LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVI (1996)

LIETUVIŲ KALBA: TYRĖJAI IR TYRIMAI

Audronė KAUKIENĖ

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PRUSSIAN ī(i̯ā) STEM NOUNS AND OTHER STEMS

1. Prussian has preserved the ī/ī̯ā stem of nouns better than the other Baltic languages, continuing an ancient Indo-European declension type, e.g., Skt. devī, devyas ‘goddess’, Goth. bandi, bandjos ‘bond, fetter’, Lith. patī, pačios, Latv. patī, pašas. It is true that Prussian ī/ī̯ā-stem nouns are not always easy to distinguish from words with other soft stem-final consonants (inconsistencies in spelling, dialectal variation, stem mixing, etc.). Prussian ī/ī̯ā-, ē- and i-stem words are most clearly identifiable in the Elbing Vocabulary by the singular or plural nominative endings: asy, culczi, crausy, crausios (ī/ī̯ā); saule, wosee, raples (ē); antis, plienis ‘flint’ (i). The catechisms contain forms from various cases, but identifying the stem is more difficult because of greater stem mixing and the convergence of soft stem-final consonants. So far, relatively little attention has been paid to these issues in linguistic literature; the semantic and morphological features of words with this stem-final type have not been established, and the criteria for distinguishing ī/ī̯ā stems from other stems (especially ē) have not been discussed. There are occasional remarks in analyses of particular examples in various etymological studies, from which it is evident that their authors hold differing views.

The nature of the material in the Elbing Vocabulary and the catechisms, and the range of questions under discussion, differ so greatly that they must be reviewed separately. The conclusions drawn from the analysis of nouns in the Elbing Vocabulary can later be applied to the study of the much more varied examples from the catechisms, which also raise many more uncertainties.

2. Nouns in the Elbing Vocabulary are analyzed in the following order: first, all possible examples are recorded; then their origin, structure and formation, as well as their semantic features, are discussed.

2.1. Thirty nouns of the type under analysis were found in the Elbing Vocabulary. Most are recorded in the singular nominative; plural nominative examples are less common.

2.1.1. Not all authors interpret the singular nominative ending -y or -i in the same way. V. Mažiulis, in both PKP II and PKEŽ, recommends reading -ī (these reading variants are indicated in square brackets below in the list), consistently identifying an ī/ī̯ā stem. J. Endzelīns, however, in the lexical section of “Senprūšu valoda” (DI IV −2), saw here a short -i (reading variants are indicated in parentheses), interpreting it morphologically in various ways (an ē stem, the dual of an i stem, etc.). Nevertheless, the Elbing

87

Vocabulary material makes it possible to distinguish stem endings very clearly; at least the singular nominative of the ī/ī̄a stem should leave no room for doubt. Twenty-five such examples were found:

1) asy [azī], (azi) ‘goat’,

2) bleusky [bl’auskī] ‘reed’,

3) dusi [dusī], (dūsi) ‘soul’,

4) garkity [garkītī] ‘mustard’,

5) kekti [kekstī] ‘braid’,

6) kiosi [k’asī] ‘cup’,

7) cosy [kāsī] ‘windpipe (respiratory passage)’,

8) craysi [kraisī] ‘straw’,

9) crausy [krausī] ”pear (tree)”,

10) culczi [kulsī] ”thigh”, (<*kulše),

11) louki [lunki (lākī?)] ”path”,

12) ludini [l’ūdini] ”mistress”,

13) mary [marī] ”lagoon”,

14) nozy [nāsī] (nōsi; dual nom.?) ”nose”,

15) noseproly [nasiprahī] ”nose cloth”,

16) pelki [pelkī] ”marsh”,

17) plauti [plautī] ”lungs”,

18) posty [pāstī] ”pasturing”,

19) soanti [spankstī] ”bucketful”,

20) stabni [stabnī] (<*stabine, tā Trautmanis Apr. Spr. 435) ”stove”,

21) staydy [skaidī] ”hay”,

22) wolti [valtī] ”ear of grain”,

23) wubri [bruvī] ”eyelash, eyebrow”,

24) sansi [zansī], (zansi) ”goose”,

25) sari [zarī], (zari) “embers”.

2.1.2. As we have already seen from the examples (see 1.), the Elbing Vocabulary contains nominative forms of all stem types in both the singular and the p l u r a l, but not a single genuine īa-stem example. Were there words of this type in Prussian, such as Lithuanian giria, Latvian dzira? The data show that stem-final *-a occurs after į only in intervocalic position: slayo “slopes”, sloyo “foliage”, crauyo “blood” (from *kraujā; cf. also nom. sg. krawia III, krēwiew II, acc. kraugen I, krawian III); with the suffix -ij-ā, claywio [klaivija] “meat (bacon)”, tarbio [karbija] “basket”. The only exception with stem-final -ij-ā after a consonant would be a remodeling of West Slavic syrištė — satristio “whey”, if it is indeed to be read [sutrist’ā] (thus PKP II 273), and not [sutristija].

2.1.3. The Vocabulary contains 5 p l u r a l nouns ending in -ios or -yos (from *-jās): brunyos [brunās] “armor”, dragios [dragās] “yeast”, knupios [k(a)napjās] “hemp”, crausios [kraus’ās] “pears”, and

1 The form bruwi is clearly beyond doubt etymologically, but this reading (see PKP II 261) is not necessary: this could be not a writing error, but a linguistic phenomenon—metathesis (cf. Endzelīns DI IV—2 341).

88

lisytyos [līsītās (līz-?)] “enclosure for shoeing horses”. Since the singular nominative in *-jā is not characteristic of the dialect of the Elbing Vocabulary, all these words should be regarded as ē/ijā-stems. This is also confirmed by comparing crausy (tree) and crausios (fruit). They apparently form a single paradigm, like Lithuanian kriaušė: kriaušės. For precisely this reason, crausios should be read not as [krausijās] (thus PKP II 281), but as [krausās]; cf. Būga I 478, Mažiulis PKEŽ II 266–268.

2.2. The o r i g i n of the ē/ijā-stem nouns under consideration is quite varied: there are inherited words, neologisms, and borrowings.

The oldest ones have cognates with various stems in many related languages—these are nozy “nose”, mary “sea”, sansy “goose”, wubri “eyelash”. Baltic and Slavic languages have cognates for plauti “lungs” and woltī “ear of grain”; Baltic alone has cognates for asy “field boundary” (relatives in more distant languages should not be considered cognates owing to structural or semantic differences), culczi “hip”, pelky “marsh”, and sari “embers”; Slavic alone has cognates for dragios “yeast” and kiosi “cup”. Many of the words under analysis are Prussian n e o l o g i s m s (indicating that this type was quite productive): bleusky “reed”, kexti “braid”, caysi “straw”, louki “path”, posty “grazing”, soanxti “spark”, stabni “oven”, staidy “ham”. The derivative noseproly “nostril”, and the derivatives ludini “mistress”, lisytyos “enclosure”, and cosy “sickle” should also be considered neologisms (the common origin of the latter word and Lithuanian kosere is beyond doubt; see Mažiulis PKEŽ II 247, but structural differences preclude regarding them as cognates). Undoubted b o r r o w i n g s are the Slavicisms dusi “soul” and garkity “mustard”, and the Germanism (possibly transmitted through Slavic) brunyos “armor”. Very old borrowings of uncertain origin are knapios “hemp” and crausy “pear”: crausios “pears”. Some of these words passed from Prussian (or other West Baltic languages) into East Baltic languages or their dialects, e.g., dragios → Prussian Lithuanian drāges, crausy → Lithuanian kr(i)aušė.

2.3. The ē/ijā-stem nouns in the Elbing Vocabulary have certain structural and derivational features. Identifying these may make it easier to distinguish examples of this type from words belonging to other stems, especially when examining the catechism material.

Many of the words under consideration are root nouns or have primary suffixes, but there are also polysyllabic words with clear secondary suffixes, including compounds (besides noseproly “nostril”, it is also worth recalling here a very old compound with cognates in related languages, but attested only in the Third Catechism—waispat̄tn “lordship”). No prefixed words have been recorded; apparently prefixal derivation was more characteristic of ē-stems, e.g., ponasse “area beneath the nose”, podūcre “stepdaughter”, or derivatives from prefixed verbs: abstocle “lid”, auklextes “chips”, sawayte “week”, etc.

2.3.1. Many r o o t nouns are deverbal. Undoubted deverbal formations are dragios “yeast” (from Baltic-Slavic *dreg- “to tremble / shake, to scatter / fall”, see Mažiulis PKEŽ I 217), kiosi “cup” (from Baltic-Slavic *kēs- “to cut, hew”, see Mažiulis PKEŽ II 189–191), cosy “sickle” (: Lithuanian kósėti, Latvian kāsēt, Sanskrit kāsate, etc.; Endzelīns DI IV–2 243),

89

sari “embers” (: to glow Endzelīns DI IV—2 298). There are fewer diminutives. The noun crais “hay” is derivationally related to craysi “stem, stalk” (see Mažiulis PKEŽ II 253), and the adjective *pelk- “grey” to pelky “marsh” (Mažiulis PKEŽ II 290, footnote 140). V. Mažiulis tends to regard many nouns of the type under analysis as substantivized adjectives—not only pelky, but also the denominal crayši and the deverbal bleusky “reed” (from *bleusk- “to swish, thin, soften”; see PKEŽ I 147—148). These are no longer questions of the derivation or etymology of individual words, but rather concern the history of the entire ī/ iā-stem type (for more detail, see 5.).

2.3.2. Suffixed nouns have certain structural and derivational features that group them into particular structural-semantic sets.

First, deverbal nouns with the suffix -tā should be mentioned: kešti “braid” (from *kes- “to tear, comb”), plauti “lungs” (from *pleu- “to flow”), posty “herding” (from West Baltic-Slavic *pās- “to herd, protect”), soanxti [spankstį] “spark” (: Lithuanian spingėti, ap-spangęs, Latvian spuogāt “to shine”). Structurally similar to these, but formed differently, is wolti “ear of grain”. The suffix -tā is reminiscent of the secondary suffix -īt-ā, with which the deverbal lisytyos “enclosure for shoeing horses” was formed (from *lis- “to (make) narrow”, see Mažiulis PKP II 257); structurally very similar to this is the loanword garkity “mustard” (from Polish gorczyca).

Another group of words has the suffix -(i)n-ī: these are the denominals stabni “stove” (: stabis “stone”) and ludini “mistress of the house” (formed from the loanword ludis “master of the house”).

The deverbal culczi “thigh” was formed with the suffix -s-ē (from *kulk- “to bend”); in V. Mažiulis’s view, it is a substantivized adjective, feminine Baltic *kulksī “bent”; see PKEŽ II 297—299.

Words with ē- or ī-stems may also have some similar suffixes whose derivation and meaning are not entirely identical. Therefore, alongside the structural criterion, the semantic criterion is also very important.

2.4. The meanings of the words under analysis are quite varied, but certain semantic sets can be discerned:

a) names of body parts—kešti “braid”, kosy “scalp”, culczi “thigh”, nozy “nose”, noseproly “nostril”, plauti “lungs”, wubri “eyelash”; III āustin “muzzle, jaws” (the nominative is unfortunately unknown) would fit well among these examples, as perhaps would some other nouns from the catechisms;

b) inanimate natural features—asy “field boundary”, louki “path”, mary “lagoon”, pelky “marsh” (III žūrin “sea” would also fit well here; see further 4.1 and 4.3), soanxti “spark”, sari “embers”;

c) plants and their parts—bleusky “reed”, garkity “mustard”, craysi “stalk”, knapios “hemp”, wolti “ear of grain”;

d) human activity and its products—kiosi “goblet”, posty “herding”, stabni “stove”, staydy “hay”, dragios “yeast”, lisytyos “enclosure for shoeing horses”, the loanword brunyes “armor”;

e) names of female persons and agents—beside E ludini “mistress of the

90

Among the forms cited under “nominative,” the old ī/īā-stem nouns preserved in the catechisms are worth mentioning: acc. mārtin “bride,” waispatin “lady,” probably also schlušnikin “servant girl,” nom. trintawinni “avenger” (with the suffix -in-, cf. 2.3.2.).

On the other hand, names of trees (except crausy “pear”) and birds (except sansy “goose”) are not characteristic of this type — these words are usually ē-stems, e.g., addle “fir,” berse “birch,” lipe “linden,” laxde “hazel,” wobalne “apple tree,” etc., gerwe “crane,” sarke “magpie,” warne “crow,” etc.

2.4.1. Like nouns of other feminine stems, ī/īā-stem collective nouns can be pluralia tantum (brunyos “armor,” dragios “yeast,” lisityos “enclosure for shoeing horses”), but they can also be singular — bleusky “reed (reeds),” craysi “straw (straws),” mary “sea,” plauti “lungs,” sari “embers,” and so on.

3. It is considerably more difficult to identify forms with soft stem endings in the dialect of the Catechisms. The singular or plural nominative would be best suited to this purpose, since in these forms, despite vowel changes, the presence or absence of final -s makes it possible to distinguish some stems. Unfortunately, there are no reliable plural nominative forms, while in the singular nominative the ending -i may continue both historical *-ī and *-ē. Thus, the problem of distinguishing ī(īā)-stem words from ē-stem words immediately arises, along with the problem of the historical relationship between these stems. Historical stem relationships will be discussed below (see 4.). The material recorded in the catechisms shows convergence among all soft stem endings and the merger of the endings in many cases: gen. sg. -is, dat. -i, acc. -in / -ien, gen. pl. -in, dat. -imans, acc. -ins / -iens. We must seek every possible means of determining the declension type of a given word. The following criteria may be proposed:

a) Etymological comparison, which makes it possible to classify as ī/īā-stems words of this type that are Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Baltic, e.g., *patī, *veīs-patī, or *martī.

b) The material in the Elbing Vocabulary: shared words, structural, derivational, or semantic similarity. Admittedly, the Prussian dialects that have come down to us cannot be equated — they differ in both time and distance — but, all the same, they are dialects of one language. Moreover, no particularly clear traces of stem mixing have been observed in the dialect of the Elbing Vocabulary, so its material is entirely suitable as a basis for investigating the history of Prussian declension types.

c) Internal structural analysis of the language of the catechisms. The catechisms contain forms of various cases and parts of speech, which must be discussed separately.

3.1. Nouns

It is clearly very difficult to determine the exact number of examples of the type under consideration. Here, an attempt will be made to discuss all possible, more or less reliable cases, reviewing the available case forms in turn.

3.1.1. The singular nominative ending -i or -y, as already mentioned (3.), can be interpreted as either *-ī or *-ē. A pattern can be observed in the linguistic literature: in many doubtful cases, first

91

There is a tendency to reconstruct ē-stem forms. Apparently, the better-known East Baltic languages, which have a strong ē-stem, exert a powerful influence here. This psychological suggestion leads scholars to treat as ē-stems not only those examples from the catechisms that have counterparts of this type in the Elbing Vocabulary (e.g., kurpi III and kurpe E, korpe GrG “shoe, footwear”), but also all those words that have no counterparts at all, and sometimes even those whose counterparts in the Elbing Vocabulary are of the ī/īā-stem type (e.g., V. Mažiulis, while reconstructing dusì E as *dūsī, wonders whether III Catechism *dūsì might derive from *dūsē; see PKEŽ I 241).

It is quite obvious that ē- and ī/īāstems first converged in unstressed position, since the stressed nominative ending remains unshortened in all the cases available, e.g., semmē III (same E) “earth,” giwei III [give-i] “life” (for the participle aulausē, see 3.5.). If the two stems did not fully coincide, it would be more reasonable to argue for the existence of an ē-stem rather than an ī/īā-stem in the dialect of the catechisms, since we have only the pair of examples mentioned above to attest the former (this stem is quite robust in the Elbing Vocabulary!).

Apart from the aforementioned kurpi and such words of historical consonant stems as brati “brother,” duckti “daughter,” mūti “mother,” whose -i must certainly derive from *-ē (cf. E brote and mothe), the catechisms also contain several nouns with the nominative ending -i (all examples are from III Catechism): kaāubrī² “thistle,” kirkī² “church,” perōni “community,” rīki ar rycky “lordship,” strigli² “thistle (thistles?),” supūni “lady,” teisi “honour,” and trintawinni “avenger (fem.).” V. Mažiulis derives the endings -i in all these examples from unstressed *-i<-* -ē; see respectively PKP II 204, 260, 325, 321, 304, 269, 279, treating them historically as ē-stems (cf. also PKEŽ II 60, 193). However, these words are quite diverse, and can therefore be interpreted in various ways.

It is quite plausible that the noun kirkī was an ē-stem, a loanword from German Kirche “church”; perōni should probably also be considered an ē-stem; cf. the similarly structured and derived medione “hunt” E (see also 3.1.4.).

The feminine personal nouns trintawinni and supūni (a loanword from Polish *žu-pani) should be viewed quite differently. Both their structure and semantics indicate that they should be treated as ī/īā-stems (cf. 2.3.2 and 2.4). The form *schlūsniki would also fit well here (the form schlūsnikaī in III Catechism probably arose under the influence of the preceding demonstrative štai:... štai ast Deiwās schlūsnikaī / aina Trintawinni prei sūndin; J. Endzelīns seems to have conjectured this as well; see DI IV–2 301), acc. schlūsnikaṇ (see below, 3.1.4), “maidservant”: masc. *schlūsnik(a)s, acc. schlūsnikaṇ, nom. pl. schlūsnikaī “servant.”

The forms kaāubrī [kāubri] “thistle” and strigli “thistle” can be interpreted in two ways. Semantically, they are close to the plant names with ī/īā-stems in the Elbing Vocabulary (see 2.4.-c). Like most words of this structural type, both kaāubrī (from *kaub- “bend,” see Mažiulis PKEŽ II 60) and strigli (: Lithuanian strigti, Latvian

² The forms kaāubrī and strigli are used in an accusative context (...kaāubrī bhe strigli turei tans tebbei pijst), while kirkī is used in a genitive context (...steisei kirkī swaise marten); structurally, however, they should be considered nominatives; see Mažiulis PKP II 204, PKEŽ II 60, 193 (Trautmann Apr. Spr. 358, however, emends kirkī to kirkis).

92

strigt, see Endzelīns DI IV–2 317) are deverbal formations. However, none of the examples in the vocabulary (except noseproly “nosebag,” with a second element of unclear origin) not only lacks the suffixes r-ī and l-ī, but does not even end in these sequences. Meanwhile, ē-stem nouns with the suffixes -r-ē and -l-ē are quite numerous: paustre “wasteland,” adle “fir,” raples “tongs,” dumsle “pine,” stacle “support,” and so on.

3.1.2. There is not a single completely reliable example of the genitive. The form teisīs III (laikutei dwzgubbus t e i s ī s werts) “of honour” could be not only an ē-stem (: Lithuanian tėisė), but also an ī/īā-stem (its structure and semantics recall *dūsī; see also 3.1.4 and 3.1).

In those Indo-European languages that have preserved the declension type in question, the genitive ending is generally *-i̯ās (i.e., i̯ā-stem), cf. Sanskrit devyās, Gothic bandjos, Lithuanian marčios. The dialect of the Elbing Vocabulary may also have had such an ending: alongside nom. garkity “mustard,” Mažiulis reconstructs gen. sg. *garkīt’ās (PKĖŽ I 328). However, it is unlikely that the dialect of the catechisms could have preserved such an ending, since it generalized the ending -is for all soft stem-final consonants, e.g.: gj̄wis “of life,” kirkis “of the church,” Wosis-pile “Goat’s Castle,” Sawlis-kresil “sun’s seat” (ē-stem); powaisennis “of conscience,” naseilis I, noseilis III [nōselis] “of spirit” (i̯ā-stem); etnistislaims III “rich in grace” (i- or ī/īā-stem)³. Analyzing the genitive ending is difficult because forms of this case are rare: very often, instead of the expected genitive, the catechisms have an accusative form, e.g., …esse wissawidiskan wargan / Kermenes bhe D ā ū s i n / Labbas bhe T e i s i n išraikilai III 577–8.

3.1.3. No dative forms are attested in the catechisms.

3.1.4. Accusative forms are more numerous than those of the other cases. The oldest words of this type have the ending -in: mārtin III, Waispattin III. This ending recalls Sanskrit -īm and differs from the i̯ā-stem ending in other languages (e.g., Lithuanian marčią). It is true that alongside the form mārtin III, the catechism also has mārtan (in a genitive position): steisei kirki swaise m ā r t a n. If this is not a typographical error, it may represent some new morphological phenomenon; cf. the similarly variable forms madlan III and madlin III (twice), “prayer”; for the pronoun tirtan “third” (fem.), see also below (3.4.4.).

The loanword *dūsī (dusi E) has three accusative forms—all with the ending -in: dūsin, dausin and dousin III.

Perhaps the ī/īā-stem differed from other nouns with a soft stem-final consonant in having the ending -in, rather than -ien (-ian or -en), in the accusative. Nouns of other stems generally show varying endings, e.g., semmin I / semmien, semien (9x) II, III “earth,” nacktin I / nacktien III “night,” etwerpsennin III / etwerpsennien III, etwerpsennian II “forgiveness.” Therefore, nouns with an accusative ending in -(i)en should apparently not be considered ī/īā-stems: perōnien III / perōnin III “community” and kirken II / kirkīn

³ Some i-stem nouns have different endings. These are very rare cases: tawuschies II, tawischas III [tavišas] (alongside tawischis I) “relative,” nierties III “kidney,” and rikijas III “lord.”

93

I, kirkin III “church” (the nominative of this word ends in -i; see 3.1.1.), or arien “crops” (V. Mažiulis sees here a substantivized adjective *ari; see PKEŽ I 93). Of course, if such a form is not attested, isolated examples with the ending -in are not yet sufficient to draw any conclusions about the stem (e.g., austin “mouth”, pramadin “intercession” III), unless other structural or semantic criteria arise (e.g., schlūšnikin “maidservant”; see 3.1.1.). The more examples with the ending -in are recorded, the greater the likelihood that the word is an ē/ā-stem. Such words could include riki “lordship” (a loanword from Gothic reiki) and teisi “honor” (the nominatives of both end in -i; see 3.1.1.): rīkin III (4x) and teisin III (4x), teischin III.

3.1.5. No plural nominative forms have been found in the catechisms.

3.1.6. The form dusin III is used in the plural genitive position:...beggi tennei budē kirschia jouson D u = s ī n. The plural genitive ending -in is characteristic of all nouns with a soft stem-final consonant. It is true that the preposition kirsa “above” is usually used with the accusative, but in that case the expected ending would be -ins (see 3.1.8.).

3.1.7. No plural dative forms have been recorded. It is true, however, that the form waispattin III is recorded in the dative position: Steimans Butta Rikijans bhe Bntas W a i s p a t t i n. Judging by Rikijans, this should be an accusative form.

3.1.8. We have two accusative forms, both used in the position of an indirect object—dusin (see 3.1.6.) and waispattin (see 3.1.7.). The ending -in instead of the expected -ins, if it is not a scribal error, could be an indication of an ē/ā-stem.

3.2. Adjectives

Most adjectives found in the catechisms have a hard stem-final consonant—the paradigm -(a)s, -a, -an. There are somewhat fewer adjectives with a soft stem-final consonant, but they are quite varied. Some feminine forms may be considered ē/ā-stems. The first example to mention here is gillin III: Stwi dai Deiws aīnan g i l l i n maīgun krūt nostan smunentinan (maīgun, judging by its form, is fem. acc. sg.; the nom. sg. should be *maigā > *maigū). V. Mažiulis, reconstructing fem. nom. sg. *gilī, also gives masc. *gilus = Lith. gilus, Latv. dzils (PKEŽ I 363). The reconstruction of a masculine u-stem form apparently relies first and foremost on etymological parallels and the antiquity of the paradigm -us, -i, -u. No such paradigm is attested anywhere in Prussian itself. Lithuanian u-stem adjectives often correspond to a-stems, e.g., kārtai “bitter”, rāms “upright”: ramūs, sparts “strong”: spartus. All the adjectives found in the catechisms that may be regarded as u-stems have the ending -us after the consonant g: augus “greedy”, preitlangus “light”, acc. pollīgun “with the even one”, polīgon “similar”, neut. (adv.) polīgu “similarly”. It is true that the adjectives *leng-u-/lang-u “light” and *lig-u “even” have etymological parallels that are u-stems in related languages, but in Prussian both are prefixed derivatives. None of these examples has feminine-

94

gender forms that could confirm that they really are u-stems, and that the u ending is not a vocalic release that arose when the ending was shortened after a velar consonant (cf. asmus “ash” after the labial m). Furthermore, in Prussian feminine ē/ī ā-stem adjectives may occur alongside masculine forms belonging to other stems (a-, o-, and especially i/ī ā-stems).

The first example to mention is postippin “dissolved” (fem.):...kādi tans stan postippin Chrītjāniskan / nosemmien preiwackē, senrīnka (“the dissolved Christianity”). As the adverb postippan “entirely” shows, the masculine form should be an a-stem.

We can speak with complete confidence of the paradigm -is, -ī, -i(n). There is no evidence, at least in the catechisms, for ē-stem feminine adjectives in Prussian (cf. Lith. didelis, didelė, medinis, medinė, etc.). Adjectives of this type with a soft stem-final consonant include aruvīs “true”, the compounds wyssen mukis II, acc. wissemokin II, wissemukūn III “almighty”, ackewīstin III “obvious” (masc./fem.), perhaps also gailis “white” in the Elbing vocabulary (Mažiulis reconstructs *gailas in PKEŽ I), callestis [kaltiskā PKP II 286] “lamb’s-wool” in the compound callestis klokis, and mynsis “closed”—they are given not in the usual neuter form ending in -an. Adverbs derived from such adjectives (=adverbially used neuter forms) usually end in -i, e.g., arwī “truly”, perarwī “in truth”, isarwī “faithfully”, akiwījstin “obviously”, and perhaps emperri “generally”.

3.2.1. Particularly many examples of this type have the productive adjectival suffix -ing-. Alongside masculine nom. sg. forms ending in -ing-(i)s, there are feminine forms -ingi (*-ing-ī) and neuter forms -ingi, -ingin⁴. The shortened (unstressed) feminine nominative ending is no longer graphically distinct from the neuter form. Moreover, adverbs of a similar form often occur in the catechisms where adjectives would be expected, e.g., issprettengi “understandably”, musīngin “possible”, or glandewingei “consolingly”. We cannot always say precisely which form we have in a given instance. We therefore list here all more or less reliable feminine examples: nom. sg. ainaseilngi III “solitary” or “solitarily” (Kawīda aina ticra widdewū bhe a i n a s e i l i n g i ast), acc. sg. a u s c h a u d i w i n g i n Aucktairikijskan “trustworthy authority” III and warewingin III (postan w a r e w i g i n rankan Deiwas “under the mighty hand of God”). It is noteworthy that all singular accusative examples—both feminine and masculine—have the ending -ing-in (there is not a single example with -en or -ien!).

3.3. Numerals

An ordinal numeral, tirt(i)s (tirts I, tirtis II, tīrts III), fem. tirti (Stai T i r t i Maddla ”die D r i t t e Bitte”) III, has the same structural type as the adjectives already described. Mažiulis PKP 320 proposes reading the form tirti

⁴ In Prussian, unlike in the other Baltic languages, adjectives with the suffix -ing- are not a/ā-stems; this, however, is a separate topic worthy of special investigation.

95

as [tirtū]; in the same place, note 252 adds: ”If the ending was stressed, then the form here is [tirtū] (from the original *-ā). If the ending was unstressed, then [tirtī] with -i < *ī (or from *-ā < *-ē)”. It is unlikely that the form tirtī should historically be considered an ē-stem. The cognates in other languages point to an ē/ī/ā-stem; cf. Lithuanian and Latvian *treti̯as, -i̯ā, Old Church Slavonic tretъjь, Gothic Þridja, Sanskrit tṛtīya-. In Prussian there is not a single e-stem numeral that could have influenced changes in the feminine stem.

The singular accusative endings vary [in this respect numerals and pronouns (see 3.4.) differ from nouns and adjectives]: -īn (T i r t ī n deinam atskēiwans... I,...en tērten bhe ketwirtin streipstan III), -ian (...en tēr-tian deinan etskēuns III), -ien (An tirtien deinan etskēuns II), and even -an (En tirtan deinan etskēuns...). The variety of endings could be explained in two ways. The endings -(i)an or -ien in the second and third catechisms may have arisen under the influence of adjacent words—the preposition en or an and the noun deinan. Alternatively, an old jā-stem ending may have been preserved here; cf. Lithuanian trėčių (pačių, marčių, etc.). The form tirtan recalls the already described noun form martan (see 3.1.4.).

3.4. Pronouns

In all the Baltic languages there must have been feminine ī/īā-stem pronouns (alongside masculine forms with i- or ī/ia-stems). Some lexemes are common Baltic or even older, while others have been preserved or newly formed in individual Baltic languages. All Baltic languages have *šis: *šī (Lithuanian šis, ši, dialectal šī, Latvian šis, ši, Prussian schis). In place of Lithuanian pats, pati and Latvian pats, pati, the Prussians had subs, *subā (the stem pat- was preserved in the noun waispattin). In place of Lithuanian kuris, kuri, Latvian kurš, kura, and Lithuanian jis, ji, there are also other words, among which the enclitic pronoun *dis, neuter di “he; this,” is noteworthy, alongside the likely feminine form *dī. The catechisms contain the largest number of forms corresponding to the pronoun šīs, šī, showing variation in the stem-final vowel. We will review all the available case forms.

3.4.1. Of the singular nominative forms, only masculine schis I, III, sis II and neuter (adverbial) di, dei are attested (turėdi “has this” III, turridi “the same” III, kaidi “that this” III (4x), kai dei “the same” III). There are no feminine forms.

3.4.2. Of the singular genitive, only masculine forms schisses and schieise III are known.

3.4.3. Among the dative forms, besides masculine schisman and neuter schismu III, we also have feminine Schissai III (s c h i s s a i nianbillintai “to this speechless one”). The ending -ai cannot be directly compared with the Lithuanian ending -iai, since the two forms differ morphologically (schissai contains an inserted pronominal formative s).

3.4.4. Both pronouns under discussion have various accusative forms. The masculine (and neuter?) forms end in -an (esse schan lindan, noschan bausennien III, schan emnen I), -ian (schian busennien III), and -ien (schien malniskan III (2x) and sien spagtun III). The feminine forms, besides the usual variant schan (12x) (e.g., s c h a n lankenan deinan I,

96

ėnščan madlin III, s c h a n twaian schlūsn kin ir kt.), may also end in -ien (ėnšien madlin III), -en (s c h e n naktin, s c h e n Naktin·III), and -in (s c h i n madlikan III 2x).

The distribution of the forms of the second pronoun across genders is somewhat different. All masculine forms have i in the ending—the form din occurs 6 times in the catechisms (proweladin I, bebillēdin III, prēdin, pērdin, kirsa din III, etc.). The two known feminine forms are different: weddēdin ‘led her away’ III, and stwi wīrsti d i e n wijrinan billūns III.

In their variation of endings, the pronouns differ from the corresponding accusative singular forms of nouns and adjectives.

3.4.5. For the plural nominative, we have only masculine examples: schai wirdai, and perhaps also dei (Tīt paskulē as teinu / kai d e i pirsdau wisan powijstin... segge / Madlan... V. Mažiulis PKP II 182 translates as ‘Thus I now urge that they make a request before the whole matter’, although PKEŽ I 202 interprets this form differently and translates it as ‘this’—following German man).

3.4.6. The only masculine plural genitive form is schiēson, used in place of the expected singular: mes mans s c h i ē s o n malnijīkai (‘des Kindleins’) enimimaisin.

3.4.7. There are no plural dative forms.

3.4.8. There are quite a few plural accusative forms. The masculine forms of the pronoun schis are of two types—schins III (s c h i n s pallai psans 2x) and schans (en s c h a n s Wirdans), while the feminine has only one example, schiens (s c h i e n s twaian Dāians III).

All forms of the second pronoun are masculine: dins 5x (e.g., crixtity d ī n s I, prēdins III, poglabūdins III) and diens II (crixtidi=diens).

Analysis of the pronoun forms shows that variation between the stem-final vowels i and a is characteristic of many cases. The masculine and feminine endings often coincide; at least, no differences can be observed that characterize the entire paradigm rather than individual cases. The relationship between the singular and plural accusative endings is even reversed.

3.5. Participles

In Baltic, as in some other Indo-European languages, active feminine participles are also ī/į̄-stem, cf. Lithuanian krīntanti, Latvian krītuoša, Sanskrit satī. The endings of the present- and past-tense forms in Prussian differ somewhat, so we will review them separately.

3.5.1. There are not many present-tense feminine forms. The accusative forms of both genders have the vowel i in the ending: acc. sg. fem. rīpintin “following” III (the pronominal form rīpintinton III), masc. nidruwintin “not believing” III, acc. pl. masc. waitiaintins “speaking” III, warguseggēntins “acting wickedly” III. Forms such as dat. sg. fem. nianbillintai “to the speechless one,” nom. pl. masc. skellantai “guilty, splitting” III (alongside skellantēi III) show the encroachment of a hard stem-final consonant into the paradigm. Unfortunately, we have no nominative form of the feminine gender.

97

3.5.2. Almost all recorded forms of past-tense participles are masculine. Many of them have i at the end of the stem: acc. sg. -in (ainanginmusin “only-begotten” III), nom. pl. -is (aupalusis “found,” immusis “took” III). In the plural accusative, the ending -ins is more frequent in I, II, III (4x, e.g., aulaušins III “the deceased”), but -ens also occurs (aulauwussens “the same” I). No forms with a hard stem-final consonant have been found.

The only nom. sg. fem. form, aulaušė, if it is not some kind of pronunciation or transcription error (see Mažiulis PKEŽ I 117 and references therein), could indicate that in the dialect of the catechisms (at least III) there was complementary distribution between the stressed and unstressed nominative endings -ė and -i, suggesting that in some Prussian dialects the ǭ/ iā- and e-stems may have coincided completely.

4. Having reviewed the forms in all the monuments of the Prussian language, it is apparent that their evidence differs considerably. In the dialect of the Elbing vocabulary, the soft ǭ/ iā-, ē-, and i-stems are distinguished, whereas in the dialect of the catechisms they have converged considerably. This is due not only to time, dialectal phonetic changes, and the like, but also to the ancient historical connections between these stems, which become apparent when Prussian examples are compared with their counterparts in the other Baltic languages.

4.1. The connections between ē- and iā-stems are the oldest. Initially they were only inflectional, cf. the case endings Lithuanian -i, -ios, -iai, -ią and Sanskrit -ī, -yās, -yai, -īm. In Prussian, the ē-stem has become established not only in the accusative but also in the forms of other cases. No traces of the iā-stem have been found in the catechisms, apart from the pronoun *si and the numeral *tirtī (see 3.4.1 and 3.3), or the characteristic endings nom. sg. -i, gen. -is, acc. -in, gen. pl. -in, acc. -in(s?). In the East Baltic languages, by contrast, the iā-stem became established; this is particularly characteristic of Latvian and the eastern Lithuanian dialects. The iā-stem is often generalized throughout the entire paradigm, cf. Old Lithuanian platūji — modern plačioji, dialectal tokī — tokià, Lithuanian platī, krintanti — Latvian plaša, krītuoša. This is how iā-stem words arose in Lithuanian and Latvian: nouns of the giria: dzira type are not uncommon in the East Baltic languages, whereas in Prussian—not in the catechisms nor in the Elbing vocabulary (see 2.1.2)—there is not a single reliable example attesting to the existence of this type (the Elbing vocabulary plural nominative forms ending in -ios < *-iās belonged not to iā-, but to ē/iā-stem lexemes, e.g., crausy: crausios). The Prussian ē/iā-stem is often matched by an iā-stem in East Baltic, and sometimes in Slavic as well: E asy — Lithuanian ežà, Latvian eža, mary — Lithuanian marios, plauti — Latvian plaušas, K *marti — Latvian mārša, E sari — Lithuanian žarija (cf. also Old Church Slavonic zorja “glowing”), kiosi “goblet” — Old Church Slavonic čaša, perhaps also *jūrī — Lithuanian jūrios, Latvian jūra. Similar structural relationships occur between a loanword and the word from which it derives, e.g., E, K *dūsī — Polish dusza (cf. the loanwords Lithuanian dūšià, Latvian dūša), E garkity — Polish gorczyca (cf. Lithuanian garstyčia or garsovytčia), perhaps also E brunyos “armor” — Gothic brunjo or Old Church Slavonic brunja (cf. Latvian bruņas). It is therefore highly plausible that the ē/iā-stem forms were loanwords derived from words ending in -i, e.g., K supūni “lady” — Polish *żu-pani, rīki “dominion” — Gothic reiki.

More rarely, the Prussian ē/iā-stem corresponds to the ē-stem in other Baltic languages: E pelky — Lithuanian pēlkė, Latvian pelce, perhaps also K teisi — Lithuanian teisė. Such structural relationships

98

They also occur among loanwords of various origins, e.g., E dragios — Lithuanian dialectal drãgės, E crausy — Lithuanian kriáušė (cf. also Bulgarian kruša), E knapios — Lithuanian k(ą)nãpės (Polish konopie).

Variation between io-stems and ē-stems in Lithuanian dialects has long been noted (cf. Būga I 104), e.g., dvasà / dvãsė, musià / mùsė, girà / gìrė, mãrios / mãrės, and so on. io-stem forms are more characteristic of the eastern dialects, ē-stem forms of the western ones. Dialectal ē-stem forms are usually more recent, having arisen through the mixing of stems under the influence of various dialectal phonetic processes.

4.3. The high productivity of the ī/ī̯ā-stem in Prussian is demonstrated by the fact that some old i-stem (or consonant-stem) words have entered it: E culczi — Lithuanian kūlšis; E nozy — Lithuanian nósis, Latvian nãs, Latin nāris; E sansy — Lithuanian žąsis, Latvian žùoss, Old High German gans, Greek χήν (Sanskrit haṃsī is most likely an innovation alongside masc. haṃsah, and its correspondence with sansy is accidental); E wubri “eyelash” — Lithuanian brùvis, Old Church Slavonic bruvь, Sanskrit bhrūḥ. The deverbal noun posty “grazing” should also be assigned to this group, as perhaps should some other deverbal nouns with the suffix -ti (see 2.3.2.), functionally corresponding to the suffix -t-is.

As a special case, one should mention words that continue the old neuter forms with the ending *-i. An indisputable example of this type is E mary (from *marī) — Old Church Slavonic more, Latin mare. K *iūr may perhaps be of similar origin (this reconstruction is permitted by two accusative forms ending in -in, cf. 3.1.4; E lurīay could be considered a neuter form and corrected to *iurian, cf. Endzelīns DI IV—2 230) — Sanskrit vārī “water”.

In Lithuanian dialects, especially western ones, i-stem words tend to shift to the ē-stem (kùlsė, nósė, žãsė, and so on). Similar phenomena also occur in Prussian, e.g., E pusne — Lithuanian pušnìs, slaune “thigh of a trouser-leg” / slaunis “thigh” — Lithuanian šlaunis, Sanskrit śroṇiḥ, Latin clūnis.

5. Comparison of the stems allows us to make assumptions about their development. Their variation and mixing in all the Baltic languages are caused by more than historical phonetic changes alone. Some of the stems under discussion are also genetically related.

5.1. The development of the Baltic noun can be represented by the following diagram:

For the Common Indo-European period, two genetically unrelated types of soft stem-final consonants can be reconstructed: -ī/ī̯ā and i-stems (or consonant-stems), e.g., *patī and *klaunis “thigh,” neuter *marī “sea”.

Under certain conditions, an ē-stem branched off from the old ī/ī̯ā-stem in the Baltic proto-language, giving rise to three types of stem-final consonants, e.g.: *martī, *ēžī- “hedgehog” (Būga I 594 and Mažiulis PKĖŽ I 10 also reconstruct this word’s Proto-Baltic form) — *saulē, *žemē (: Proto-Slavic *zemja) — *akis, *šird(is)⁵.

⁵ The emergence of the Baltic ē-stem is a very complex question, requiring

99

In the Western Baltic languages, the ī/ā-stem remains strong; it is even augmented by some words that formerly belonged to the i-(consonant) stem (the process may have begun with neuter forms ending in -i), and new formations also appear. Over time, in some Prussian dialects these stems draw very close together, while phonetic changes at the ends of words reinforce their genetic connections.

In the Eastern Baltic languages, by contrast, the ī/ā-stem weakens, and the iā-stem splits off from it, becoming established in Latvian and in some Lithuanian dialects. The ē-stem becomes greatly strengthened in western Lithuanian dialects, absorbing not only iā-stem but also i-stem words.

The fate of feminine forms of adjectives, numerals, pronouns, and participles belonging to the ī/ā-stems is somewhat different. It was shaped by their correlation with certain masculine forms. Quite varied paradigms were inherited from the Indo-European period: feminine ī/ā-stem forms may be used not only alongside u-stem forms, but also alongside masculine forms belonging to the i-, consonant, i/īo-, and even ō-stems (one need only recall active participles and the pronouns pats, pati, šis, ši, and so on). In individual Baltic languages, somewhat different forms of various parts of speech survived and became established.

The paradigm -ies, *-ī, -i(n) is best attested in Prussian. The reconstruction of the paradigm -us, *-ū, -u should be treated with great caution (see 3.2), especially explanations of the origins of ī/ā-stem neologisms associated with it (see 2.3.1).

In Lithuanian, ī/ā-stem forms are fairly stable; the usual adjective paradigm is -us, -i, -u. Pronouns and participles have feminine ī/ā-stem forms alongside masculine forms of various types. The numeral trečia has most likely recently shifted to the iā-stem.

In Latvian, almost all ī/ā-stem forms have shifted to the iā-stem; only a few relic pronoun forms remain (pati, ši).

THE HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS OF PRUSSIAN ī/ā-STEM NOUNS

Summary

The old ī/ā-stem of type *patī survived in Old Prussian better than in East Baltic languages. There are 30 substantives (25 in form of nom. sg. with the endings -i, -y and 5 nom. pl. forms, ending in -ios, i.e. crausī ”pear tree” craustios ”pears”) in Elbing dictionary. The substantives of this type are easy to be distinguished from other palatal stems (ē-, i-). On the contrary, these stems became very close, almost mixed among themselves, in the dialects of I, II, III catechisms. In order to recognize different stem forms, some selection criteria are proposed in this article.

The analysis of Prussian language data and their comparision with East Baltic correspondences allow us to make certain conclusions about evolution of ī/ā-stem nouns in all Baltic languages and their historical connections with iā-, ē-, -i (or consonant) stems (main results are illustrated by picture in section 5.1.).

of specialized research. This article addresses it only insofar as necessary to explain the history of the ī/ā-stem.

100