Yesterday I sent you the first issue of my “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas”; please inform your linguist colleagues about it. The price of the first issue in Kaunas is 12 litas (= 1 U.S. dollar 20 cents), excluding postage. Postage for one copy by registered wrapper is 1 litas 44 cents. I have already written about this to Prof. E. Lidén and H. Petersson. The second issue of the dictionary will be published shortly after Easter. With best wishes! K. Būga¹⁴

EXPLANATORY NOTES

¹ The word patamologija should be placed in parentheses. See Būga K. Studies of River Names and the Antiquity of the Aesti and Slavs // Tauta ir žodis. K., 1923. Vol. 1. P. 1–44 (= Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. Vol. 3. V., 1961. P. 493–550).

² Torbjörnsson T. Die gemeinslavische Liquidamethese. 1–2. Upsala, 1901; 1903 (= Upsala Universitets Årsskrift, 1902; 1904).

³ It should be Slawisches.

⁴ See Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. Vol. 2. V., 1959. P. 151–153, 214–223.

⁵ For more on these and other reconstructions, see Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. Vol. 3. P. 493–550, 741 ff.

⁶ The date of this letter (June 2) is incorrect, since it is a reply to T. Torbiörnsson’s letter of June 23.

⁷ получил is repeated twice.

⁸ It should be Lautsubstitution.

⁹ It should be Trusman; see Trusman Yu. Yu. Chud-Lithuanian Elements in the Novgorod Pyatinas. Part One. Reval, 1897.

¹⁰ Apparently the sign || is missing.

¹¹ (♀ = is repeated twice.

¹² The issues discussed in the letter were examined in K. Būga’s articles; see Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. Vol. 3. P. 493–550, 741 ff., and elsewhere.

¹³ At the end of this letter it is indicated that it is an open letter; the addresses of T. Torbiörnsson (Schweden/Herrn Dr. Tore Torbiörnsson / Upsala, Universität) and K. Būga (Abs. Prof. K. Būga. Kaunas, D. Vilniaus gatvė N 2. Litauen) are also given.

¹⁴ This letter was written on the reverse of the postcard. The front bears the addresses of T. Torbiörnsson and K. Būga, and the date (6–II–24).

Note. After this publication is printed, copies of K. Būga’s letters to T. Torbiörnsson will be deposited in the Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library.

Bonifacas Stundžia

K. BŪGA’S LETTERS TO THE POLISH LINGUIST JAN ROZWADOWSKI

Among the many letters in the archive of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków, written to the Polish linguist Prof. Jan Rozwadowski by well-known and lesser-known people from various parts of the world, there is correspondence important to the study of the Lithuanian language and cultural history.

J.Rozwadowskis (1867–1935) – vienas iš didžiausių lenkų kalbininkų, klasikinių kalbų mokovas, žymus slavistas, indoeuropeistas ir baltistas. Jis

177

— a professor and rector of the University of Kraków, an academician and president of the Polish Academy of Sciences, and an honorary member of many European national academies and societies, including the Lithuanian Scientific Society (from its founding in 1907). J. Rozwadowski had an excellent command of Lithuanian, studied Lithuanian dialects, and explored their relations with the Slavic languages with which they were in contact. Texts of the Sudargas (Šakiai district) and Zietela (Diatlovo district, Grodno region, Belarus) dialects, transcribed by him with great care, have survived.

For Lithuanian linguists, the most interesting items in the archive mentioned above are the substantial letters of Kazimieras Būga (1879–1924). Five letters written by K. Būga in 1912–1913 have been found among J. Rozwadowski’s manuscripts. One is a complete linguistic study, while four are postcards. The general shelfmark for the latter is K. III – 84 (Archiwum Polskiej akademii nauk Oddział w Krakowie, Jan Rozwadowski). The postcards, written in 1913, are in the manuscript collection under Korespondencja Jana Rozwadowskiego na l. B. Nº45 (file). The letter written in 1912 was found in a large box of J. Rozwadowski’s manuscripts kept by Prof. J. Safarewiczus (1904–1992), who was preparing J. Rozwadowski’s writings for publication. After his death, the box was transferred to the archive along with J. Rozwadowski’s other manuscripts. Unfortunately, the contents of the box have not yet been organized, and the manuscripts have not been numbered. Also found there was a bibliography, compiled in K. Būga’s own hand, of his works published up to 1912 (29 in all).

K. Būga’s letters were written from several places: two postcards from St. Petersburg, where he was studying at the time; one from his native region, Dusetos; and the long (first) letter (1912) and one postcard (1913) from Laižuva, where Juozas Tumas Vaižgantas, who had been a priest there since 1903, actively assisted K. Būga and E. Volteris.

Besides K. Būga, others who wrote letters in Lithuanian to Prof. J. Rozwadowski included the patriarch of Lithuania, founder and chairman of the Lithuanian Scientific Society, Jonas Basanavičius (letters written from Vilnius in 1911 and 1912); the society’s first secretary and docent at St. Petersburg University, Eduardas Volteris (a postcard written from St. Petersburg in 1907); the linguist Jonas Jablonskis (a postcard written in 1911 from the Austrian resort of Elsterio); the pioneer of Lithuanian cartography, Antanas Macijauskas (a postcard written from Riga in 1911); and the lexicographer Jurgis Šlapelis (a letter written from Vilnius in 1928). Later prominent Lithuanian cultural figures Jurgis Šaulys (1912), Juozas Albinas Herbačiauskas (1912), and Mykolas Biržiška (1913) wrote to J. Rozwadowski in Polish. In a short letter written in 1918, the priest of Gervėčiai, A. Dalinkevicius, indicated which villages in Gervėčiai parish still spoke Lithuanian. The collection of J. Rozwadowski’s manuscripts also contains a brief, undated description in Polish of the phonetics of the Panemunėlis dialect, written by Kleofas Jurgelionis, among other materials.

The correspondence written by Kazimieras Būga to Jan Rozwadowski is presented here in chronological order. The language of the letters has not been edited.

Laižuva (Lajżewo), December (XII) 18 (31), 1912.

Most honored Teacher!

First of all, I apologize to you for delaying my reply to your kind letter. I had long been preparing to answer, but somehow never got around to it. It seems I am, like the late Jaunius, slow to get ready! What can one do! I am at fault and beg your forgiveness.

As for when I will take my master’s degree, I myself have no certainty yet. I think that I will master—

178

For preparing for the examinations, I shall need to set aside at least a year and a half. I have already selected a considerable amount of material for the dissertation. In the dissertation I shall discuss the influence (wpływ) of Slavic on Lithuanian. The subject is very lively and instructive. I shall also discuss the stress (ударение) and intonation (интонация) of borrowed words. Alongside the church, Lithuanians also have the seklyčia ‘parlor’—yčia ”свѣтлица”, alongside birkaus (Latvian bīrkaus!) and šīkas. There are several such surnames not only in Lithuanian but also in Latvian. We find a diversity of intonations only in the very oldest words. Later, borrowed words almost all have ≃; for example: шūba > šūba, šūbos, ”мытра” ~ miėrg. Kárdas (< lenk. kord), of course, is a new formation; cf. Lithuanian kárdau, -dyti.

I received your articles just before leaving Petersburg. Thank you! I read them with pleasure (dial. gėrėdamos). I do not yet have an opinion about the kinship relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. I too, contrary to Jaunius’s conclusions, had thought that the Slavic and Baltic languages were quite close to one another. Without investigating more deeply, it seems to me that the kinship of these languages might also be explained by their being neighbors (blizkie sąsiedztwo). From time immemorial, the Balts must have been Slavic neighbors to the northwest. Compare Ptolemy’s words: east of the Venedi lived the Galindians and Sudini. In the languages of neighboring peoples, even when they are not of the same family, we find many things in common. Latvian and Livonian phonetics differ little. The phonetics of eastern Lithuanian is close to Belarusian phonetics. We could collect very many similar examples.

Many phonetic features shared by Slavic and Baltic may not at all indicate a closer relationship between those languages. These features can also be explained by neighboring contact. In some respects, the Balts differ phonetically from the Slavs.

Lith. rš, kš — Slavic rx, x (from *ka), but Lith. us, is, whereas Slavic has ux, ix. Blusà: bląża, saūsas: suzą, opsi-tausyti: tušīti || tuça, mušìa: muça, pìsa || paisyti: pązati, liéssas: lix, and so on. Jūšė does not contradict this. Jūšė, like ušės, is a word used only in Prussian Lithuania. Both words have been borrowed from Prussian. The Prussian word iuse V 377 ”juche” derives from Baltic *jušje. In Proto-Prussian, *jušjē or *jušiē must have produced *jušē and later *jušė. It was from the form *jušē that Prussian Lithuanians must have borrowed their word jušė. Ušės ”Wochen der Kindbetterin” (Ruhig II 404) derives from Old Prussian *ušēs < *ušjēs (Indo-European ukʰ-). That Prussian Lithuanians borrowed some things from the ancient Prussian language is shown not only by ušės (= Lithuanian šešės), but also by pas-sevaitė. Kriáušė or kriáušia (Mielcke II 99) is likewise a word known only in Prussian Lithuania. Kriáušia would have been borrowed from the Prussian word kriąušjā (šį and sį). Maišas, riešutas, and vėtušas can only be understood from Slavic.

Lithuanian -išk from -isk- has nothing in common with Slavic -ix-: here i is entirely blameless. Not only does -isk- become -išk-, but also -ašk-, -ešk-, -ūšk-. For example: pūškas ”blister, pimple”, прыщъ = lenk pyşk || pycha, reškìu, teškìu, braškėti, traškėti, táušku, páuškiu, pliauškėti, čiauškėti, vaš̌kas = воскъ, traškana. There are countless such words. ”Vocalis + zg” never becomes žg, which is why one says pleizgānės (hemp) ”посконь”, vizgėti, dvóžgia, and many others. Laškuoti is a new formation (Neubildung) in place of *laškuoti (cf.

179

lakštuoti < *lašk-t-), lāzginti. Pleiškanės instead of pleišk- is by analogy with pleizgānēs with s. Maskatuoti arose by metathesis from mastakuoti (which is also said); cf. vilkātas from *viltākas ”Wehrwolf” (which is also said) || vilka-takys. Plaštaka ”dłon” from *plaškata: Slavic plosk, Latvian plaskains. Lith. plašk = плоск-; cf. plókščias, ”plaski” from *plāškčia-. Breško 3 praet. — Polish brzask. Pūkš-lė < puškė, pā-pauškas ”guz” || pó-pūkš-lė ”волдырь”. Jušk. dictionary I 420ᵈ: pó-puškės 1.c. 40ᵇ || paušk-ulė — Polish pysk. Lokšnūs ”tkliwy, czuly” (Koszarzewski Lituania 48ᵃ) < *lošk-nùs: Slavic łaska || ласить, ластить.

It seems to me that these examples, and many more not mentioned here, show that ”vocalis + sk” in Lithuanian becomes ”voc. + šk”. Forms with -sk- would be new formations.

-skn- > Slavic -sn-, but Baltic - kšn-: блѣснж-ти, but Lith. blikšnoti || blyškau || blizgnóti < *blizg-nóti

-stl- > Slavic -st-, but Baltic -skl- > -kʼśł-: *Vīstlā > Slavic Visla, but Old Prussian Viksla (from *Vīsklā < *Vīstlā); cf. Nesselmann’s Thes. 209 - Wixla and German Weichsel from Prussian *Vīkslā. Lithuanian paveikslas < *pa-veizdlas > *paveist-tlas > *paveistlas > *paveikslas is of the same type as Vīkslā. Cf. veigžlūs ”видный, ясный” (incorrectly, Baltica 22 sgn.) from *veizd-lus > *veizglūs > veigžlūs. (In Dusetos they say veikslūs < *veizd-tlūs (?)).

”-sk- or -zg- + conson” does not become -kʼś- or -gz +con. in Slavic languages. Latv. plauskas || plauks-tas, Latv. blauzga || blaużna, Lith. plėkšnės ”breit Rüben” Mielcke II 110 || плоскъ.

-bn- > Slavic -n-, but Lithuanian and Latvian -gn- >: dūgnas — дъно || eastern Latvian Dugnoja ”Dubenaa” from Dubnāja, lūgnos ”розвалыни” Užpaliai = lūbnos Dusetos || lūbos, Slavic лубъ.

”ršk + voc” > Lith. ršk, but rzg does not become ržg. Polish parskać: Lith. parškia, infinitive puršk-ti, burzgėti.

”rst + voc” > Lith. rst, but rzd remains as it was. Mirštu, but birzdis ”wrzos, Erica vulgaris” || dialect German porst ”Porsch”.

Alongside -š-t-, Lithuanian generally has -z-d- (here z derives from ž!). Cf. kušti ”szepcę” (Baltica 2) || kuzdù į ausis, kuzda tarp savęs galvas sudėję. Kuzdininkas. Mielcke Wb. II 364. Kušti, infinitive kuštėti ”bewegen, rühren judeti, krutėti” (Joniškis) || kuzdù, kuzdėti ”trząść się od zimna” || kušu, kušėti ”judeti, krutėti”. Gruz[d]-nó-ti || grāužiu (see Baltica 15).

Alongside -š-k- (from -sk-) we find only -z-g-: blikš-nóti < blikš- || blizg-nó-ti < blizg-, blizgù, blizgė ”блёстка”. Vikšris ”осока” < *viš-ris || vizgà, gen. sg. vizgos ”carex vulpina?”.

Skl- at the beginning of a word, but -kʼśł- in the middle; cf. sklidinas, sklaidyti, skliaūtai, sklim̃bis, sklęsti, pā-sklitė 3 praet., but pópūkš-lė || pópuškė, paušk-ulė, pumpótaukšlis (Kvedarna) || pumpótauskis (Palanga) ”Lycoperdon, purchawka”.

Rus. блюзгать, блюзготать “to chatter nonsense”: Lith. bliauž[d]-yti (Baltica 10) || bliauškù, bliaukšti “to bluzgać”.

180

a. брузга || бруздить: tėtīrvnas brūzdulìuoja Koss Litu. 91ᵃ || brūzgu-liuoti Jušk.

a. плюскъ: “I splash and slosh, barely wading across to you” Jušk. žod. I 238ᵃ.

Rūškanas “overcast, stern” rūškana dienà < rūš-k-: rūstas. Rūš-k-: rūs-t- — lāis-ka-s: Slav. Лис-тъ. Druskà instead of *drùška with s due to drążgas.

a. плескъ 3rd person present плещеть: pleška, infinitive pleškėti.

a. лазготать (dialectal, instead of лозгот-) || лоскотать || лезга || лёскать: Lith. lãžginti “to caress, to tickle pleasantly” Koss. Litu. 106ᵃ || laškúoti “to sing merrily” with s from lazgúoti || lakštúoti “to sing, speak merrily” from lašk-t-.

R. troskotatъ трещать: traškù, traškėti. Polish truskać: trùškinu.

Drisko etc. are remodeled after drążgo.

The laws of the Lithuanian language are not yet properly known to linguists, since they lack the necessary material from the living language. The material we have in Kuršaitis’s writings is insufficient: it represents perhaps a tenth of the living language. Juškevičius’s dictionary¹ is of great importance to the study of Lithuanian. But scholars still cannot make use of the dictionary. More than three decades have now passed since the printing of Juškevičius’s dictionary began. Printing would have proceeded quickly had the Academy of Sciences had enough editors. There has always been a shortage of experts in Lithuanian. Apart from Baranauskas, Jaunius, and Jablonskis, Lithuanians have had no other language experts. I was given two letters (K- and L-) of Juškevičius’s dictionary to edit; they had been in Uljanovas’s² hands. Uljanovas died having prepared only two or three sheets for printing. The letters M-, N-, O-, and P- were assigned for editing to the physician (doctor) Jūrgis Šlapelis³ of Vilnius. Šlapelis’s work is progressing slowly: so far he has printed only six sheets. All the words from R- to Ž- are still lying in the Academy’s archives.

Instead of ievà, jėna, jėškau etc., I write ievą, ieną, ieškau because in some places Lithuanians themselves pronounce them that way and, secondly, because instead of dialectal words ūoga, uodega etc., ūoga, uodega are written. Newspapers nowadays also write ieną, ieškau, uogą, uodegą.

I do not know for certain where Baranauskas’s manuscripts are. Perhaps all of Baranauskas’s remains are in the library of the seminary in Sejny (Sejny, Suwałki Governorate)?

The Belarusian and Polish words which, in your opinion, were borrowed from Lithuanian or Yotvingian were new to me. Your list does not include Láimos, which Federowski⁴ found among the Belarusians of Grodno Governorate.

Raz-šaptáč—could it be related to the Lithuanian word šapivolas, cf. vilnakarsis, cf. karškiškis “a scratcher, a fumbling person, one who scratches” (Koss. Litu. 54ᵇ), if, of course, this word itself was not borrowed from somewhere.

But the Lithuanian origin of the words raz-szaptáč and vašaváč nevertheless remains doubtful to me.

Žjiva “sponge” is more likely, from the standpoint of meaning, to be separated from the Lithuanian word žiẽvė, acc. žiẽvę “dune” (Russian).

The Yotvingian (ЯТВАГЬ) language, in my opinion, was closer not to the Lithuanians but to the Prussians. This opinion is best confirmed by the Yotvingian names in the chronicle called Ипатьевская лѣтопись (Полное собраніе русскихъ

181

лѣтописей. Томъ второй. С. Петербургъ 1908). Čia randame du vardu kur lietuvių garsui ž jotvinų varduose atsako z: Стецюотови. ЗЪБР-овичю, 1227 г. (стр. 751)ir ВЗАШа ЗЛИНОУ. 1273 г. (стр. 870) || Злиньчн. 1251 г. (стр. 810) || горды ГАТВАЗЬ. и Злиньчн и Крисменць и Покѣньць. 1256 г. (стр. 833) ЗъБР- = liet. žebrỹs || žėbras.

Злина from Old Russian *Зълина; cf. the region of the Sudovian lands (territ-) Silia Scr. r. Pruss. I 143 or Syllones l.e. I 737. *Зълина derives from the name of the Yotvingians, *Zileinā. Here we have a suffix like that in Prussian place names Golteynis, Latheynen, Molseyn, Reteȳen (G. Gerullis, De Prussicis Sambiensium locorum nominibus. Tilsis MCMXII, p. 155), and also in Lithuanian names—Resėiniai (a town in Kaunas Governorate), Traulėiniai (a village in the Kurtuvėnai parish, Šiauliai County).

Зълина = Zilėnā is related to the village name Žiláičių (Lyduvėnai parish) || Žilėnas, a surname in Linkmenys parish || Žilys, a surname in Užpaliai parish. The Yotvingian vocabulary, too, resembles the Prussian vocabulary. Cf. Kirsna, a tributary of the Šešupė, “*Czarna” (= Lithuanian kiršna—or kirkšna-. Baltica. 7) and Gaila Dorf. and Oletzko, sec. 15—now B i a l a (Gayl See 1595 Pierson).

I have collected a considerable number of Yotvingian or Sudovian names. The Ипатьевская лѣтопись has 30 names; I found 76 in other sources. Thus, there are more than a hundred names. Perhaps I shall succeed in collecting a few more. I did not collect modern names, since, to tell the truth, I did not even have reliable sources.

Among the Yotvingian names in Vilkaviškis County there may also be Lithuanian ones. They say there are still Lithuanians today in the Indurós parish.

Indurà is the name of a town and a river; cf. the name of the stream Indaus near Tilsit (Basanavičius. Iš gyvenimo vėlių bei velnių. 151, 363), Indrajā, a river in Užpaliai parish; > Pa-indrė, a village on the Indrajõs; Indrailis, a lake near Paindrė. Indurą has a suffix like that of the stream near Pabaískas (Kaunas Governorate, Ukmergė County), Vìnt-urà “Wiktorka” (Draugija №35, p. 299).

The study of place names and the names of rivers and lakes can shed much light on ancient times. But it is a great pity that we lack names recorded scientifically. It is therefore very desirable that you publish your studies of water names as soon as possible.

Jatra (left tributary of the Mołczadź) is not, however, identical with the name Aitros (Aitrà, a river in Kvedarna parish, Raseiniai County).

Guj-ka (right tributary of the Moczyna, a left tributary of the Świsłocz) < *Guja- Lithuanian Gavjà, Latvian Gauja.

Lotwa (right tributary of the Turya, Stuck County, Kopyl parish). = Latuvà, a tributary of the Šventoji, Ukmergė County.

Saswa (a tributary of the Niemnowa Zelwa. Słown. geogr. X 335) is not, however, derived from *Seswa < *Sesava =Šešuvà, Latvian Sesava.

Please forgive me for taking up your valuable time with all sorts of trifles. I am writing all this about what has concerned me most at present.

I wish you all the best.

May you, Sir, live to see the New Year.

Your servant, Kaz. Būga

Address

Почт. ст. Лайжево, Ковен. губ.

182

I will stay in Laižuva for another whole month.

[2]

Laižuvà

19¹⁹ II 13

Esteemed Teacher!

These days, having returned from a trip to Suwałki Governorate, I found a short letter from you. At present I was unable to write anything for Rocznik⁵. I had to devote all my time to copying out Juškevičius’s dictionary. I probably won’t be able to write anything this spring. In two days I return to Petersburg.

The address will be as follows: М. Дворянская 7, кв. 33.

I have already copied out the entire letter K (of Juškevičius’s dictionary); only L- remains, which can wait.

Best wishes.

Your servant, Kaz. Būga⁶

[3]

Dùsetos,

19 August (VIII) 1913

Esteemed Teacher!

I have only just now received your short letter.

I will hardly get to read the proofs. My article may already have been printed. If anything comes up, please write to me in Petersburg, М. Дворянская 7, кв. 47; I will have arrived there in 7–8 days.

As payment, of course, if the editorial board pays for articles such as mine, I would prefer to receive all the RS⁷ volumes published so far. I don’t need the first one, as I have already bought it. I am sending two of my little books through you to the RS editorial board.

I wish you all the best.

Kaz. Būga

[4]

In St. Petersburg

7 November 1913.

Dear Teacher!

Thank you for your letter. I received RS II–V yesterday. I also ask you to forgive me for RS VI; the best would be to send it by post at my expense (moim kosztem). I do not need the manuscript; it can be thrown away.

To give a daughter in marriage means ”oddać za mąż”⁸. ”Ježeli nie oddasz tej córki, umrę dziś”⁹.

Best wishes

Kaz. Būga

Address: St. Petersburg, M. Dvoryanskaya 7, apt. 47.

[5]

С.Петербургъ, М. Дворянская 7, кв. 47.

Dear Teacher!

What news of my article (artykul) on Shakhmatov’s Celtic-Slavic theory?¹⁰

M. Vasmer’is¹¹ also complains that he has not yet received the proofs.

183

In the booklets “On the science of language and our antiquity,” which I sent you earlier from Dusetos, you will find a critique of A. Sobolevski’s article “Гдѣ жила Литва?” Here, on the basis of river names, I maintain that a Baltic tribe once lived in the north of Smolensk Governorate (cf. голядь). I wish you all the best

Kaz. Būga¹²

EXPLANATORY NOTES

¹What is meant is the unfinished Lithuanian Dictionary (printed only through the letter N), compiled by Antanas Juška (1819–1880), with headwords translated into Russian and Polish; its individual sections were edited by F. Fortunatov, J. Jablonskis, K. Būga, J. Šlapelis, and G. Uljanovas.

²Grigorijus Uljanovas (1895–1912), a Russian linguist and the first researcher of the Baltic verb, who found the sheets for the letter K of A. Juška’s dictionary.

³Jurgis Šlapelis (1876–1941), lexicographer and one of the last editors of the printed portion of A. Juška’s dictionary.

⁴Michal Federowski (1853–1923), a Polish ethnographer and folklorist, and the author of eight volumes of dialect texts recorded in Polish and Belarusian. While visiting M. Federowski’s Podolia estate in 1901 (not far from Zietela), J. Rozwadowski met Regina Dargevičiūtė (1878–1958), a servant at the estate who spoke the Zietela dialect, and began recording texts in the Zietela dialect from her.

⁵This refers to the Polish Slavists’ journal “Rocznik slawistyczny” (Slavistic Yearbook), founded in Kraków in 1908 on J. Rozwadowski’s initiative.

⁶On the reverse of the postcard is a photograph of P. Višinskis sitting on a fence, with the inscription: Povilas Višinskis.

⁷The letters RS stand for the journal “Rocznik slawistyczny.”

⁸In Polish: “to give [her] away in marriage.”

⁹A phrase from sentimental novels, in Polish: “If you don’t give that daughter away, you’ll die right here.”

¹⁰K. Būga refers to his critique, written in German, of A. Shakhmatov’s theory: “Kann man Keltenspuren auf baltischem Gebiet nachweisen?” (Can traces of Celts be demonstrated in territory inhabited by the Balts?), published in “Rocznik slawistyczny,” vol. 6 (1913).

¹¹Max Vasmer (1886–1912), a German Slavist and linguist, and a close colleague of K. Būga.

¹²Undated postcard; the postmark traces are illegible.

Aloyzas Vidugiris

184