Šiaurės rytų žemaičių dūnininkų kai kurie morfofoneminiai dialektizmai

LIETUVIŲ AREALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS KLAUSIMAI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA V. VITKAUSKAS SOME MORPHOPHONEMIC DIALECTAL FEATURES OF THE NORTHEASTERN ŽEMAIČIAI DŪNININKAI As is well known, dialects and subdialects contain words and forms whose sound histories are unclear. In compiling the “Dictionary of the Northeastern Žemaičiai Dūnininkai”¹, quite a number of such cases arose, and they had to be resolved in one way or another. These dialect words and forms, which are difficult to relate to their standard Lithuanian equivalents because of differences in the sound laws and the impossibility of demonstrating that they are regular dialect forms, may be called morphophonemic dialectal features. They usually contain some formant that has acquired derivational and lexical-differentiating functions as a result of an irregular change in one or another vowel, consonant, or diphthong. Assuming that a sound law must operate in a particular sound environment, we regard as deviations from the phonetic system of the subdialects those cases in which the sounds in question cannot be clearly and firmly accounted for by a regular sound change. This is most often associated with a different word root, a different derivational element, the emergence of non-etymological sounds, or even the breakdown in the subdialects of a former sound law under various influences, analogies, and the like. I. SOME MORPHOPHONEMIC DIALECTAL FEATURES WITH THE VOWEL e In these subdialects there are words and forms in which the vowel e is pronounced instead of standard Lithuanian i or i(e) in other Žemaitian subdialects. The irregular appearance of the vowel e and its alternation with i (e), even within the same word, merits closer examination. This e may occur in word roots, suffixes, and components of compounds. Moreover, it is recorded in both native words and loanwords. We will examine the more important instances of this phenomenon in greater detail. Word root. 1. In the roots of some words, these subdialects have el: smḗltį Drv, Krš, Vrp / smḗltę Vds “sand” instead of standard Lithuanian mixed diphthong il (but smḗltės Pvn, Vkšn), smeltį·nc Drv, Krš, Vrp / smeltį·nc Vds, Užv “sandy place”, kelniúoti / kelniúotę “to lift”, švel·ptį Drv, Krš, Vrp / švel·ptę Vds. The verbal adjective vel·kinę / vėlkę·nc “while dragging”, cf. Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai forms vil·kins, but vėlkins || vėl·kens in the vicinity of Šakyna and Gruzdžiai (sometimes also vilkins). 1 For information about this dictionary and the subdialects it covers, see Aut., “Principles for compiling a dictionary of subdialect groups,” LKK XIII 79–98. The principal inhabited localities are: Dovėnai, Kuršėnai, Pakšteliai, Vārputėnai — Šiauliai District; Užventis, Vidsodis — Kelmė District; Pāvandenė, Viekšniai — Telšiai District. 7. Užs. Nr. 1026 97 Such alternation between ẽ and į (e) in a mixed diphthong with l may sometimes indicate that į (e) in this position tends to open further and may even develop fully into open e (here this phenomenon could also be linked to the earlier shift i: e; see below). The word smėlti | smėlte in the dialects under description, like smė.lte in the eastern Highland Lithuanian dialect of Dusetos, is clearly cognate with the Latvian equivalent smelte (LV III 959). The presence of e in some forms of the word švel.pį Drv, Krš | švel.pę Vds is probably to be explained in the same way (cf. Latvian svelpt), especially since these dialects also have the word šve.lpti Drv, Krš | šve.lptę Užv, Vds, Vkšn ‘to lisp’ (cf. also švelpti DŽ¹ 829). On the other hand, apart from this hypothesis that the word švelpti is shared with Latvian, one may also consider Latvian influence, since the distribution of this verb points in that direction (Žg, Škn, Vgr, Klk, Akm, Pp, Šiaudinė, Rdn, Vds, but šve.lptę Pvn, Vkšn), that is, places where there are or have been Latvian homesteads, or which have had closer ties with Latvia. It is also significant that alongside švelpti the words švilpiniuot Škn, Grz | švilpiniu.tį Drv, Vrp | švelpeņu.te Vds ‘to whistle’, švilpis Škn, Grz | švi.l.pis Krš, Drv | švi.l.pis Rdn, Trš, Akm ‘whistle; whistling’, švilpūks Grz | šve.lpōks Rdn, Trš, Pp ‘whistle’, and others are used here. As for the verb kelnuoti | kelnuotę, it may be assumed to have been formed differently from standard Lithuanian kilnoti, namely, without vowel gradation in the root. 2. In the North Žemaitian (Dounininkai) dialects, some of the dialects described here—those of Kuršėnai, Dirvėnonai, and Vārputėnai—pronounce the verb krečiuote | krečūote ‘to let a shirt or blouse hang outside one’s trousers or skirt’ only with e: krečiuoti (but krę-čiuote Pvn, Užv, Vkšn). It should be assumed that, as in the Western Highland Lithuanian dialects (Jurbarkas, Vadžgirys; cf. LKŽ VI 488)², a different root vowel is used here. 3. The loanword klėję- ‘glue’ also has e instead of the i found in most other dialects and in standard Lithuanian. The form with vowel e comes from the Slavic languages. In addition to the dialects described here, the word is also pronounced with e in the root by the Dounininkai around Papilė, Akmenė, Raudėnai, Tryškiai, Telšiai, Salantai, and elsewhere. That this form is not entirely new is shown by the writings of S. Stanevičius, S. Daukantas, and A. Juška; see LKŽ VI 37–38. Word suffix. 1. Some words that have the suffix -ilas in standard Lithuanian and dialects are pronounced with -elas in the dialects under discussion. These are: duobels Vrp | duobels Pvn, Užv ‘clover’, ẽrz̃e.ls Pvn, Vkšn ‘stallion’, kre.tels Drv, Vds | kre.tė.ls Pvn, Vkšn ‘flail’, sprā.gels Pkš | sprā.ge.ls Pvn, Vkšn ‘flail’ and spragẽlgā.lve Pvn, Vkšn ‘flail head’, spragẽlkuotis Pvn, Vkšn ‘flail handle’, brẽ.gelā Pvn ‘brizgilai’ (Whether because of the influence of standard Lithuanian or of Western Highland Lithuanian, rā-tils is the only form used throughout the area of these dialects; brizgilā / brẽgelā is used in most places, and in many places, especially around Kuršėnai, sprā.gils, kre.-tils, although it should be noted that around Šakyna some people say eržels. The interaction between dialects is evident here.) As the material from the Žemaitian dialects shows³, the suffix -elas probably existed and still exists⁴; it may have arisen for phonetic reasons as well—through the merger of e (i) with e. ² In A. Juška’s dictionary and in Rietavas, krečiuoti probably has e incorrectly transposed from dialectal e. ³ For literature and further discussion, see B. Vanagienė and V. Vitkauskas. Dar dėl kubelo, LKK XIII 222. Cf. also A. Girdenis (rec.), “Baltistica”, IV(1), p. 143; Vl. Grinaveckis, Šiaurės vakarų dūnininkų tarmių fonetinės ypatybės ir jų raida, “Vilniaus Valstybinio pedagoginio instituto Mokslo darbai”, 11, 1960, p. 44; V. Grinaveckis, Pluoštas žemaičių žodžių, “Kalbos kultūra”, 22, 1972, p. 71, 72, 74. ⁴ See P. Skardžius, Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius, 1943, p. 175. 98 One or another loanword also seems to have been adapted to these Lithuanian derivatives: kā·tels / kā·tē·ls ‘kettle’, kūbels / kōbė·ls ‘tub’⁵, ē·sē·ls Pvn, Vkšn ‘donkey’. Similarly, e must have arisen in the words kūneks kō·neks ‘priest’, gūzeks Dry, Krš, Vrp ‘button’, mūzeka Vrp ‘violin’, mūzekuñ.c Vrp ‘musician’. In these cases, the open Highland Lithuanian i, Žemaitian Dounininkai ė (cf. Telšiai gō.zeks, mō.zeka) was probably replaced by open e. (The words kunegas, kunegaikštis were used by S. Daukantas and M. Valančius; see LKŽ VI 891⁶. Thus the language of nineteenth-century written texts may also have exerted influence, since even today the Žemaitians of these areas sing at wakes and memorial gatherings the words kunegas, kunegaikštystė from the hymnbooks of that period.) This alternation between e and į (ę) may have been encouraged not only by the greater opening of the vowel į (ę) in these words and by the distinctive interpretation of North Žemaitian (Dounininkai) ė in the northeastern Dūnininkai (eastern Varniškiai), but also by į: e in cases of this type, such as, for example, šō·bėnė: drū·k̇opė·nis Jdr, Vvr, Šv ‘a person with a large backside’, stuoršobė·nė Pvn. For the same reason, *kūniks | kō·neks may have arisen, as well as kūnė·gbūvis | kōne·gbūvis ‘former priest’, kūnė·kpalaiķis | kōne·kpalaiķis ‘poor, bad priest’; by analogy with the latter, even kūnė·gišk s | kōne·gešk s ‘priestly’. Finally, by generalizing all this, kūneks | kō·neks may also have arisen. Cf. also kūbil s, more common in the vicinity of Kuršėnai, but only pūskubėlis⁷ ‘half-tub’, gen. sg. pūs-kubė·lė ‘of a half-tub’, dū·nkubėlis ‘bread tub’, gen. sg. dū·nkubė·lė ‘of a bread tub’. There one also says gūziks, but, for example, the same speaker who used that form may immediately use the nonce formation guzė·ksegį ‘female button-fastener’. There are more examples of this kind, for instance: the village name lį·kšelis Krš, Vrp / lį·kėlis Vds, Užv. Standard Lithuanian Lyǵšilis (šils / šė·ls ‘heather’), nj. šilımdaržis Krš ‘greenhouse’ and šilema Krš, Pkš ‘heat’ (but šėlėma Pvn, Vds, Užv, Vkšn), čibirs / če·bė·rs ‘Siberia’ and čibė·riškęs (šal.tis) / če·bė·reškęs ‘Siberian’. Might another factor have further increased all this confusion between vowels e and į, especially around Kuršėnai? As these dialects have become more Highland-Lithuanian-like (this applies mainly to Kuršėnai, Dirvėnonai, and Vārputėnai, but is also observable elsewhere, even around Pāvandėnė), their vowel systems have changed considerably. As even present-day facts show, vowel i (and u) is new⁹, having replaced the vowel e (and ǝ) formerly found here¹⁰. When a dialect’s phonetic system changes considerably, various hypercorrections and all kinds of doublets inevitably arise. Since the articulation of vowels e and ę is very similar, as ę changed into i, e may sometimes also have developed into į and, conversely, ę into e. This seems to be supported by a number of doublets of this type, such as: skīlā·uda | skēlà·uda and skelā·uda | skelā·uda ‘splinter; a thin piece of bark’, skijdė·rva | skedē·rva and skedē·rva | skedē·rva ‘same’, tikšūoti and tekšūoti Drv, Krš ‘to lie; to lie in a pool’, sukļė·pa and sukļipa Dnv ‘became limp’, stiñbirī·s and stiñbė- 5For doubts about the Slavic origin of this word, see S. Karaliūnas, Dėl keleto lietuvių kalbos skolinių, LKK XII 181–183; cf. also V. Urbutis (rec.), “Baltistica”, VII (2), p. 205. 6See also Z. Zinkevičius, Reikšmingas žemaitiškas rankraštinis tekstas, LKK XV 181–182, 187. 7Regressive vowel assimilation? 8See J. Kazlauskas, Dėl baltų *ei ir *o raidos lietuvių žemaičių tarmėse, “Baltistica”, V (1), p. 32–33; Z. Zinkevičius, Dėl lietuvių kalbos tautosilabinių an tipo junginių pirmojo dėmens siaurėjimo, “Baltistica”, I supplement, 1972, p. 230–231. 9See Aut., Nauji regresyvinės balsių asimiliacijos faktai Kuršėnų šnektoje, “Kalbotyra”, XXVI (1), p. 81–82, footnote 4. 10See A. Girdenis, Kada gi žemaičių tarmė atsiskyrė nuo aukštaičių? “Kalbotyra”, XXII (1), p. 82, footnote 9. 7* 99 ṙ's Drv, Krš “stimburys,” vė·piza | vė·peza “a gaper,” paukštelėlis | paukšti-lėlis and paukštelėlis Drv, Krš, Pkš “little bird,” takelėlis | takilelis and takeėlėlis Krš “little path,” and so on. Thus, the morphophonemic dialectal features with the vowel e in these Samogitian dūnininkai dialects have arisen for various reasons: a) because of another vowel in the root or suffix; b) because of a vowel alternation that apparently occurred earlier and left only relics in derived words (which may also have determined the appearance of e in the base word); c) because of further raising of i, or even because the former vowel e in the eastern dialects considered here was replaced by open e (this gave rise even to parallel word roots and forms with e and i (ė), perhaps even hypercorrections). II. MORPHOPHONEMIC DIALECTAL FEATURES WITH THE VOWEL u: The vowel u in these dialects is: a) of the same origin as standard Lithuanian ū: lū·pa | lū·pa, plū·pti | plū·pte “to beat”; b) derived from *ō (>standard Lithuanian and Aukštaitian uo): dū·k | dū·k ~ duok, jū·ks ~ juokas; c) in individual words, corresponding to standard Lithuanian uo but indistinguishable from u in the other Samogitian subdialects: sū·des | sū·des “soot”; d) corresponding to standard Lithuanian ą: kū· ~ ką Drv, Krš, Vrp, sometimes Užv, Vds, sū·malinis | sū·malinis “made of meal.” In the latter two cases, certain differences between the words are usually what make it possible to regard them as morphophonemic dialectal features. Word root. 1. Comparing some words in these dialects with the corresponding words in other Samogitian dialects, we see that northern Samogitians—dounininkai—also pronounce u here instead of standard Lithuanian uo¹¹. For example: sū·des | sū·des | sū·dęs “soot,” sū·dinc | sū·denc “sooty,” nušisū·dinis | nu·sesū·denes “having become sooty” (cf. sū·dęs Trk, Vkš, Jdr, Žr, Tl, Ms, Lk, sū·des Pp, Rdn, Trš, sū·dė·nc Mžk, Klk, Trš, Rdn, Lk, Jdr, nusesū·denes Trš, Rdn, Žr, Jdr, Ms); sū·sti·s | sū·stis “to be irritable; to move; to burn badly”: kuo tas vaı·ks tā·p sū·sā·s Krš (cf. sū·stėis, sū·sā·s Akm, Pp, Vkš, Sd, Gd—LKŽ k: neighboring Western Aukštaitian dialects also have sū·stis || sū·sties “to move, rub: sū·ses i sū·ses | sė·dė·k kai žmō·gus Škn)¹². That is, these may possibly be different roots, since “the Samogitian phonemes ū, ų, ō did not necessarily have to arise through the uo grade; they could also have developed directly from ō”¹³. 2. The origin of vowel u in these dialects is unclear in some loanwords¹⁴. For example: pū·ks “fluff” (and pū·kinc | pū·kė·nc “fluffy,” pū·kinti | pū·kė·nte “to make fluffy”), spū·lė | spū·lė “spool,” ū·sta· | ū·stā· “mustache” (and u·stuofus | u·stuōros “wearing a mustache,” u·stū·c “mustached”), as well as the word ã·ū· | ã·ęū· “thank you, thanks”¹⁵. It is difficult to draw any conclusions about the root vowel u and its origin from the pronunciation of the dūnininkai (southern Samogitians). The dounininkai (northern Samogitians) generally pronounce the diphthong ųu here: 11 Žr. Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija (toliau — LD), Vilnius, 1966, p. 85. 12 As dialect data show, the standard Lithuanian verb suosti is also a word characteristic of the Samogitian dialect. S. Karaliūnas’s evidence that suosti is used in Gegu žinė, Vadokliai, Vajasiškis, Žilinai, and Biržai is wholly unreliable. See S. Karaliūnas, “On the History of Lithuanian jo-stem Verbs,” LKK XIV 96—97. 13 See S. Karaliūnas, cited article, p. 60. See also J. Kazlauskas, cited article, “Baltistica,” V(1), p. 29 ff. 14 See Vl. Grinaveckis, “Phonetic Features of the Northwestern Dūnininkai Dialects and Their Development,” “Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute Research Papers,” XI, 1960, p. 73; V. Grinaveckis, History of the Samogitian Dialects, Vilnius, 1973, p. 190—191. 15 For the origin of this word, see V. Urbutis, “Lithuanianisms in Modern Belarusian,” “Baltistica,” V(1), p. 48—49. 100 põuks Jdr, Vvr, Lk, Trš, Pp, Mžk, Sd, Ms, etc. (there also põukė·nc, nusė-pūkī·nte), špūlė Lk, Jdr, Vvr, Krtn, etc. (špōlė || špūlė Trš), õustā· Rdn, Trš, Akm, Pp, Nv, Tl, Jdr, Vvr, etc. The word ãčū is pronounced similarly in Rdn, Trš, Nv, Tl, Jdr, Vvr, etc. (ã·čū Pp, like vā·ku̇). Thus, the Dounininkai dialects have forms corresponding, in the standard language, to pu̇ōkas, špūolė, u̇ōstai and ãčiuo. In the Donininkai (western Samogitian) dialects, õ·znā· is recorded, as well as u̇ōznai Sg, Prk, “ūsai”¹⁶ põ·ks ~ pu̇ōkas Sg, põ·kens ~ pu̇ōkinas Sg; compare pokens TDr VII 104 (near Klaipėda). Here, too, the roots and endings of these words clearly contain the vowel o·, corresponding to standard Lithuanian uo. Only the name of the reel varies: špõ·lė Plik, Krg, Dov, Kin (Sakūčiai village), but špū·lė Prk, Sg, Rmč, Rsn, špū·le Klp, Rsn.¹⁷ Some words are likewise pronounced with the diphthong uo in neighboring western and nearby eastern Aukštaitian dialects: pu̇ōks Šl, špūola Šl (Žuvininkai village, 1 km east of the town), Mšk, Jnš, Lnkv, špūolė Grz, Kž, etc. The conversion of these words and forms from the Dūnininkai dialects into standard Lithuanian is very unclear and complicated, since the origin of the vowel u· can be interpreted in various ways. Although at first glance it appears to share an origin with the ou, o· found in other Samogitian subdialects, the vowel u· in these borrowings forms a common area with forms in the southern northwestern Aukštaitian dialects: pu·kai, špū·le (ū·stai, used in the Šakyna and Gruzdžiai area, is clearly a borrowing from the Kuršėnai dialect ū·sta·, “ūsai”). That the ending -u· in Dūnininkai ã·čū / ā·čū is related to the adverbial ending -uo is indicated by the ã·čū forms in the Raseiniai-area dialects Rs, Vdk, Nmk (as also in pavìežui, pavãndeniui, apsukūi, etc.). The word ū·sta· / ū·stā·, having equivalents only in Dounininkai õustā· (and partly in Donininkai õ·znā·), can only be rendered as u̇ōstai (and uostōrius, uostōtas). The word špū·lė / špū·lē presents a more complicated case; in Dūnininkai it is used north of the Kūrtuvenai–Vaiguva–Girdiškė–Tauragė–Vainutas line¹⁸. This area borders the western Aukštaitian špū·le ~ špūlē over a stretch of only a few kilometers (the western outskirts of Šiauliai), which leads many to suspect a common origin for the root vowel and the Aukštaitian variant of this borrowing. The difference in stress from the Aukštaitian word, its commonality with the Dounininkai špōulie, and the common origin of the vowel system across all Samogitian subdialects argue for rendering the Dūnininkai form špū·lē / špū·lē as standard Lithuanian špuolė. The vowel u· in the Donininkai špū·lē / špū·lē may result from the correspondence of uo (ie) with the vowels u· / i· in these dialects.¹⁹ The common origin of the word pū·kā· with Dounininkai pūukā· and Donininkai pō·kā· (and western Aukštaitian pu̇ōkai Kž) would likewise permit the Dūnininkai forms puokai (puōkinas, nusipūokinti) to be rendered in standard Lithuanian, although the entire Aukštaitian belt south of Samogitia would need to be examined more closely here. 3. The root vocalism of the auxiliary verb liuobėti, liuoba, -ėjo²⁰ (DŽ¹ 347), used to form expressions of the past frequentative tense, is also unclear. ¹⁶ Vl. Grinaveckis, Phonetic features of the northwestern Dūnininkai dialects and their development, p. 73. ¹⁷ Data on the distribution of the word špūlē and its variants are taken from the map prepared by A. Jonait y tė for the vocabulary volume of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” (in press). ¹⁸ South of this line, the form špulē is used, shared with western Aukštaitians, or špū·lį in Skdv. ¹⁹ Žr. V. Grinaveckis, Žemaičių tarmių istorija, Vilnius, 1973, p. 195—196. ²⁰ See in greater detail J. Aleksandravičius, The verb in the Kretinga dialect, “Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute Research Papers,” VIII, 1958, pp. 113—115; Aut., The past frequentative tense in the northeastern Samogitian dialects, LKK IV 157—164. 101 This Slavicism (FrnW 378, 381) is pronounced in Samogitian21: a) In Donininkai dialects: lo·bėi / lo·b‘ėi / lo·bėti (here, apart from its auxiliary-verb functions, it has the meaning “to like, to become accustomed to”). b) In Dounininkai dialects: lôub ~ liūoba Krtn, Kal, Kl, Pp, Akm, sometimes Rdn; lū·b ~ liūba Mžk, Sd, Tl, Lk, Eig (might this form have been influenced by another, semantically related Slavicism, liūbyti?); lô·b ~ liūoba Krt, Vvr, Jdr, Ms, Skd. The vowel o· in the form lô·b arose, possibly, through proclisis, and also because it has no cognates and in sentences in fact occurs as a parenthetical element, which tend to become shortened and undergo irregular phonetic change; cf. rúoc / rūoc < ródos, murúoc / mərúoc < mùn ródos. Thus, instead of lôub, in time people came to pronounce lô·b; consequently, the diphthong uo must be transposed here into standard Lithuanian. For the same reason, the form lôb ~ liūoba also arose in Viekšniai. c) In the northern Dūnininkai (Varniškiai)22 dialects, the root vocalism of lú·b / lū·b presents the same problem as that of the Slavic loanwords špuolė, puõkas, uõstai, ãčiūo; furthermore, it is unclear whether lú·b / lū·b here has not undergone the same influence as the form lô·b. found in some Dūnininkai dialects. However, considering the form liūob in neighboring Western Aukštaitian dialects and the larger area of Samogitian Dūnininkai dialects with lôub (together with forms that developed from it, lô·b, lôb), it can be assumed that the root u < uo also occurs in the Dūnininkai form lú·b / lū·b. The root liuob- arose in Samogitian as a result of the sound law formerly operating there (in Slavic loanwords) *ō > ou / u· / o· (cf. põuks / pū·ks / pǝ·ks, õustā· / ū·stā· / ū·sta / ū·stai Rs, Vdk, Trg, Gr / ō·znā). The loanword lū·bi·ti / lū·bi·te “to like” apparently entered the language later, whereas liuobėti did so earlier. 4. The dūnininkai dialects described here pronounce a long, tense vowel u· instead of the short standard Lithuanian u in some loanwords. For example: gū·mā Pvn, Užv. Vds, Vkšn “rubber” (cf. also gū·ma Grz), rū·sas “Russian” (cf. rū·sas Grz, Škn), rū·šišk‘s / rū·šešks “Russian,” jū·riņc (gagā·riņc) / jū·rē·nc “Jūrijus” (in this way, apparently, the form brū·c “dirt; bad person, vile creature” and bru·dã·cije “great scoundrel” also arose from Slavic languages). Here, the somewhat tense vowel u of standard Lithuanian and Slavic languages was not adapted to the native, relatively open vowels u / ǝ (at least to the ears of Samogitians and western Aukštaitians living near Samogitia), but came to be pronounced long. (Dounininkai, whose phonological system has a tense short vowel u as a result of regressive vowel assimilation, sometimes do not pronounce a long vowel in these words, but have instead adapted their own tense short u: gùmā Trk23, Mžk, rùsā Klk). In the dialects under discussion, the long u was used to represent and was understood as the stressed vowel u of standard Lithuanian and Slavic languages. A small cluster of phonetic dialectal features thus arose, although there is no complete consistency (cf. grūpi / grǝ·pę, rūškė / rǝškė “Russians”). Suffixal distinctions. As in all Samogitian areas (and sometimes in certain western Aukštaitian localities), in the dialects under discussion the standard Lithuanian diphthong uo is pronounced in place of the suffixes -ūklis, -ūlas, -ūlis, -ė (ūlis, -ė), -ūlys, -ūmenė, -ūnė, -ūnis. Suffixes, for example: girtū·klis || girtū·klis “drunkard” (cf. girtū·klis Plt, Tl, Rdn, Pp, Rsn, Sg, Prk, girtū·klis StnŽ 82, girtukle Mž 30; see the words girtūklė, girtuklis etc. cited in LKŽ III 351), svirū·klis “swaying thing” Krš (cf. svi.rū·klis Rdn, Trš); ūobu·ls “apple” Pvn, Vkšn (cf. ūobu·ls End, Jdr, Pln; see LKŽ VIII 990 ōbulas || ōbūlas); ācpiṇdu·lis || ā·cpi.ndū·lis “reflection” (cf. ācpi.ndū·lis Slnt, āc- 21 See Z. Zinkevičius, LD 357. 22 The southern dūnininkai dialects (part of the Raseiniai subdialect area)—Gr, Trg, Erž, Vdk, Stl, Žlp, Nmk, Rs, Kln, Paupys—use only the shared standard Lithuanian forms of the past frequentative tense. 23 Information from Doc. A. Girdenis, but cf. gū·mā, rū·sos Ms, Skd (information from B. Vanagienė) 102 nindu·lis Žg; see LKŽ I² 433 ātspindūlis, ā·tli·ku·lis | ā·tli·kū·lis “some object left over” (cf. ā·tli·kū·les Skd; see LKŽ I² 398 ātlykūlės, ātlykūliai, ātlykūlis; though it is questionable whether atli·kū·lis Up, Šv should have been listed under atlykūlis, given that other Dūnininkai dialects have the formation -ūlis), ā·dži·ndu·lis “a child who, after being weaned, has been put back to the breast” Pvn, Vkšn, Vds, Užv (cf. ādži·ndu·lis Slnt, Brs; see ātžindūlis | atžindulīs LKŽ I² 454), prā·gi·dru·lē Vkšn, Pvn “a patch of clear sky”; kūndu·līs Pkš, Drv | kóndu·līs Pvn, Vkšn, Vds “kernel” (cf. kóndu·lē Trš, Rdn), uóbu·līs “apple” Drv, Krš, Vds (cf. uóobu·līs Rdn, Trš, Pp; see also LKŽ VIII 990 obu·līs | obūlīs), ži·du·līs Krš, Pvn, Vkšn “ring-shaped flower” (cf. ži·du·līs Rdn, židu·līs Pp, Akm; LKT 492 žydūlė); didū·menī | dedū·menę “the nobility, nobles” (cf. dedū·menę Trš, Rdn, Ub, Jdr; cf. also LKŽ II² 486 didūmenė), jaunū·menī | jaunū·menę “young people” (cf. jaunū·menę Jdr, jaunū·menę Trš, Rdn, Pp, Klk; see also LKŽ IV 313 jaunumėnė | jaunūmenė), karū·menī (older karū·minį | karū·menę “army” (cf. karū·menę Kin, Jdr, End, karū·menę Lk, Trš, Tl, Pp, Klk, karū·mė·nę Sg; see LKŽ V 288 karūmenė, kariūmeniškas, LKŽ V 349 karūmenė), kitū·menī “other people” Drv (cf. LKŽ V 909 kitūmenė | kitūmenė; but there, alongside the word kitūmenė, the Karklėnai form kitūmenė is supplied, reconstructed from ketū·menę on the assumption that this was regular Dūnininkai pronunciation); muómu·nī | muómu·nę “grandmother” (cf. muómu·nę Als, Tl, Brs, Pln; see LKŽ VIII 344 mómūnė, mómūnis; only the Užventis form mómūone “same, too” differs from all other Samogitian forms, although, like those of all Samogitians, it is pronounced muómu·nę), šėršu·nc | šė·ršū·nc “hornet” (cf. šė·ršū·nis Rsn, Kin, šė·ršū·ns Ms, Slnt, Lkž, Tl, Pkl, Pln, etc.). The stressed vowel u· in these suffixes is, in everyone’s view, another suffix vowel, arising through vowel gradation (apophony), while the unstressed vowel raises various doubts. It is thought that in unstressed position this u· arose regularly from *ō in both Dūnininkai and Dounininkai dialects24. Closer examination of various derivatives also revealed some “irregular” forms. For example, rūžūlīs Ms, Lnk, Šts, Skd “ražulys,” vōmboulė Šts, Ms, Dr, Pln, Lpl | vāmbolē Krg (Donininkai!) | vōmboulīs Trš (Dauginių village) “dung beetle,” ā·cpi·ndūlis | ācpi·ndūlis Jdr, End “reflection,” ā·tži·ndūlis | atži·ndūlis Vvr, Jdr, Grg, žī·doulēs ~ žydūolės LKT 69 (Dr)25, šė·ršūnę Vkš | šė·ršūns Trk “hornet,” kó·ndūls (kóndoulā) Ms “kernel,” pi.nkoulē·lę Plt, Vrd “small bone in meat,” pāki.šou·lis Grg “bribe,” ūo·pōpūnę Plt “someone very sensitive, afraid of pain,” kārūnęs Ms, Skd, Jdr “someone who climbs everywhere,” lōndūnęs Ms, Jdr, Vvr, Rt “a creeper,” lēžōunēs Ms, Skd, Tv “a disease in which the skin between the toes becomes macerated,” etc. These facts would seem to show that there is no regularity here. Complex phenomena have occurred, as a result of which the eastern Dounininkai dialects and some Donininkai dialects generalized u· < *ō in suffixes. Regressive vowel assimilation contributed especially greatly to this: as a result, *žīdōlijas (*žīdōlīs) > žīdūlis > ži·du·līs | židulīs. (The western Samogitian Dounininkai dialects, which were unaffected by this assimilation, often have the suffix -ōulis.) The diphthong (or diphthongoid?) uu in the middle of a word is difficult to pronounce; it became u· | u in all case forms, spreading across the entire word paradigm. Thus, what we have here is a phenomenon associated with regressive vowel assimilation and the subsequent leveling of paradigm forms (especially when the process of shortening pre-accentual long vowels began in the Dounininkai dialect). The emergence of u· in this case involves a complex process in which analogy is also intertwined. 24 See Z. Zinkevičius, LD, 86; A. Girdenis, V. Žulys (rev.), “Baltistica,” VIII (2), p. 200. 25 J. Laučiūtė’s transcription from Darbėnai 103 Forms with the suffixes -ūklis, -ūlas, -ilis, -ė, -ulys, -ūmenė, -ūnė, -ūnis. should be consistently included in dictionaries. Differences in prefixes. 1. The preposition nu- and the prefix nu- (especially in nominal forms) have the vowel u, as in all Samogitian dialects. Whether this instance arose through proklisis²⁶ or through vowel gradation, it is an irregular phenomenon found throughout the Samogitian dialect. A whole cluster of dialect forms has developed with the prefix nu-, for example: nùˑbraukas | nùˑbraukas “scrapings,” nùˑlaida | nùˑlaida “roof overhang,” nùˑsaika | nùˑsaika “moderation; consistency,” nùˑluŋka | nùˑloŋka | nùˑlòŋka “bowing; a person who demands a bow,” nùˑluŋkãˑuti | nùˑloŋkãˑute “to keep yielding,” nùˑšìrdùs | nùˑšẽˑrdòs “sincere,” nùˑsaĩˑkùs | nùˑsaĩˑkós “moderate,” nùˑvaĩˑzùs | nùˑvaĩˑzòs “picturesque, beautiful,” nùˑdalẽˑ “systematically; each one separately,” nuˑkal̃nùˑ “downhill.” In nominal forms, dialectal nu-—pronounced consistently in western dialects in both nominal and verbal forms—is used instead of the nu- of standard Lithuanian and the Western Aukštaitian dialect, for example: nuˑbãˑlėlis “someone who has turned pale” Pvn, Vkšn, nuˑsìˑgìˑvėˑnėlis | nuˑsìˑgìˑvėˑnėlis “someone who has fallen into poverty,” muˑskòˑridėlis “poor person” Užv, Vds, nùˑmanùs | nùˑmanõs “sensible.” This is a distinctive word-formation type in these dialects²⁷ and should be highlighted in dictionaries, especially dialect dictionaries. There is only one fact that conflicts with this explanation of the irregular form of the prefix nu- (and the preposition nu): the Dounininkai form nõùšokas “roof overhang” (and the adjective nõùšokėnė): LKT 25 (Dr), Krt, Pln (Babrungėnai village), Rt, etc.²⁸ Those forms nõùšokas, like prẽic (Dounininkai) | prẽc (Donininkai), which do not even form isoglosses (they are rather isolated facts), prompt the following reflections. The Samogitians may have had nuo-, prie- (> nõu- | nù- | noˑ; *prẽi- | pri- | prẽ-) from *nā-, *prei-, but later, through proklisis and regressive vowel assimilation, generalized the vowels u, i (polarization may also have played a part here, whereby the stronger, clearer, more conveniently pronounced sound is generalized). Despite these considerations, analogy, proklisis, and other factors that cannot be explained by regular sound change are nevertheless involved here; therefore derivatives with nu- (and pri-) may be considered phonetic dialect forms (nõùšokas, prẽic | prẽc would be exceptions only, relics of an earlier development of the vowel system). 2. In these dialects, su-. is sometimes pronounced instead of the standard Lithuanian prefix sa-. Since these dialects belong to the group that has preserved nasal vowels, this requires special investigation. It is known that in certain cases long u is pronounced in these dialects instead of standard Lithuanian ą. For example: a) In the accusative singular of pronouns (consistently around Kuršėnai, Dirvėnai, Vārputėnai; only occasionally elsewhere): kūˑ ~ kã, tūˑ, ānū, kātrū, etc. b) In the nominative plural of masculine active participles in the eastern dialects (always): skẽnū “they are picking,” šnẽkū, dẽdū, dūˑdūˑ ~ duodą, žìnū, māˑtū, sāˑkūˑ (in the western dialects: dūˑdūˑn, žẽnūn); in the stressed ending of the nominative singular: šnẽkūˑs, dirbūˑs, augūˑs, nẽšūˑs (in the western dialects: šnẽkūˑnc, dẽrbūˑnc, augūˑnc), etc. ²⁶ Žr. J. Endzelīns, Darbu izlase, I, Rīgā, 1971, p. 429; Z. Zinkevičius, LD 85. ²⁷ Vl. Grinaveckis, Phonetic features of the Northwestern Dūnininkai dialects and their development, p. 73. ²⁸ Information from Doc. A. Girdenis. 104 These cases would have virtually no significance for transposing lexical forms into standard Lithuanian, but there is considerable similarity here in the fluctuating pronunciation of derivatives with the standard Lithuanian prefix są-: some forms are used in all dialects only with sú-; others in the eastern dialects with sú-, and in the western ones with sô·n-; finally, in a third case, all the dialects under consideration use sú·n- / sô·n-. For example: a) sú·malinis / sû·malinis “sąmalinis,” sú·muoni / sû·muone “understanding, comprehension” / sôlęg anū: sô·muones kėta·p ėše·n Užv /, sû·miež·inc Vds, Užv / sû·miež·inc Pvn, Vkšn “rubbish heap,” sû·narì·s “joining of the straps of a horse collar,” sû·mals / sû·mals “coarse grinding,” sû·plavas / sû·plavas “washings,” sû·plavi·nis / sû·plavi·nis “wash-water,” sû·sūta “slovenly person”; b) sû·sprundis / sô·nçprandis “sąsprandis,” sû·maišis / sô·nmaištis “confusion”; c) sûncu·ka / sô·nçū·ka “a turn, a crooked line,” but sû·suka / sû·soka “a dried-up little thing”; ta sû·suka a neįjedusį Drv, sūncmauga / sô·ncmauga “something that has been compressed.” What accounts for this variation? The dialects that retain n before s, š, z, ž (the so-called zone of nasal-vowel retention) show considerable fluctuation in this case, as we have seen. In the eastern dialects sû·sprundis, sû·maištis, it is possible that u· is new, as in forms tū·, katrū (cf. also Pakšteliai village žū·sis, žū·sū). However, the first group remains unclear, where all the dialects described use only sû-. Could a prefix sû- have developed here at some point—as a variant of the prefix są- (san-, sam-) resulting from vowel alternation? Certain data seem to support this view. 1. Samogitian dialects, not only those described here, pronounce u· in these words, regardless of how the standard-language vowel ą is realized in them: sû·soka “sąsūka” Pkl, Lc, Mžk, Žeml, Trk, Lž—“Kalbotyra” IX 71, sû·sū·ka “sąsūka” Kal, Šts, Gršl, sû·và·rgis “hardship,” sû·và·rta “two furrows piled together” Slnt, sû·tiemis “dusk” Sd, sû·kala “something hammered together,” sû·gruva Skdv, sû·malenis “sąmalinis” Lkv (here more often sô·nmalenes), Šv, Jdr, plural nominative sû·našas “alluvium,” sû·nešà·ls “something brought together” Grg, Šts, sû·grõ·n-das “something scraped together” Brs, Vgr, sû·mūone “understanding, comprehension” Ms, adverb sû·groužà·s “while returning” Šts, sû·sokekle· “braces (on a plough)” Pp, etc. (cf. also sûvaržà “the rope of a swing plough” Ldv). 2. A considerable number of such formations are used in some Western and Central Aukštaitian dialects (according to the new classification, Kaunas and Šiauliai dialects): sû·trauko·s “those who have drawn together” LKT 200 (Plv), sû·nari·s Kps (Tursučiai village), Plv, sû·naris Gs “joint,” sû·varža “part of a harrow” Ldvn, Gž, Šn, Gs, Žvr, Nm (LKT 194), Prn, Brb, Brt (cf. sû·varža “same” Plv), sû·varà “iron fastening a cart together” Ldvn, sû·vara Brb: ji kap sû·vara “very tall and thin” (cf. sûvara Arm), sû·vė·la “a person with tangled hair” Plv, Dkš, Brb, Klvr, Alk, sû·našo·s “alluvium” Dkš, sû·linkis “turn” Žg, Škn, sû·tema Kt, Pun, (-ū·-) Ldvn, (-à) Kps (Tursučiai village), cf. also sû·tema from Knv, Eiš, Prl, Rod, sûotema Pšš, Lnkv, Rm, Trs²⁹, sû·tė·mini·s “dusk” Dkš, sû·malini·s “ground grain” Dkš (A. Juška recorded sūspanda “scisk” from Veliuona), and so on. Cf. also the sentence in J. Bretkūnas’s writing: “…dassiliteia ghis Sussilenkimo (above it, sunari) ia Strenu” BB 1 Moz32, 25. Since the Western Aukštaitian (Kaunas) dialects cannot be suspected of following a regular “nasal” ą~u· pattern, it must be assumed that there was a prefix sû-, whose relics became fossilized in some dialects, generally without forming even a continuous area. Those Aukštaitian prefixes 29 Data on the distribution of the word sūtemà and its variants were taken from a map prepared by B. Vanagienė for the lexical volume of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” (in press). 105 The su- and sū- relationship (sumalti and sūmalinys, sutemti and sūteminys, sumęsti and sūmetinys Dks)sutemti — sū-tema, suvėrti — sū-vara, sulinkti — sū-linkis and others may likewise have had a similar relationship. (Some dialects also formed the prefix suo-, e.g., šuomaistis Bsg, šuopratis ‘understanding, perception’ Škn, Grz; Samogitian só-: šuo-malin is ‘sąmalinis’ Ms, Skd, šuomizinis Ms (‘sąmežynas’). This suggests that Samogitians, too, may have had the prefix su-, especially in cases where virtually none of the dialects that generally preserve the so-called nasal vowels žąsis, lįsti-type words has any n at all in this prefix. Apparently, in this case Samogitians had variants sū-, so- of the prefix są-, which survived in individual words because no new derivatives are formed from them anymore. In the eastern Highlander and western Dzūkian (southern Highlander) dialects, once Lithuanian ą and ū had merged, it is difficult to determine which formation has which prefix. Western Highlanders, however, have clear formations with the prefix sū-, which has survived only in isolated localities. This may provide even better evidence of an earlier state, since “according to the principles of areal linguistics, a linguistic phenomenon or fact existing in marginal or mutually distant areas is older than one that is widespread in a central or continuous area”30. Although V. Pisani’s idea31 cannot be treated as absolute, in this case the earlier existence of the variants sū-, suo-, so- of the prefix są- is clear. Because derivatives are few, dialects interact, and Lithuanian has exerted influence, much has become mixed or changed here; nevertheless, the dialect forms sū-, suo-, so- should be recorded in dialect dictionaries. Thus, the words in the first group (a) of the Samogitian dialects described probably contain the prefix variant su-. Perhaps not all these words have had it from ancient times; perhaps there was generalization here (as also indicated by the eastern dialect form sū·sprundis, discussed here, alongside the western form sô·nçprondis); but, although they have diverged from the system, they should be considered derivatives formed with the prefix variant sū-. The prefix variant sū- is probably also found in nouns such as nesūtaika Prn (LKŽ VIII 700, recorded by K. Būga), a component of a compound in Gs. The forms nesūdera ‘a person with whom one cannot reach an agreement’ Dglš, Vdš (LKŽ VIII 698), nesūdrau da ‘lack of discipline; someone who cannot be disciplined’ Dglš (LKŽ VIII 698); nesūklausa ‘disagreement’ Dv (LKŽ VIII 698), nesūprata ‘someone who is uncomprehending’ Dglš (LKŽ VIII 699), nesūtaika ‘discord’ V. Pietaris, nesūteika ‘discord’ Dglš, Smn (LKŽ VIII 700) may well be erroneous transpositions into Lithuanian forms. As the forms nesūtaika from Prienai and Geistarai, the LKŽ card file’s nesūteika from Simnas, and nesūklausa from Dieveniškės show (these are dialects that do not lengthen short stressed vowels), there can be no question of a prefix su- in these forms. Long u· is pronounced in all the eastern Dzūkian (Vilnius Highlander) dialects mentioned, where speakers readily distinguish the form nesū·teika ~ nesūteika Dglš, Vdš from tū·ri ~ tūri. The LKŽ forms nesūdrau da, nesūteika arose because lexicographers thought that these involved ordinary lengthening of short vowels, but this view is contradicted by the geographical distribution of the words, the vowel-lengthening isogloss, and the pronunciation of long u· itself. Finally, the facts in the LKŽ card file show that these are derivatives with the prefix variant sū- (V. Pietaris’s nesūtaika is merely a matter of spelling). Thus, the morphophonemic dialect forms in the Samogitian dialects under consideration arose: (a) from a different vowel in the root and suffix; (b) through the formation of the prefix nu- (and the preposition nu’) and of the variant su- of the prefix są-. 30 S. Karaliūnas, Some Questions Concerning the Earliest Relations between the Baltic and Slavic Languages, LKK X 56. 31 B. Pisani, General and Indo-European Linguistics, — General and Indo-European Linguistics (Image of Literature), Moscow, 1956, pp. 112—114. 106 В. ВИТКАУСКАС SOME MORPHOPHONEMIC DIALECTISMS IN THE SPEECHES OF THE NORTHEASTERN ŽEMAITIAN DŪNININKAI Abstract Dialects and local speech varieties contain words and forms whose individual sounds have an unclear history. Such dialectal words, which are difficult to relate to corresponding words and forms in the standard language because of differences in phonetic laws and because their membership in regular dialect forms cannot be demonstrated, should be called morphophonemic dialectisms, thereby emphasizing their specific connection with the morphophonemic system of the local varieties. I. MORPHOPHONEMIC DIALECTISMS WITH THE VOWEL e Certain words and grammatical forms, which in the Western Aukštaitian dialect, in most Žemaitian speech varieties, and also in the standard language have the vowel i, are pronounced with the vowel e in the speech varieties of the northeastern Dūnininkai. In native Lithuanian words, such e occurs: 1) in the word stem, e.g., smė́lṭi | smė́lte “sand,” cf. Western Aukštaitian smiltis; švél.pṭi “to whistle,” cf. švilpti in the standard language; krė́čuóti “to wear a blouse or shirt untucked,” cf. the Dūnininkai form krė́čuóte; 2) in the suffix, e.g., diobels / diobels “clover,” cf. dóbilas in the standard language; krė́tels / krė́t’els “rattle,” cf. krėtilas in the standard language. It is sometimes also found in loanwords, e.g., kātels / kāˈtēˈls “cauldron,” cf. kātilas in the standard language; ėˈsēˈls “donkey,” cf. asilas in the standard language; kǫneks / kǫˈneks “priest,” cf. kunigas in the standard language; muzyka (Varputenai) “music,” cf. mūzika in the standard language. This phenomenon is explained by: 1) the possible substantial shift of the vowel i toward the more open, lax e; in some cases, even by its complete change into the open, lax vowel e; 2) an apparently once-existing alternation of vowels e: i (e) in derived words, surviving to the present only as relics; 3) the formation of hypercorrect forms when the vowel e changes to i in the Kursenai, Dirvonenai, and Varputenai speech varieties (under the influence of the Western Aukštaitian dialect). II. MORPHOPHONEMIC DIALECTISMS WITH THE VOWEL u This vowel arose irregularly in the dialects under investigation in several instances. It is the vocalism of another root in the words sūˈdes | sūˈdes “soot”; sūˈstiˈs | sūˈstiˈs “to be irritable,” etc. In the suffixes -āklis, -āklē, -īlas, -ūlis, -ūlys, -ūmene, -ūnē, -ūnis these dialects have u instead of the standard language’s uo. The entire body of Žemaitian (and sometimes Western Aukštaitian) dialect data testifies to this irregular appearance of the vowel, since all these suffixes are pronounced with u, to a greater or lesser extent, in all subdialects. Stressed suffixes (girtūˈklis “drunkard”; didūˈmenį | dedūˈmenę “to know”) unquestionably have a different formative vowel. The vowel in an unstressed position raises various doubts, since it is held to have developed regularly from *o in the unstressed position in all Žemaitian dialects. However, in the Dūnininkai dialects (especially the western ones) there are many apparent exceptions in these cases, since the diphthong ou: rǫu̯ǫulis “a stretching sensation” is pronounced (Mosėdis, Šateikiai); žīˈdūles “male blossoms” (Darbėnai); pàkiˈšūlis “bribe” (Gargždai, though there also rātazgūˈle “something knotty”), etc. Thus, there may be no regular pattern here. The reason for this is probably regressive vowel assimilation: *žīdǫlis (*žīdōlis) > *žīdul̄is > žīˈduˈlis | žīˈdul̄is. The diphthong ǫu in the middle of a word is very awkward to pronounce; it changed into u/u and was later pronounced in cases unaffected by this assimilation. Consequently, what we encounter here is not a clear-cut regular development, but the operation of analogy. 107 As in all Žemaitian dialects, here too the standard-language preposition пие and prefix пио- are pronounced as пи / пи, пи́- / пи́-. There is only one exception—пюйокаѕ “cleanings”—which does not even have a single contiguous area of distribution. This пи- (пи-) / пи developed from *по irregularly, as a result of prothesis, perhaps the presence of regressive assimilation, and possibly polarization. The prefix sę- is pronounced in the dialects under investigation as sūn- / sōn-, sū- / sī-; the latter pronunciation does not conform to the dialects’ sound laws, since the so-called “nasal” vowels are pronounced with n here. It turns out that the standard-language sę- is pronounced sū- in some words in almost all Žemaitian and many Western Aukštaitian dialects (it is even found in Bretkūnas’s works). In this instance, sū- is a variant of the prefix sę- (as are suo-, so-). Nor can short u be written here, since, for example, nesūteika “discord” (Simnas) and nesūklausa “disobedience” (Dėjaniškės) in no way testify to the lengthening of a short vowel.