Iš senųjų lietuvių kalbos socialinių terminų tyrinėjimo istorijos

SOCIALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XIX (1979) Juozas KARACIEJUS FROM THE HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF OLD LITHUANIAN SOCIAL TERMS The history of social terms in Old Lithuanian appears not to have been studied separately anywhere. Of course, this does not mean that the names of social institutions in Lithuanian were entirely neglected in linguistic literature. Some of them appeared in linguistic studies when, after the historical-comparative method had amassed more data, interest turned to Indo-European areas—that is, when, with the help of facts then known from ancient history, archaeology, and other auxiliary disciplines, attempts were made to locate the Indo-European homeland and reconstruct its civilization. Some Old Lithuanian social terms are examined by representatives of so-called linguistic paleontology [Pictet A., 1859—1863; Шрадеръ О., 1886, 25], who were the first to try to reconstruct Indo-European (including Lithuanian) civilization, social structure, and the origins and evolution of social institutions, and who sought to analyze their names as terms rather than as isolated words illustrating the operation of phonetic laws. The greatest contribution in this field in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was made by O. Schrader, who, in addition to many historical-linguistic studies, published a dictionary of Indo-European realia in 1901 [Schrader O., 1901]. In short, the works of O. Schrader, H. Hirt [Hirt H., 1905—1907], and especially those of representatives of the French sociological school led by A. Meillet laid a relatively firm foundation for further studies of Indo-European social terms. Prehistoric archaeology, ethnography, and other auxiliary disciplines also provided linguists with a great deal of additional material. It should also be remembered that, at the beginning of the twentieth century, evidence from Tocharian and Hittite was incorporated into linguistic research, providing scholars in this field with a substantial amount of new data. Indeed, structural linguistics had become fully established by the 1920s, and for a time there was somewhat less interest in questions concerning the origins and civilization of the Indo-Europeans than there had been in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, because most linguists began to study language as a system in general by structural methods. Of course, one should not conclude that Indo-European realia were no longer of interest at all. All the reasons mentioned brought new corrections to earlier conclusions, confirming or refuting some of the hypotheses previously advanced. In addition, evidence from the Indo-Iranian languages prompted many new ideas, since the ancient written monuments of these peoples contain much discussion of Indo-Iranian social structure and the division of their society into three groups [Dumézil G., 1930; Benveniste E., 1932; 1938]; this is undoubtedly a phenomenon dating from very ancient times (see also Dumézil G., 1958; Benveniste E., 1969, I, 279—292). The 1969 Paris publication of the very interesting work “Dictionary of Indo-European Social Terms” [Benveniste E., 1969], by the well-known French linguist E. Benveniste, can probably be regarded as a synthesis of the latest research in this field. In it, the author gives a highly original account of the history of the names of ancient Indo-European social institutions, including many Lithuanian ones. On this occasion, it should be recalled that, besides the specialized studies already mentioned, which examine the Indo-European homeland, civilization, and social structure, the origins of many Old Lithuanian social terms are explained in various etymological dictionaries and shorter studies. It is impossible to list them all here; doing so would require much more space. Moreover, this is not intended as a comprehensive history of research on Old Lithuanian social terms 125 but rather aims, through one or two examples, to show that the origins of the Old Lithuanian social terms studied, and the history of their emergence and use, are not all clear, even though a full century passed between the first edition of A. Pictet’s major book and the publication of E. Benveniste’s dictionary. The fact that Lithuanian written monuments, almost all of which are translations from other languages, date only from the sixteenth century also plays no secondary role in the history of Lithuanian social terms. This circumstance, together with their ecclesiastical content, offers very little help in tracing the history of Old Lithuanian social terms. Various state documents, in which we would expect to find most of the material relevant to this question, were written in languages other than Lithuanian; the terms that found their way into them are later ones, and only those for which the document’s language lacked precise equivalents or which were unknown to the clerk who wrote the document (cf. Lingis J., 1970, 292; Jablonskis K., 1941). But let us return to the history of research on Old Lithuanian social terms and see how the names of social groups have been examined in linguistic literature. 1. People Alongside the form liaúdis ‘people, crowd, group’, Lithuanian dialects have liaudžią ‘a large household (both family members and outsiders), crowd, group’. The first form, meaning ‘people, nation’, is found in old writings; for example, in M. Daukša’s “Postil” we read: Šitai apsakau jumus džiaugsmą…, kursai bus visai liaudi (liaudžiai) (LKŽ VII 391). The closest relatives of liaúdis; liaudžią are Latvian làudis ‘Lente, Volk, Gesinde’, Old Prussian ludis ‘Wirt’, ludini ‘Wirtin’, ludysz ‘Mensch’ [Fraenkel E., 1962, 360—361], and Old Slavic lǫdъ ‘народ’, ljudije ‘люди’, Old High German liut; Old English leod, German Leute ‘люди’ [Фасмер М., 1967, 545; Fraenkel E., 1962, 360—361; Pokorny J., 1959, 684—685; Schrader O., 1901, 807—808; Benveniste E., 1969, I 323; taip pat Бенвенист Э., 1974, 355]. All these words are then connected with Greek ἐλεύθερος ‘free’, Latin līber ‘free’, liberi ‘children’, Gothic liudan ‘grow’, Old Indic rōdhati ‘grows, rises’, Albanian l’ind ‘I give birth’, pol’em ‘people, nation’ [Fraenkel E., 1962, 360—361; Pokorny J., 1959, 684—685; Фасмер М., 1967, 545; Schrader O., 1901, 807—808; Трубачев О. Н., 1959, 169], etc., which are derived from the Indo-European root *leudh- [Pokorny J., 1959, 684—685]. Nevertheless, the origin of the Lithuanian (resp. Baltic) word liaudis and its closest Slavic and Germanic cognates remains unclear to this day [Ernout A., Meillet A., 1951, 632; Chantraine P., 1970, 337; Трубачев О. Н., 1959, 168]. This is probably thought to be so for two reasons: first, Greek ἐλεύθερος ‘free’ and Latin līber ‘free’, liberi ‘children’ seem, at first glance, semantically unrelated to the Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic social term for ‘people’; second, the words in both Greek and Latin that also functioned as social terms are derivatives whose reconstructed form is *(e)leutheros. According to E. Benveniste, this adjectival form derives from the noun *leudho- or *leudhes- [Бенвенист Э., 1974, 356]. Although, on the basis of semantic reconstruction, E. Benveniste appears to have convincingly demonstrated in his “Dictionary of Indo-European Social Terms” the connection between the Greek and Latin social terms in question and the Indo-European root *leudh-, and hence also with the terms for ‘people’ in Slavic and Germanic languages, P. Chantraine, author of the most recent Greek etymological dictionary, who presumably knew E. Benveniste’s conclusions, writes that comparing Latin līber and Greek ἐλεύθερος with terms used in Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic languages for ‘people’ is possible, but difficult to prove (Un rapprochement de lat. līber et de grec ἐλεύθερος avec des termes désignant le peuple en germanique et en balto-slave peut séduire, mais ne se laisse pas démonter — Chantraine P., 1970, 337). Thus, even now, the history of this Lithuanian social term, like that of many others, still has many obscure points. It is therefore not at all surprising that for a time the Lithuanian origin of liaudies was even questioned, since neither Lith- 126 tuvių, išskyrus turbūt asmenvardžius, pvz.: Vėlyaudą, Liaudginą [Būga K., 1958, 256], nei latvių kalbose nerandame daugiau senesnių šios šaknies darinių. Prieš tokią nuomonę ne kartą pasisakė K. Būga, nurodęs, jog „liaudis yra vienas seniausių mūsų kalbos žodžių“, kurio „senumu džiaugiasi viso pasaulio kalbininkai“ [Būga K., 1959, 56]. Bet K. Būga lietuvių kalbos liaudies pavadinimą lygino tik su latvių ļaudis, slavu ļudь, lietuvių bei senovės vokiečių aukštaičių liut ir tolimesnių jo giminių nurodė [Būga K., 1958, 382]. Tiesa, K. Būga nenagrinėjo liaudies kaip socialinio termino, nesidomėjo šiuo terminu pavadinto socialinio instituto kilme. Jis tik stengėsi apginti nuo puristų liaudies teises lietuvių kalboje. Such, then, is a brief history of research into the Lithuanian social term liaudis, which gives us relatively little information about the origins of this social institution. This is probably because Lithuanian (resp. Baltic) liaudis as a social term was studied against the background of other Indo-European languages, usually relying solely on sound correspondences and taking no special interest in the history of the formation of this social institution in the Baltic languages; moreover, the semantics, which occupies an important place in the history of terms, was often overlooked. Semantics can provide much additional material for clarifying the history of the formation and the etymology of ancient social terms. For example, S. Karaliūnas’s (1976, 89) recently expressed view on the semantic and etymological connection between the lexemes liūsti, liūdėti, which are usually derived from the Indo-European root *leud- [Pokorny J., 1959, 684], and liaudis, liaudžia appears to be the first attempt to do so. 2. Šeima It should be said at the outset that the history and origins of šeima are also not entirely clear, although this old Lithuanian social term is not as isolated in terms of word formation as the liaudis just discussed. In addition to the base form šeima, an old derivative, šeimyna, is relatively widespread in Lithuanian (cf. kaimynas, -ė, avynas); in some dialects it is now used in the same sense as šeima. Earlier, their usage was undoubtedly much more strictly differentiated; cf. šeimynaũti (: šeimyną), “to look for a household” [Skardžius P., 1943, 499]. Alongside šeima, šeimyna, Lithuanian has šeimininkas, -ė, šeimyninis, šeimininkauti and other words formed earlier or later from the same root. The situation is similar in Latvian: alongside the base word sàime, “Hausgesinde, Familie in weiteren Sinne,” one finds sàimnieks, “Wirt, Hausherr,” sàimniecība, “Wirtschaft, Haushaltung, Hausvorstand,” and sàimnie:k(u)ot, “wirtschaften, Wirtschaft führen” [Fraenkel E., 1965, 970]. In Old Prussian sources we find seimins, “Gesinde,” a suffixal derivative of the form *seime, which appears not to be attested in the sources. In his “Reallexikon,” discussing the designation for ‘family’ in the Indo-European languages, O. Schrader makes no mention at all of the Lithuanian and Latvian base words šeimà and sàime and, relying on Slavic semija, semьjo and Lithuanian šeimyna and Old Prussian seimins, reconstructs a common Baltic-Slavic (lituoslavische) form *sei-mi- [Schrader O., 1901, 223]. O. Schrader appears deliberately not to mention the almost identical forms in Germanic (cf. Gothic haims, “селение,” Old High German heim, “родина”) and partly in Greek (cf. χώμη, “village”) (cf. Schrader O., 1901, 143), as do most authors of etymological dictionaries. They group with these forms Lithuanian kiėmas, káimas, Latvian cièms, and Old Prussian caymis, deriving them all from the Indo-European root *k’ei-, “to lie.” Here we encounter once again the question, still unresolved, of the relationship between Lithuanian šeimà and kiėmas, káimas. O. Schrader compared Lithuanian kiėmas, káimas with Greek χώμη, “village,” Gothic haims, “селение,” and Old Church Slavonic pokojь, noting that Lithuanian kiemas, “village,” Gothic haims, and Greek χώμη probably once meant ‘rest after long wanderings’ (cf. Шрадер О., 1913, 61). 127 The association of Lithuanian family, village, homestead with Greek χώρη and Germanic-language words meaning ‘settlement’ was questioned by E. Boisacq in the “Greek Etymological Dictionary” [Boisacq E., 1916, 426; 544]. Somewhat later than O. Schrader and E. Boisacq, K. Būga wrote: “It would be more prudent not to connect the Lithuanian word (kiemas) with χώρη at all. It is more likely that homestead, village is not separate from these words: Slavic po-čiti ‘to rest’, pokojь, Latin quietus, Lithuanian kiaulų kiunis” [Būga K., 1959, 254 and fn. 1; differently Фасмер М., 1971, 347–348]. Not long ago, V. Mažiulis endorsed this etymology by K. Būga, considering it the most reliable [Mažiulis V., 1960, 208]. In short, the history of the emergence of Lithuanian family and homestead, village as social institutions remains unclear, especially since the latest research has shown that such a close Lithuanian counterpart to family: household, Slavic семьја belongs among terms denoting territorial unity [Трубачев О. Н., 1959, 164–165]. Moreover, as already noted, the relationship is not entirely clear not only between Lithuanian family: homestead but also between family: household. P. Skardžius’s view that šeimyna (cf. kaimynas, -a) is an adjective that has become a noun, meaning ‘familial, belonging to a family’, says very little about it as a social term [Skardžius P., 1943, 269]. The only thing that is clear is that šeimyna is a very ancient formation (cf. Latin vicīnus ‘being nearby, neighboring’, from vicus; Lithuanian kaimynas: kaimas [Skardžius P., 1943, 269]. Also belonging to this group is the term ke-ke-me-na ko-to-na, used in texts written in the Greek (Mycenaean) Linear B script and denoting land held in common [Иванов В. В., 1957, 43–44; Chantraine P., 1970, 606]. Consequently, many riddles remain unsolved in the history of these Lithuanian (or Baltic) social terms (family, household; homestead, village). They must be solved with the help of social-historical facts and the findings of the latest linguistic research, since deriving them formally from the PIE root *k’ei- seems difficult to explain on the basis of Baltic-language evidence. 3. Tauta Besides Lithuanian, the word for ‘nation’ is also found in Latvian and Old Prussian; cf. Latvian tauta, “Art, Geschlecht, Gattung; das Volk, die Nation,” and Old Prussian tauto, “Land” [Fraenkel E., 1965, 1069]. Its formal identity and semantic similarity to words in other Indo-European languages (Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Illyrian) long ago attracted the attention of linguists studying Indo-European social structure. As early as then, A. Pictet compared Lithuanian tautą and Latvian tauta with related words in other Indo-European languages, such as Oscan touto, Gothic tiuda, and others [Pictet A., 1877, III, 89]. It is true that A. Pictet gives Lithuanian tautą with the meaning “Germany.” He took this meaning of the word from dictionaries by Prussian authors because, as K. Būga remarks, “the word tautà is known to linguists... only in the sense ‘Oberland, Deutschland,’ that is, a sense unknown to both old and modern Lithuanian writers, with the exception of the dictionaries of Rugio, Milkaus, and Neselmano [K. Būga, 1958, 381]. After noting that writers use the word tautà in the sense ‘племя, нация’; ‘gens, natio’ and adding a series of examples from the works of M. Daukša, S. Daukantas, and J. Juška, K. Būga did not examine this old Lithuanian social term further. But his remarks seem to have greatly helped the social term tautà gain a foothold in linguistic literature, at least alongside the meaning “Oberland, Deutschland,” and in the sense in which it had long been used (cf. Trautmann R., 1923, 315; Walde A., Pokorny J., 1930, 714; Feist S., 1939, 496). Since the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the social term *teuta in other Indo-European languages are clear, to use E. Benveniste’s words [Benveniste E., 1969, I, 366], there seems little need to discuss in detail the closest cognates of Lithuanian tautos in other Indo-European languages, since for now they do not help us clarify the history of the formation of tautos as a social institution in Lithuanian or, more broadly, in the Baltic languages. Moreover, this is a separate and complex question requiring specialized research. Its history would, it seems, become much clearer if we established how tautà relates to the other old Lithuanian social term already mentioned, liaudis, also used for a social grou- 128 to name. Perhaps here we are dealing with a very ancient phenomenon in social history, inherited from deep antiquity, for the old distinction in the use of these two terms is unclear, especially since both (tauta, apparently more often) occur in old two-stem Lithuanian personal names, and neither has clear older derivatives with the same root, which would be very useful in explaining the history of these social terms. After these brief remarks, it seems clear that the history of the old Lithuanian social terms studied against the background of other Indo-European languages is far from clear. It requires much further research in order to answer the questions that continually arise. This may also be because words, terms, have often been regarded as members of some strict system existing in abstraction, and it has occasionally even been “forgotten” that, alongside phonetic laws—which, incidentally, are not without exceptions—there are also semantic laws, which are harder to explain. The development of the lexicon is always closely connected with the development of society, its culture, and its way of thinking, and not everything here can be explained solely by relatively strict phonetic laws. Retrospective sociolinguistics can, of course, greatly assist in explaining the origin and history of social terms; according to J. Desheriev, it could help overcome the shortcomings of the historical-comparative method (for more detail: Дешериев Ю. Д., 1977, 358—359), which are perhaps most clearly revealed in the study of the names of ancient social institutions, since linguistic facts alone are insufficient for examining their history. First and foremost, it is necessary to establish how a concept with social significance arose—that is, to investigate in as much detail as possible the reasons for the emergence, existence, or disappearance of the social institution itself. In other words, one must first become familiar with the facts of social history, and only then begin to examine linguistically the social term itself and its history, since “comparative historical analysis makes it possible to establish that a term later used to designate particular social groups initially did not have this social meaning” [Иванов В. В., 1957, 51]. This seems to be characteristic not only of the names of social groups, but of the social terms of any language, provided they are not borrowed. Moreover, one must never forget that the disappearance of a social institution does not necessarily mean that the word denoting that concept must also disappear or pass into the passive vocabulary. Having lost its former specific meaning, over time it may acquire new meanings and remain a full-fledged member of the language. Literatūra Benveniste É. Les classes sociales dans la tradition Avestique. — Journal Asiatique. Paris, 1932, t. 221, Nr. 1. Benveniste É. Traditions indo-iraniennes sur les classes sociales. — Journal Asiatique. Paris, 1938, t. 230, Nr. 4. Benveniste É. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. T. I. Économie, parenté, société. T. 2. Pouvoir, droit, religion. Paris, 1969. Boisacq E. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grec. Heidelberg—Paris, 1916. Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1958, t. I; 1959, t. II. Chantraine P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris, 1970, t. 2. Dumézil G. Le préhistoire indo-iranienne des castes. — Journal Asiatique. Paris, 1930, t. 216, Nr. 1. Dumézil G. L’idéologie tripartite des indo-européens. Bruxelles, 1958. Ernout A., Meillet A. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris, 1951, t. I, 3e éd. Feist S. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Leiden, 1939, 3 Aufl. Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1962, 1965, Bd. I, II. Hirt H. Die Indogermanen. Strassburg, 1905—1907, Bd. I—II. Jablonskis K. Lietuviški žodžiai senosios Lietuvos raštinių kalboje. 1941, d. I. Karaliūnas S. Lie. čiū̄nas „dailus, švarus, tvarkingas…“, taūsti (-čia) „ilgėtis, liūdėti“ ir jų giminaičiai. — Baltistica. V. 1976, t. 12(1). Lingis J. Išnykę ir pasikeitę socialinės reikšmės žodžiai lietuvių kalboje. — Donum Balticum. Stockholm, 1970. Locher J. P. Lettisch tauta, plur. tauti usw.: Varianten des Stammeslaut(e)s in ihrer Beziehung zur Wortbedeutung. — In: Donum Balticum. Ed. by Velta Rūķe-Draviņa. Stockholm, 1970. Locher J. P. Die „Darbay senųjų lietuvių yra žemayčių“ von Daukantas: Zur Genese des Textes — eine Analyse auf der Grundlage der Wortfeldes tauta — giminė. — Baltistica. II priedas. 1977. 9. Užs. Nr. 1554 129 Mažiulis V. Dėl žodžių dvaras, kiemas. — Kalbotyra. V., 1960, t. 2. Pictet A. Les origines Indo-européennes ou les Aryas primitifs. Essai de paléontologie linguistique. Paris — Genève, 1859—1863, pt. 1—2. Pictet A. Les origines Indo-européennes ou les Aryas primitifs. Essai de paléontologie linguistique. Paris, 1877, t. I—III, 2e éd. Pokorny J. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern und München, 1959, Bd. I. Schrader O. Reallexikon der indogermanisches Altertumskunde. Strassburg, 1901. Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. V., 1943. Trautmann R. Baltisch — slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen, 1923. Walde A., Pokorny J. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin und Leipzig, 1930, Bd. I. Бенвенист Э. Общая лингвистика. — М., 1974. Дешериев Ю. Д. Социальная лингвистика. — М., 1977. Иванов В. В. Социальная организация индоевропейских племен по лингвистическим данным. — Вестн. истории мировой культуры. М., 1957, № 1. Трубачев О. Н. История славянских терминов родства и некоторых древнейших терминов общественного строя. — М., 1959. Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. — М., 1967, 1971, т. 2, 3. Шрадеръ О. Сравнительное языковедение и первобытная история. — СПб., 1886. Шрадеръ О. Индоевропейцы. — СПб., 1913. Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas ИЗ ИСТОРИИ ИЗУЧЕНИЯ СТАРЫХ СОЦИАЛЬНЫХ ТЕРМИНОВ ЛИТОВСКОГО ЯЗЫКА Резюме История старых социальных терминов литовского языка отдельно до сих пор нигде не была описана, но в лингвистической литературе о них неоднократно говорили представители так называемой лингвистической палеонтологии в конце XIX — в начале XX вв. В истории старых социальных терминов литовского языка еще много неясных вопросов, хотя речь о них шла не только в крупных работах А. Пикте, О. Шрадера, Г. Хирта, Э. Бенвениста, но и в разных этимологических словарях, в статьях, посвященных вопросам прародины, культуры и цивилизации древних индоевропейцев. В статье описывается история изучения социальных терминов литовского языка liaudis — „люди, народ, толпа людей“, liaudžia „большая семья, челядь, толпа людей“, šeima „семья“, šeimyna „челядь, семья“, tauta „племя, нация“ и делается попытка доказать, что без помощи ретроспективной социальной лингвистики нельзя точно определить происхождение этих терминов.