Dėl baltarusių šnektų lituanizmų vertinimo ir vartosenos

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE QUESTIONS XXXV (1995) STUDIES OF LITHUANIAN LEXICOLOGY Review. Reviews. Notes Opinions. Reviews. Observations Overviews. Reviews. Notes DEL BELTARUSIU SNEKTU LITUANIZMU EVALUATION AND USE In allocating the newly discovered Lithuanianisms of Belarusian speakers to the Lithuanian substratum, we consistently follow the dictionaries of linguistic terms in all our researches! the definition of the term substrate. However, we sometimes encounter cases where this approach is misunderstood. Here's a Polish linguist E. Smulkova reproaches* that in the live Belarusian dialect of the Old Smilgi districts (Varanavi district, Belarus) our written words antardplusci "pašukos", asiūkli "asiūkliai- ", skiardz: "place of friction when slaughtering a pig" and so on. consider elements of Lithuanian substrate. These are just occasional occasionalisms, because we ignore the chronology of the appearance of these words in Belarusian dialects, geography, their functioning in the Belarusian dialect system, that we are not treated quite correctly by assigning them to the latest layer of substrate lexicon*. Therefore, the presence of new substrate elements in the speech is denied. But can there be older and newer substrate units in a language? Of course they are possible. After all, let’s say that in Belarus, the assimilation of the old Lithuanian territories did not take place everywhere at the same time — in the farther from the Lithuanian border — earlier, in the closer ones — later. Thus, in both cases, the effect of assimilation is a substrate that is independent of age. One thing is clear: the chronology of the substrate does not change the essence of its term, it does not form part of its content. It is only important that one or another element of the old language, taken over by the new, is alive in it, functioning and already being a substrate. This is how H. Turska and Z. Zinkevičius understand and use the term substrate.” Thus, sub1 Achmanova O.S. Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. Moscow: Sovetskaya enciklopediya, 1966, 461—462; Gol ab Z., Heinz A., Polanski K. Slovnik terminologu jezykoznawczej. Warszawa: Panstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1970, 542—543; Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Light, 1990, 193—194. | Smulkova E. On the question of Belarusian lituanisms —Balto-slavianskiye issledovanija . Moscow: Science, 1981, 203—213. į Grinaveckiene E., Mackevič Ju F, Romanovié J. M,C eberuk J. I Bytovaja leksika litovskogo proischozdeniya v Zapadnoj Belorussiji — Lithuanian terminology. Vilnius: Thoughts, 1975, 164, 165, 189. 1Smulkova E. Min. veik., 204—205. Turska H. On the formation of Polish language areas in Vilnius region —Studia nad polszczyzng kresowg I. Wroclaw-- Warszawa-Krakéw218 -Gdansk-- Lédz: The meaning of the term Osstrat is not distorted by us. However, E. Smulkova believes that the substrate can only be old. Here is her position: *"The term "belorusskie baltizmy- "... should be used in the sense that to the old substrate layer may be brought baltijskie relics... (especially from Jatvia...)7- "*. Elements of such a white substrate are given from the Belarusian schnekts of Bobrovniki village (Balstoge Voivodeship, Poland), before which she notes that Bobrovniki village “... v prošlom eto služebnoje poselenije, osnovannoje na rubeze XV—XVI vv. liudmi, prišedšimi so storony Nemana” (this statement, by the way, still needs to be proven). By acknowledging the remnants of alien language as substrate (!), E. Smulkova fundamentally distorts the meaning of this term, not adhering to the concept of the linguistic theory of substrate. E. Smulkova- ’s principled assertion that the remains of alien, not indigenous, languages are the substrate is a complete anomaly. In the Bobrovnik dialect, among other things, she discovers the Baltic-origin lexicon #6ksyny "home-made leafy", which she believes to be of Lithuanian origin and suggests linking it with lit. lak3alas, lakštai, lakšenas, lakšinijs, and these — with lūkštas "plant leafTM. However, lokšyny (as well as lapsd) entered the Slavic territories from the Turks kalby®, at least 100 years after the aliens moved from the Nemunas side to Bobrovnik. Then lie. sheet and loksyny are hardly related, and the discovery of such white substrate elements and their chronology are scientifically unfounded. Where in this case is the substrate of the jotting? E. Smulkova does not distinguish between the above-mentioned Lithuanianisms because they are written from the bilingual area. In the village of Old Smilginiy there is still one other older person who speaks the language of his parents, but the whole village and its surroundings no longer understand Lithuanian and speak only Belarusian. In addition, there are no Lithuanian cultural centers here – Lithuanian schools, press, radio, church are all Polish. Thus, the Lithuanianisms presented in our article are all without exception written by local old people, whose parents and ancestors became Belarusians by assimilation here. Such situation and usage of Lithuanianisms used in the vicinity of Old Smilginiy, in our opinion, is no obstacle to attributing them to the substrate. As our subsequent research shows, the area of Old Smilgynai is not the only place where E. Smulkova’s occasionalisms are found. Now we know that they are still present elsewhere in Varanasi district, as well as in Yviai, Ašmena, Breslauja, Pastovių districts. Thus, they are neither random words, nor words of individual use and meaning, but real elements of the Lithuanian substrate, firmly embedded in the Belarusian dialectal system. This is shown, among other things, by the liveliness of the illustrative sentences of our article, the correct use of the word solineum, 1982, 86—119; Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis, 1966, 24—25; Zinkevičius Z. Eastern Lithuania in the Past and Now. Vilnius: Science and Encyclopedias, 1993, 249pp. 6 Smulkova E. Min. veik., 205. "TSmulkova E. Min. veik., 206. 8 SmulkovakE. Min. week., 208. - Fasmer M. Etimologiceskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka 2, Moscow: Progress Publishing House, 1967, 460. 219 and creation, clear meaning. The aforementioned Lithuanianisms of the Old Smilgino Belarusian Schneck, while undoubtedly being a component part of the Lithuanian substratum, are at the same time neither the product of interference nor of convergence, as E. Smulkova tries to call them a priori 10. All of them are inherited, not inherited. It is possible to argue about some of the Lithuanian equivalents presented in Lithuanianism. In this case, the lituanism asiūkli E. Smulkova derives not from lie. astúklainiai, and of all the plants of this genus the scientific term asiūklainiai (wrongly it is marked with even two accents —astūklainiai)"*, actually completely unknown in popular language. This methodological flaw shows that E. Smulkova also in this case does not succeed in selecting the most appropriate equivalent from the group of Lithuanian words presented. She tends to consider the lexicon prašėšč "the distance of the fabric in the machine between the squeegee and the spindle" in the Belarusian dialect of the village of Bobrovniki to be of Lithuanian origin and, without any reason, she associates it too amateurishly with the Lithuanian verb prasiskesti?. However, this is absolutely impossible: between lies. (prasi) skesti ”(prasi)skleisti, (prasi)platinti) and Bobrovniky (pra)šėšč certainly do not have not only a grammatical (and constructive) and phonetic, but —most importantly—a semantic connection. In our opinion, prasésé —probably a word of Slavic origin, cf. even more likely its relative Russian prisiest' "time, when someone one after another sits down and does nothing without getting up?! *. Elena Grinaveckienė 10s mulkova E. Min. veik., 205. lg mulkova E. Min. veik., 204. 129 mulkova E. Min. veik., 208. 12.pal' Vv. Tolkovyj slovar’ živago velikorusskago įgryka3, S. Peterburg-Moskva: Izdanije knjigoprodavca-tipografa 92 Wolfa, 1882, 450 220