„Latviešu valodas kontaktu pētījumi“

some publications of linguists (S. Karaliūnas, A. Sabaliauskas, A. Vanagas, A. Vidugiris and others) concerning the ethnogenesis of the Balts and Slavs. Apparently, it was necessary to include in the terminology section also the articles of V. Skujienė published in “Language Culture” (Usage of International Elements in Latvian Terminology, 1979, p. 37, pp. 57—63; Term in Context, 1983, p. 44, pp. 19—26). The reason for the selection of publications by year is also unclear. One section contains publications from the 1950s, another from the 1960s or 1970s, etc. These things do not detract from the value of the bibliography. The bibliography of Latvian and Russian bilingualism is very valuable and necessary. Undoubtedly, it will become a favorite book not only of Latvian, but also of Lithuanian linguists, because the index contains a number of works dealing with phonetics, morphology, lexis and other various subjects of the Lithuanian language. On the other hand, even one section is devoted to Baltic and Slavic language contacts, where we find articles and monographs on Baltic ethnogenesis, substrate, typology of Baltic and Slavic languages, etymology and other issues. Latvian language contact research/Atb. red. A. Blinken. Riga: „,Zinštne“, 1987, 276 p. The linguists of the Andris Upytis Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian SSR MA pay considerable attention to the problems of language contact. It is possible to recall valuable publications of the Institute:,- ,B3aumocss3u GajITOB H IpHuOajITHŪCKHX OuxHoB“ (Pura, 1970; prepared together with the MA History Institute), „KoHTakKTbI pycckoro S3bIKA C S3bIKAMH HapojjoB [Mpubantuku® (Pura, 1984. The latter also devotes considerable space to Russian-Lithuanian language contacts (the authors of the articles are Lithuanian linguists). Recently, a new book on this issue has been published: “Latvian language contact studies”. It is a collection of articles by Latvian linguists on a wide range of topics. Many of these articles are directly related to Lithuanian studies. First of all, this can be said about the first two, whose authors are students of both Vilnius and Riga universities and who are probably equally concerned with the problems of both Latvian and Lithuanian languages. L. Baluodė (Balode) in her article “Semantic relations of prepositional nouns and verbs of common origin in the contemporary Lithuanian and Latvian language” (Kopcilmes prefiksalo lietvirdu un darbibas vardu semantiskie attiesmes mūsdienu lietuviešu un latviešu valoda, p. 7—38) examines 115 prepositional nouns and 880 prepositional verbs of the same origin in both languages. They are divided into three groups: to the first are assigned derivatives, overlapping form, semantics į ir ir (lit. bracelet: lat. aproce, lit. stepfather: lat. paternal; let. apaiti: lat. apaut), the — second derivatives, whose form coincides, but the iš semantics of the part differs (lit. tool lat. : weapon "a weapon; prk. 'tool', lit. discover- : er lat. discoverer ‘radéjas’, liet. apgieddti :year. apdziedat "to sing; sing talalines (songs)’, the third — derivatives, whose form coincides, but the semantics are completely different (lit. nesgmoné : lat. nesamana "loss of consciousness, fainting’, lit. pėrvalkas : lat. parvalks 'cover, covering'; let. circle lat. : skriet "'run around, beat'). As one ir might expect, the third group is the smallest: it accounts for a 21 percentage of the examined nouns ir 15 percent of verbs. 210 R. Bertulis’s article Varda formas un nozimes savstarpėjuos attiecibas (lat. mate: lit. motė), pp. 39—62, provides a detailed analysis of the form and meaning of this ancient Indo-European verb. On this occasion, we should also recall other excellent researches of R. Bertulis on the common Lithuanian and Latvian lexicon and urge the author to publish the results of his researches in a separate book. Lithuanian scholars should be interested in A. Blinkenas' article "Adverbs in J. Langy's Dictionary" (Adjektivi J. Langija vardnica, pp. 63—85), because this monument of Latvian lexicography (usually dated 1685) contains quite a lot of Lithuanianisms, which were characteristic of the Latvian dialects of Nyca, Bartos and Rucava at that time, cf. lat. atkihls "behend, hurtig, geshwind, mutig' —lit. akylas, lat. buddhigs "emphatic, diligent, fast, disciplined' —light. "Budisti, lat. g eedigs "gebūrdig, artig' —liet". Jam. gieda, lat. cold "guilty, as beaten to guilt' —liet. Kaltas, lat. lakstigs (lakstains) "frech or geil" —liet. larvae, lat. larvae "schwach' —lit. laibas, lat. nohks ‘bloss, kahl, nacket’ —lit. naked, lat. nowaks "waking, cheerful, it. nuchtern’, —lit. nuovokus, lat. padahrs (derigs)'suitable, useful, comfortable', nhepadahrs 'unsuitable, unfit, what does not serve' —liet. padorus, lat. tickris 'right or ore' —liet. real, etc. The author compares the adjectives of J. Langy’s dictionary with the adjectives of the present Latvian language, showing the differences in their usage. It is pointed out that the adjectives in the dictionary provide a good picture of the forms and meanings of this part of the language three hundred years ago and their comparison with data from other dictionaries and scripts can be very useful for the study of the history of the Latvian language. Most of the articles are devoted to the problems of Latvian lexicon. These are B. Bušmane- ’s article “Names of bread dishes in dialects” (Galertveida čdienu nosaukumi izloksnes, p. 86—134), (O. Buš’s article “From the history of germanisms (bajja bajge, balva)” (No germanismu véstures (bajja, balše, balva), p. 135—148), E. Kagaine’s “From the Baltic Finnish languages borrowed verbs denoting speaking in the dialects of Northern Vidzeme” (No Baltijas somu valodūm aizgūtie runas verbi Ziemelvidzemes izloksnes, p. 149—162), B. Laumane’s “About some names of the flora and fauna of the Baltic Sea” (Par dažiem Baltijas jūras floras un faunas nosaukumiem, p. 163—185), the same author’s “Names of zebras in the Latvian language” (Zebiekstes nosaukumi latviešu valoda, p. 186—198), A. Stafecka- ’s “Names of household objects in a selection of Latvian dialects” (Mūjsaimniecibas priekšmetu nosaukumi Latviešu valodas dialektu atlantū, p. 199—227), V. Šaudinis’s “Some sociolinguistic aspects of the borrowing of Lituanisms in the Selysian dialects” (Daži sčlisko izloksnu lituinismu aizgūšanas sociolingvistiskie aspekti, p. 228—235). Lithuanian scholars, especially those studying bilingualism, will find interesting details in the aforementioned V. Shooting in the article. The articles of B. Laumane are characterized by very rich factual material. This linguist is particularly interested in Latvian vocabulary related to the Baltic Sea. In 1974, she was awarded the J. Endzelynas Prize for her excellent book Fish Names in Latvian Language (Zivju nosaukumi latviešu valoda, Riga, 1973), and in 1987 she received the V. Lacis Prize for her book Fish Names on the Coast of the Latvian SSR (Zvejvietu nosaukumi Latvijas PSR piekrasté, Riga, 1987). 211 O. Bush reviews Estonian academic P. The Book of Arista “Language contacts. Eesti keele kontaktid teiste keeltega (Eesti language contacts with other languages) (Tallinn, 1981). Dz. Barbara provides a bibliography of works published in 1945—1984 for Latvian language contacts. A. Sabaliauskas Myp3aes B. M. CioBape mapojiuusix reorpaduyueckux Tepmunos. M.: Mic, 1984. 654 c. It is the first large-scale dictionary of folk geographical terms of this kind published in our country. Its author is a well-known geographer, interested in place names and especially in geographical terminology — Doctor of Geography, Meritorious Scientific Person of the RSFSR Professor Eduard Makarovitch Murzayev. His scientific interests are mainly related to Asia — he has participated in expeditions to North and Central Asia, Mongolia, Vietnam. His interests have also included a number of geography, toponymy and geographical terminology problems of other countries. In 1959, the publishing house of geographical literature published E. and V. Murzayev's "Dictionary of local geographical terms" (CjioBapb MecCTHbIX TeOrpaĒdHuecKHx TepMuKOB)., In 1973, E. Murzayev's book "Popular toponymics" was published in Moscow, in 1974 - "Toponymic outline". The relatively small volume of the “Dictionary of Local Geography Terms” was very popular and favorably evaluated in the national and foreign press. It also contains some terms from the Baltic republics, but, as the author himself notes in the introduction of the reviewed dictionary, in comparison with other USSR republics, not many. Therefore, E. Murzayev continued to work for those two decades, collecting additional material, etc. The result of this work is truly impressive — a work of 654 pages (59 vols. 1.). It also contains geographical terms from Baltic languages (Lithuanian, Latvian). Further we will talk mainly only about them. From the introduction of the “People’s Geographical Terms Dictionary” it is clear that the author tried to present the terminology of all the USSR republics and regions as uniformly as possible. We do not have data on how he succeeded in doing so on a national scale, but the Baltic languages are reflected too little in the dictionary. — ir (approx. 60). In itself this figure could perhaps not be considered ir neither too low nor, of course, too high everything depends on the ratio of other — su In USSR language terms. However, from ir this point of view, it is still doubtful that Lithuanian and Latvian are represented ar proportionately ir here. That's one thing. Secondly, ir and most importantly, with such a small number of terms in Baltic languages, the question of selection criteria arises. — ką iš thousands necessary to pull the į dictionary? In our opinion, it will be difficult for the author vę to find clearer selection criteria, so only a few dozen Lithuanian-Latvian words often seem to be ir the most important, sometimes quite random or ne entirely doubtful. Choosing terms, especially for a iš foreigner, is not easy: in the absence of sufficient literature, one has to rely on iš intuition, which a foreigner usually lacks. Therefore, ji small can ką help to establish the hierarchy of terms ne only according to the importance of the objects they represent, ir but according to the prevalence of the ar terms themselves, popularity, etc. 212