J. KARACIEJUS

A. MEILLET ON “AISTIAN STUDIES”

The first part of K. Būga’s “Aistian Studies,” published in 1908, in which the author set out the main claims of his teacher K. Jaunius, received not only one laudatory review, signed with the cryptonym N (see “Draugija,” 1908, No. 17, pp. 83—85), but also two comparatively negative reviews: one by J. Endzelīns (published in “Anzeiger der Finnisch-ugrischen Forschungen,” Helsingfors—Leipzig, IX, H. 1, pp. 28—32; this review was decisive in K. Būga’s abandoning K. Jaunius’s teaching) and one by the eminent French linguist A. Meillet (see “Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris,” LVII, pp. CLXXIII—CLXXIV). This shows that A. Meillet was already following and reading the relatively scant Lithuanian linguistic literature at that time.

It is difficult now to say what influence A. Meillet’s review had on K. Būga—in deciding not to publish the second part of “Aistian Studies” and resolving to write and publish a self-critique of the first part—but K. Būga was certainly familiar with its contents. The manuscript collection of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR holds a copy of A. Meillet’s review (call number F 2—770), bearing the stamp of the Paris Linguistic Society. Although A. Meillet’s review, as already noted, is not favorable, knowing how K. Būga treasured scientific truth throughout his life (cf. the self-critique of “Aistian Studies” and also his letter to J. Endzelīns dated January 14, 1911, in which K. Būga thanks the Latvian linguist for criticizing one of his articles—K. Būga, RR, vol. 3, p. 837), we believe that the severe assessment of “Aistian Studies” by the great French linguist in no way diminishes K. Būga’s contribution to the science of language. Since the review, written in French, is less familiar to Lithuanian readers and may be called a bibliographical rarity in Lithuania, we print its Lithuanian translation (translated by J. Karaciejus).

Kazimieras Būga’s Aistian Studies, Part I. (Kasimir Buga, Aistische Studien. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Grammatik der preussischen, lettischen und litauischen Sprache. [er Theil). Pétersbourg, 1908, in-8º; XVI—216 p. (prix: 3 roubles).

Except for the parallel title and parallel contents in German, the entire book is written in Lithuanian. The author is a pupil of the late Jaunius, to whose memory the work is dedicated. He is not inclined to adhere to traditional terms and, borrowing the name of a people used by Tacitus and Ptolemy, unhesitatingly chooses to call the Indo-European Baltic peoples—the Prussians, Lithuanians, and Latvians—Aistians; thus, to avoid ambiguity, he adopts a name that no one will understand. He [the author] cites a fairly extensive bibliography, but F. de Saussure’s name is absent from it.

After a few general remarks about the Baltic languages, this first part contains a study of Baltic vocalism, under the clear but inaccurate heading Ablaut. The author has an excellent command of Lithuanian

50

and his work could be very useful. But he does not wish to submit to any phonetic regularity, and his teaching will spread peculiar errors among his compatriots. The book contains numerous etymologies, but most [of them] are clearly wrong in both form and meaning; we can get an idea of this if we know that B[ūga] unhesitatingly compares Lithuanian krūmas “bush” (with ū, a long u) with Greek πρύμνη, Old Church Slavonic krūma “stern” (p. 188). He claims that in the Old Prussian word gelanynan,! has become the sequence elta, and in the Lithuanian word geltas, the sequence el; he seems to think that the existence of Old Church Slavonic žliti is, beyond any doubt, sufficient proof of his assertion. These are merely two examples among the many cases accepted by B[ūga] on the strength of evidence of this kind, or even weaker. Among the comparisons already proposed, the most doubtful are those he [Būga] is particularly eager to make; the distribution of χ and x in χαλκός makes the comparison of χαλκός with Old Church Slavonic železa, Lithuanian geležis, gelžis, and Old Prussian gelso “iron” highly implausible. The most likely explanation is that the Slavic name on the one hand and the Baltic name on the other, which differ considerably in form, were borrowed from some unknown language, as was the Slavic name for silver sirebro, for which approximate, unreduced counterparts of the Slavic form are found in the Baltic and Germanic languages. On pp. 16, 129, and elsewhere, B[ūga] attempts to connect χαλκός and geležis; Bezzenberger, who is reluctant to abandon this comparison, recently called it “unmodern” (K. Z., XLII, p. 387). And indeed there is no reason to seek an Indo-European name for a metal that peoples speaking Proto-Indo-European clearly did not know.

By giving a brief overview of Lithuanian dialectology, B[ūga] would have rendered a great service. It is regrettable that he preferred to write a work on comparative grammar in Lithuanian, without having the knowledge of rigorous method that such a work requires.

A. Meillet