradually become accustomed to this influence, eventually become uncritical, more open, more receptive, even begin to consider as their own the characteristic means of expression of the Belarusian language (especially those that the native language does not have), identify them with their own and relatively easily transfer them into their language, not even feeling that this fundamentally contradicts the spirit and nature of the Lithuanian language, that they are foreign, destructive structures. Thus, the artificial Belarusization of our investigat185 ed speakers, caused at first, becomes in the long run, in the absence of any protective measures to preserve their purity, and therefore, with the weakening and fading of the sense of their own language, a quite natural, ordinary phenomenon of natural assimilation, which does not leave any doubt to the speaker that it is foreign and harmful. Compared to other Lithuanian dialects, they have a lot of lexical and grammatical Slavisms, and their construction and phonetics are closer to Belarusian. As nowhere else in Lithuania, here, for example, in Rod., Ram., Lz., Aps., such Belarusian borrowings are used, especially terms such as a/aščika (cf. br. ramamdiika) ‘naked neck’, aprėnkos (cf. br. arsineki) “kelmučiai, tokie grybai’, asnava (cf. br. acuaBa) ‘craftsmen’, asuskas (cf. br. amrymak < acymak) ‘bread shells, papentukas- ’, atbirankos (cf. br. an6ipasxi) ‘rinktinés’ [clothes], badil’ai (cf. br. 6ansuuie) ‘pastry’, bahinas (cf. br. 6aryn) ‘tails’, ceg/a (cf. br. usrna) ‘brick’, cūg/"ai (cf. br. myrni) ‘Zgslai’, kmara (e.g. br. xmapd) ‘sky’, muséstas (e.g. br. MbmiacTE1) ‘grey’, pilas (e.g. br. mewn) ‘dusty’, plitkas (e.g. br. musitki) ‘1€kstas’, skurotas (e.g. br. ckypar) ‘SikSnosparnis’, zaranicka (e.g. br. 3apaniuka) ‘austine’, Žiža (e.g. br. XbIXKa) ‘streams’, Zuzka (e.g. br. xyiika) ‘gromulys’, etc. or syntax constructions such as: gožka mazasne Ožio; kduka mazasné crows (cf. br. xa3a Ménplia Kasna), rape clears the fields nog Sviriepu: (cf. panc pacubrurgainp INIaJIS an CBIp3MIEI), children snow one by one (cf. br. n3éui Kiuaroub CHEWKI an3iH anHamy), work tamé, that zadarbuic' (cf. br. pa606ra Y TM, mTo6 3apa6ins) and others. These are relatively easy to recognize foreign language contaminants. However, there is also a relatively abundant use of Belarusisms, which at first glance seem to be completely innocent words, sayings, and whose Slavic origin is quite difficult and tricky to prove. In these Lithuanian dialects, instead of the usual Lithuanian sayings short (long) night (day), the example of neighboring Belarusian dialects appears small (large) day (night) Lz., Rod., Aps. (cf. br. Hou néram Manas; 3iMO# BsUIIKAS HOY), e.g., pie Jono paci dzidz'aus- 'a diena, paci mažaus'a nakcis Lz., Rod., instead of cold (small) winter —scipri (small) winter Lz., Rod. (plg. br. 3iMA). Instead of a chicken sitting in a pot; the bird lands in the honey; a wart on the arm has risen; we lived in the same clone; moths settled on the clothes again for the same reason here it is said vista sédzi gūštoj; sédzi medzi; we're sitting on the same couch; the wart sits in the skin; Mal'os sėdės un adziežos Lz., Rod., Ram. (cf. br. xypa csansiup Ha AŽIIAX; y magnéyky nayHEen KYDBI CSUIBĖJI!S MBI CHAJI3IM Ha xYTapBkI; GapėjjayKa csui3Inb Ha Gapamsé; MOm cémi Ha amséxy), instead of puntagalviai (pundžiai) — samtūkai Aps., Ram. (cf. br. naudiūnikxi || anauėniri § Jryxax), instead of knitting — knitting Rod., Ram., Lz. (cf. br. Basauue), instead of stomach (védarukas) does not digest (némala) —vėdarūkas does not digest Lz., Rod. (cf. br. Xanynak He BAIS), in place of apiénka im thin stem —apiénka im thin legs Lz., Rod. (cf. br. anéHpki Ha TOHKaW HOUIKe), instead of dudenai (niūkiaiu, ūtarinau) and suspain'ojau —dudenaū (nidkiad, ūtarinau) and suspanc'- ojau Aps., Rod., Lz. (cf. br. ryrapsuia i criyranacs), instead of it led Jonu —jū pravadzino Jonū Rod., Lz. (cf. br. aré nipasséani 5iKamn), 186 instead of nusnéré hair —released hair Lz., Rod. (cf. br. BBUIS3IIi Bajackl), instead of us Apvogė —us apresrmko Lz., Rod. (see Hac a6a6panri) and others. These are all values from neighboring Belarusian dialects, when the most favourable conditions are created. First of all, they are Belarusian words blindly translated into Lithuanian, artificially giving the corresponding Lithuanian word its Belarusian meaning, which until then was unknown to the Lithuanian language and actually not needed at all. In this way, at first glance, they expand the meaning of some Lithuanian words as a gift. However, the meaning given to the word is imposed on it from the outside, by subtracting it from the corresponding Lithuanian word, which is not in fact the semantic equivalent of the Belarusian word. In this way, a Lithuanian word that does not have its Belarusian equivalent is isolated in these conversations, pushed out of use and eventually forgotten and disappears. And this is very dangerous not only for isolated speakers, but also for the Lithuanian language as a whole. As a result, the vocabulary of these speakers is reduced, their semantics are distorted and broken down, the whole Lithuanian language is severely damaged, it is damaged, denationalized, and one-sided bilingualism occurs. It is clear, let’s say, from such statements. Here instead of mdn in life did not succeed Lz., Rod., Ram., Aps. says man in life did not lead (cf. br. Mxe xeBendca- ). The word was not led here by the artificially given meaning of the Lithuanian word sėkėsi, and sėkėsi itself, having lost its meaning, was isolated. Or the verb pildosi of the sentence man pildosi sapnai is translated here by the verb įsidūti (see LKŽ II, 885), which has no meaning at all in Lithuanian: man insidūoda sapnai (see br. MHe yzarona CHbI), O vietoj buvo garonėka “karštis' and nenumusé daktarai here is used again only būva garončka and neapsodzino daktarai (see br. He ancamsini- ), although the meaning of the verb apsodinti ‘sutramdyti’ is known only to Lithuanian speakers who have contact with Belarusians (see LKŽ III 279) and which is also, without any doubt, a value from Belarusian. In the sentence kur fu in daktarų dasistosi —brangu here instead of the verb patekti the verb mactymicst —dasistosi translated from Belarusian was used for the pamorphism (see also LKŽ XIV 876) and others. Compared with other Belarusisms of these dialects, the values are later, caused by the more intense influence of Belarusian dialects, which appeared in them after the forming and expanding of unilateral Lithuanian-Belarusian bilingualism. Thus, the values of these dialects, formed here in the current of strong assimilation of Lithuanian dialects, are the purest product of the finally formed — late bilingualism. And it is quite difficult to recognize them because, despite their foreign meaning, their appearance is Lithuanian. And it raises certain doubts to suspect them as values. However, such a 187 The sound of the word "Lithuanian" suddenly begins to seem discordant, different from other Lithuanian words, it stings the ear and therefore people begin to look for reasons, what made it so. Many of the values used in the investigated conversations have narrowed the ways and means of expressing the Lithuanian language vocabulary. This is how some picturesque and appropriate Lithuanian adjectives are pushed out of usage. Let us say, for the colours of animals, birds, clothes, plants, objects, the Lithuanians of these dialects no longer have the adjectives widely known to the Lithuanian language and its dialects, such as Šrifmas, -a “white with mixed dark hairs” (about horses), sémas, -a ‘Light, dark or bluish gray’ (about cows), rdibas (about birds), juodmargis (about cows, dogs), Zalmargis (about cows), rainas (about cats), pilkas (about birds, objects), dryZiiotas (about a blanket, potato, beetroot), kanapėtas, rauplétas (about a face), sumolėjęs (about bread) and so on, and instead of them they use for this purpose usually two colours ži/as (when the colour is darker, smoother) and mdrgas (when the colour is lighter, spottier- ), e.g., Zilas(mdrgas) horse, colt, tėlias, calf, dog, cock, cat; grey cow, mare, bitch, hen, cat; gray wolf, clay, crow, hedgehog, heron, deer, woodpecker nest, sparrow; Blue crow, raven, goose, duck (swollen), grey shoes, shirt; gray swallowtail; Zilickas katinas, Zilavota strolia ‘straw’, mottled včidas (burok), mottled paklode, bulve, mottled teal. And this is only because the Belarusians who live in a mixture with them have almost two colors for this purpose. These are their ciBsl and pa6si, e.g., ciBel (pa6Bbi) KOHb (BOI, KHYp, X3pabén, rIŠBeHs, KOT, cabdka), ciBas (pabas) kabwuta (kapOyka, Kypa, CBIHS, KOTKa), CiBBI BOYK (KApILYH, rany6, BOpaH, MOX, xi1eb), ciBa BapOHa (ruticka, IIiHa, TYCh), ciBEIS TYOJII (MANTKI), pabsl TBap (Gypar), pabas maciiika (671562, ruranénauka) and others. Thus, the Lithuanians of these places, having erased their old Lithuanian colours from their memory for ages, have newly acquired only unquestionable values from the Belarusian cist and pa6st — Blue and mottled. To name the black-haired weasel or black-haired cow, beside them, there is still sometimes the preserved old Lithuanian kėršas (keršūlis- ), borrowed from those Lithuanians and even from the Belarusians themselves (cf. their kKsipnura KapOdBa, kspiaBatsl BOJI —CBI II 597). The black-spotted cow and the black-spotted dog are sometimes referred to here with another Belarusian derivative, e.g., black-and-white cow, black-and-white dog (cf. br. sėpma 3 6ėjibiM KapOyka, uOpa-6€nbl cabaka), and Za/marge cow — occasionally with the derivative red-and-- white cow (cf. br. kpacma 3 GėjIbIM kapOyka)- '. In this context, the use of the generalizing br is influenced by the purely Belarusian dialects. Mei score poor s) in place of the displaced from here common Lithuanian verbs mazgoti(- s), plauti(s), triūkti(s- ), skalbti(s- ), e.g., sesuva praūs'a kasas (galvu, rankas, piodu-, ru-būs); first washed the k'atles belly (cf. br. cėHs xYCTbI MEDIA; MBI TOJIaBY, PyKi et al.). Because of the fact that Belarusians who live in these places are mixed with Lithuanians, our'Analogues, but so far no one has yet recognized values from the Slavs, are unnecessarily occurring and now even our bk., e.g., It resembles a speckled brown-white (= Zalmargj) deer... LA 1996. 188 the palm and the forehead are called only one nandus (cf. br. cana Ha mandHp TaŠIIIbIHEI; nanoHb CBApOIIB —rpOnIEI 6yay Jriusiub —CBI II 18), so in those Lithuanian dialects the palm is used only as the value of the Belarusian manéus —délnas, e.g., lašbni'ai per délnu-Rod., Ram., Lz. Since in those Belarusian dialects our heel and heel are represented by the same word nstrxa, so both the heel and the heels are called by the same word ūžkulnis, e.g. sukienka ‘suknelé’ Jig ūžkulnių (cf. br. cykénka Jia nsitki). And, in our eyes, such a sentence in Lithuanian sounds unusual, strange, abnormal, lifeless, and to the representatives of those dialects, who think more in Belarusian, it seems perfectly good, correct, even without realizing that the good Lithuanian words plastaka and kulniukas are thus eradicated forever from the vocabulary of those dialects. The same applies to the identification here of the verb bidžiotis with kramtyti and the adverb tirštai with fankiai. Since those br. in conversations the verbs kandZziotis and kramtytis are expressed only by one of them xycéduua, and the adverbs tirstarir, for example, —vien jy rycra, so the Lithuanians of those dialects, when speaking Lithuanian, where biting and biting would be absolutely necessary, because of their thinking in Belarusian they use only krarūtosi and tankiai, e.g., instead of deeply biting or in the meadow thickly hieno they say only deeply biting, in the meadow densely siéno (cf. br. r'ini Kycaronua; y Jry3e rycra cėra). And such and similar statements again greatly damage the vitality, accuracy, accuracy of words, beauty of Lithuanian sentences — in these cases the snickets clearly lose the verb bičiotis and the adverb tirštai. Their meaning, as well as that of other words, is absorbed by blind evaluators from the Belarusian language. In this way, the Lithuanian language is reduced, impoverished, and its life is threatened. There are in these conversations values from Belarusian, whose each morpheme is completely dependent on the corresponding Belarusian, is the most accurate picture of its content, expressed in Lithuanian (and often even Belarusian) means of making. Among them there are many prepositional verbs whose lexical meaning is purely Belarusian. And to create such a meaning of these verbs with Lithuanian shell, Belarusian language requires a commonly Belarusian or coinciding with Belarusian Lithuanian prefix (there is an opinion that it determines the appearance of the Belarusian meaning in the word, is the most essential sign of the Belarusian value meaning) and various (say, minors, etc., which have arisen due to the influence of Belarusian language), mostly Lithuanian suffixes, e.g., razaugdinėti ‘to sprout’, e.g., būl'bos razaugdzinėja (cf. br. 6ynn6a paspacraens), razvesdinėti ‘to thin’, e.g., tėl'u pienu“ raik'a vūnden'u razvezdzinėc' (cf. br. rp36a Bandit passscui), razsiklodinėti ‘to spread’, e.g., žolė rasiklodzinėja prag žamės (cf. br. Tpaška pacuindiuna na samné), pririšdinėti ‘to raiSioti’, e.g., prairsiždžinėja beržal'ais stogu“ in lotas (cf. br. TmpbIBBS135IBaIOII crpaxY), atmušdinėti ‘to cut apart’, e.g., skl'utū pirmucinés skiedras atmuždžinėja (cf. br. cxmoram wy3nki anbisarons), Spaisindinéti ‘to pay attention to’, e.g., barley iSpaisindzinéja (cf. br. suménnb BeMOCHBaONB) and so on. Such unusual to our eyes (and ears) verbs do not cause suspicion about them 189 attribution values. They are, in our opinion, unquestionable, clear, certain and show that the Belarusian influence from Lithuanian morphology somewhat easier succumbs to prefixes, slower — adverbs, the slowest and slowest — roots or it remains unchanged for some time. There are in these conversations values that, from a Lithuanian point of view, seem barely suitable to describe the desired situation and, due to the strong Belarusian influence, have completely displaced Lithuanian means of expression from their language and taken their place, sometimes creating an ambiguous or completely unclear idea, giving the impression that the Lithuanian speaker who uses them in this way does not really know Lithuanian, for example, varpéle: Ičja ‘brandina’ gru-dukus Rod. (plg. no. xxira Hanisas); "'Sweetheart', 'Sweetheart II', 'Sweetheart III', 'Sweetheart IV', 'Sweetheart V', 'Sweetheart VI'". (cf. br. Bepa6'i xyious 3ėpauui); milti minkšti ‘smulkiai’ surna/ta Rod. (p.g. br. MykKa msixka cMénena); man sopa po saukstel’t “breast hole” Lz., Rod., Ram. (e.g., Mxe 6anius mam nsokaukait), with marguma ‘demétumas, kanapétumas’ in the veda Lz., Rod. (e.g. a pabanué Ha TBApEI); I sleep a lot, Rod. (see br. crumo Bējie xauy) and others In our opinion, these values are perhaps the easiest to recognize because of their great distance from Lithuanian language expressions. Lithuanian words and phrases expressing translated Belarusian ideas in these conversations can sometimes be qualified as not quite usual for Lithuanian, but still quite Lithuanian. For example, Belarusian x/ckf (HOri, BOuBI, HOC), BBICOKI (HOT) are translated in these Lithuanian dialects not by the regular Lithuanian words frurūpas (short legs, short “tramparegės” eyes) or kurūpas (hump nose, beak), ilgas (long legs, long ‘toliaziiirés’ eyes), but by the value words —Zémas (High): žėmos, aukštos kojos, Zémos akys, Zema nosis, žemėas dz'ubas and so on. There are also other words used in the non-Lithuanian meaning of the native speakers. For example, the verb to fall is known in Rod., Lz., Ram. two non-Lithuanian meanings —‘to change’, e.g. kap sénsta ferškūs, nugrūna (cf. br. cnanas) colour and ‘to fall’, e.g. $asas kap uZgis, nugrūs (cf. br. armanédenp). Similarly, many other parts of speech are used here in foreign meanings, and especially the most mobile part of speech - verbs, e.g., i8dugts "to rise", has grown well in Lz. (cf. br. BEtpac n166pa xxe6), obsodi ‘to overwhelm’, e.g., scabies obstoj children (cf. br. KapdcerTa ancrynina), baditi ‘to pierce’, e.g., k'aūlsr bado kaklan (cf. br. xénsus kabaua), prisižiūryti pažiūrėti- ," e.g., girl pro1zdairsic’ grazpr (cf. br. n3éyka npeirsanduua xapodura), padengti ‘to fertilize’, e.g., kuméle: padenkta (cf. br. xabsina nakpsita), uždengti ‘to close’, e.g., moki-kla uZdenkta (cf. br. mkona 3akeipra), įsidūoti ‘to succeed’, e.g., man diona neinsidau (cf. br. MHe xi1e6 He yaaycs), prisidioti ‘to see’, e.g., ti prizditoda (cf. br. ram BėjibMi cTpaurHa —npsmaéuua), prisieidyti tilpti," e.g., galvon nesuseido, kap mūšč' sėnu (cf. br. MHe Y ronaBy He npeIxOn3inua, kab Ginb crapara), nuerts ‘to disappear’,? * Now (DŽ, 952) justified low-mindedness, -ė use also only Slavic value (cf. br. ėH ricki Ha e.g., mano sveikata nuvėj (e.g. br. maé 3mapOye Yumė), razsieiti "to separate", e.g., bijo, kab siena nerasiveitu-(e.g. br. pacxanzinaca BOUBI, ATG HicKi 3poK). 190 cnana), prigniduzti "to press", e.g., kap pifštu "to press", prign'auž- 'u, sopa (e.g. br. xa6 npsnicny, Garin), Jléisti 'to put', e.g., nastrūosa inlaidzi cukičrku- ", tai gerai (e.g. br. y por myckams nykėpry), išsilieti 'to pour', e.g., išsiliejo galva —vienū" šašū (e.g. br. BEDIIInaca rajiaBa —ai crpyusl), sti 'to meet', e.g., kas man landa, aš valgau (e.g. br. s em mITO MHe JIĖ3a), pėrsimainyti 'to turn', e.g., pametém poterus kalbéc' (e.g., man acimuzdzinéja kilbasa (e.g. br. mae anbiaermua xinbacd), primusdinéti 'to throw', e.g., klūono duras prermuzdzinéja (e.g. br. n3épel npsIOIBaromua), sumusdinéti 'to throw', e.g., kldono apacusumuzdzinéja and kulia (cf. br. 36iBarows caps3n3iny ymHa), sunésti ‘to raise’, e.g. negal'ū sunés’c’ to kvapul’o (cf. br. He 3Hecy r3THIX Naxay), prispūti ‘to relax’, e.g. anas toks preisputi (cf. br. én Hapyyumics), Zusplesdyti ‘plusotis- ’, e.g. bérZo raguités Zusplésdo (cf. br. 6apb3asbia cauki 3auziparomiua), razsiskirdinéts ‘to differ’, e.g. c'anai siena rasiskirdzinéja (cf. br. cusana pasmygaenua), jsispirdyti ‘to lean on’, e.g. insispirdo saudiosna kuolalis (cf. br. xanduex ynipaemua), iSspirti ‘pritvinkti; e.g., cow tesmuva ispirtas (e.g. br. Bsima Beiniepra), dastoti‘- to get’, e.g., pasijudzidelsrdastos (e.g. br. gacramems nsmuciw- ), svilinti ‘to yellow’, e.g., man svilina po pus’du (e.g. br. Mae naniue y cap3nsine), pravarinéti ‘to spread, to disperse- ’, e.g., moka kvarabu-- ‘disease’ pravarinéc (e.g. br. ymés xBapd6y NIparHane), isvazidoti ‘to turn’, e.g., kuolas išvažau (e.g. br. kon Briexay), verstis ‘to turn’, e.g., wolf’s neck nésverc- ’a —one bone (e.g. br. mis BOYKa He BapOuaenna), suvesdinėti ‘to angry’, e.g., dnas mus suvezdzinėj (e.g. br. én Hac 3BEY), vestis ‘to follow’, e.g., mim nésvedé k’aules (e.g. Ham He Baxicb CBiHi), ISvirsti‘- to be born’, e.g., kumells cik išvirto ir stojos (e.g. br. x3pabyk BeiBaiycs i cTay), užvyti ‘to put up’, e.g., Zuvita kel'ai (e.g. br. 3aséensr napori), as well as adverbs pravės'- aū ‘to be put up’, e.g., tésta guli pravės'- aū (e.g. br. msxsinm npaxianuéin) and so on. However, it has been observed that the older representatives of those dialects sometimes say two things together to describe the desired idea —as before in a pure Lithuanian word of their own meaning and a foreign meaning value from Belarusian, e.g., bli-na prĖrsvilę“| prėrdegė (cf. br. Guin npeimaniycs), padlage klojas| statos an balk’u-(cf. br. mannéra craBinIua Ha 6371bKi), jau anas žudzirė:/- žūvertė kojas (cf. br. én zaBapuyy HOri), /unta su luntū suspirdzinéja | susciūka (cf. br. nouka 3 nouikai crateikdernia) and so on. This, in our opinion, is a significant fact, which shows that the use of Belarusian valuables is not yet universal here. In our eyes, the Lithuanian language is not needed by anyone, but those Lithuanian speakers are already certainly necessary some of the clearest values from Belarusian (their own words of Lithuanian meaning they have already, unfortunately, almost forgotten) here so much and so much, e.g., man gerai gi'vėnasi (= I live well, cf. br. Mae n66pa xsIBčIma- ), mžn Širdis mūšasi (= musa, cf. br. cdpnua Giėnua), man sveikata nupuūole: (= decreased, cf. br. 191 3uapėje Ynaxa), I don’t feel like eating (= I can’t eat, cf. br. Mne He ynaéuua écui), I don’t feel like eating (= I don’t feel like eating, cf. br. He npaxdOjzinb TaKas sina) and others. There are values in these conversations, whose Belarusian (Slavic) origin may seem somewhat suspicious, doubtful. We tend to include the nouns drebuliai and supykla ‘a lumpy place in a trough’, e.g., un drabulf'ū baltos mosos augo; and drabul’d stood. Rod. —LTT 1994: 59 (cf. br. xa Tpacine GėjisI MOX poc; cTay Ha Tpaciny), /'iūne supi-kla. Aps. (cf. br. y mouse rTpacika- ), degmatis ‘heat’, e.g., nog degmaciės vaiko auséle-s susmorcerji-(cf. br. 3 rapaudIHEI BYIIKi sTO 3MOpurasINnica), Žilainė ‘Slynyné- ’, e.g., ti: tok’a žilainė, niėkas neauga. Rod. (cf. Tam Taxi ciBaK, HiuTO He pacué) and others. In our opinion, several of their characteristics allow us to consider them as values. The semantics of aspen gives a certain right to consider this word a literal br. rpacixa equivalent, its copy, because the tremors, like br. Tpacixa is most closely related to br. The verb Tpaciu meaning “pyxarrb Tyas! i Ha3al a60 YBepx i His” (TCBM V 541-542). This is not the case with the 674 and 676. The word supyklė, looking more closely at its content, it would still seem that it is also closer in its meaning to br. It's different than when it's raining. liūnas, because it is actually wider than the meaning of /rūnas. As a result, the object that is defined by the objective, e.g. TpaciHa, rotates, vibrates under the action of external forces, And the movements of the object denoting the liūnas are somewhat different —they are somewhat softer, weaker — the liūnas itself lIiula, liumpsi, tilti, also plg., liumpyné “place where liumpsi', /iumpėti bent, linkėti' (LKŽ VII 611-612). And this would be one of the possibilities to think that the stirring could have been born by rpacixa. On the other hand, supykla is to be considered a new word of these speakers (the suffix -ykla, in general, is new to Lithuanians — cf. Skardžius 1943: 601). This is not the case for the 1959 1000cc series. These signs of anger, of course, do not exclude the possibility of considering it a value. To attribute to the values dčgmatį "great heat" first of all probably allows quite unusual word formation. Since in Belarusian colloquial languages two nouns of the same root, rėpau and rapausrusi, are used almost side by side with the same meaning of “great heat” (see CBI’ I 465, 424), we are of the opinion that their direct Lithuanian equivalent répau could be deguma of the same meaning (especially when derivatives with the suffix -uma are popular here and denote not abstract but concrete objectively manifested objects, e.g., tankuma ‘tankyné’, tamsuma ‘dark’, toluma ‘far away’, etc. —see, cf. also LKK XXX 137), which in the Belarusian ropau example is perceived here in Lithuanian as a non-verbal word, and to denote their rapausrust the second suffix -tirs will have been used, denoting (as well as the first) also more concrete objects with the prefix -ynas (see LKGr I290; also cf. the word nékestis ‘hatred’ used here for the same prefix). In this way, the source of degumatis will most likely have been the word * degumatis. In our opinion, not only its pronunciation, but also its semantics do not allow us to consider that the word „degmatė” derives from „dégmecio” (degmetus- ), as LKŽ II, 367 tends to suggest. 192 To assign the values Zi/aing “šlynynę- ', first of all, probably allows the determination of its color on the example of purely Belarusian šneki, cf. Zilaine is their cisar. Slynas is actually blue-gray, and the Lithuanians studying this color, unlike many other Lithuanian spoken languages in Lithuania, call it 27/2, also cf. Lithuanian gray crow, isolated Lithuanian spoken languages Zi/a varna and br. I'm sorry, Dad. This fact supports the assumption that Br. ciBax may be a very possible cause of the fault. Zilainé, moreover, has not been familiar to Lithuanian speakers until now, 0 its suffix -ainė unlike in Lithuanian is not added to nouns (see Skardžius 1943: 286—287), but, just like in Belarusian dialects, to adjectives. Thus, the mentioned geographical features probably do not prevent it from being assigned to values. Such values are undoubtedly the most dangerous debts to any language, and even more so to its isolated speakers. Especially when they are abundant and every day more and more. They perhaps contribute most to the degeneration or even death of every native language system. How is it possible to recognize them when encountering them in speech? What are their main characteristics? Where lies the key to their characterization and identification? As can be seen from the abundance of such unquestionable verbs used in our studied isolated Lithuanian dialects in Belarus — those verbs — the necessity of those dialects is in fact artificially glued words of two parts, the first of which —Lithuanian form, under which the Belarusian content is hidden, in which it is inserted —its Belarusian meaning. Such ambiguous words in these conversations, being truly real and abundant, at first glance seem completely innocent, even almost exactly like other words of the Lithuanian language, but, actually hiding in themselves a meaning that is not in the Lithuanian language, borrowed from words of the Belarusian language, they become their own, from which a disastrous charge, the destroyer of the Lithuanianness of the word, emerges, even pushes to the surface. In fact, it does not play any cultural role here, it does not show what positive isolated Lithuanian schnekts have learned from Belarusians. It is a real explosive filled with foreign influence, a constant source of whispering Belarusianism, hidden by the superficial Lithuanian beauty of its form. In fact, the strong and increasing influence of this inner source is so powerful that even the superficially beautiful shell of itself is gradually degraded, made worthless, unsightly or even worthless, e.g. pamusti 'to kill' (e.g., thieves beat them, cf. br. ma6ini), razvirti 'to boil' (e.g., razviré cabbage, cf. br. passapsuiach Kamycra), Zémas nositikas 'hump beak' (e.g., vafno Zémas nosiūkas, cf. br. y BapOHBI HICKi HOCIK), po vienai šaliai viename puséje' (e.g., tarpupédzZiai Sesi—po vienai šaliai trys ir po kitai trys, cf. br. ma agué# crapané) and so on. Such unreasonably inflated meaning of a word undermines the fidelity of its form and content to its native language, such a word becomes a language garbage, and contaminated with them isolated speech, being under present conditions completely untreated and unlithuanised, becomes an uncultivated soil, each time ever closer to the final extinction, to the irreversible resurgence of Belarusisms. Which of the abundant values presented here, used in isolated Belarusian dialects, are the foundations of recognition, where lies their characteristic 193