Kalbotyrinės pastabos

LINGUISTICAL NOTES 1. Liet. gaibjė Liet. gaibje ,,band” LKŽ III 15 possibly includes į tą itself the semantic-derivative model “to get, to acquire, to take” —,,(acquired, acquired) property” —,,cattle herd)” like many other languages cattle (|| ir (and herd) jų names!. The corresponding verb could be ap-gičėbti (-ca) ,,to embrace, to embrace“ Mielagen (but plg. further semantic development of nu-, su-giébti, -ia,„how much to know, to predict, to be able“ Mielagėnai, Skirsnemunė)?. Its relatives in Germanic languages are probably Norwegian. dial. keiva ,,left hand“, keiv crooked, , twisted“ (ide. *geibh-). The same root, only formant, seems to be be liet. ir in-acquire (-gyja) ,,to get, to fit in, to fit in", nu-gyti (-gfja) ‘get’ LKZ III 357-8. That gaibjē „,,banda“ was probably a made-up, but a ne living word of Lithuanian dialects (let it be used ir narrowly), showing only fixation in the old Prūlietuvių jo dictionaries: sy Gaibje, ės (kaip "Gaude, ès?". It is quite clear that here it is written as it was pronounced, i.e. gaibje, gaibjės, gaibjei etc. (as gauje, gaujės, gaujei etc.). Thus gaibjė (as well as gaujė, cf. gaujė Kretinga) has moved to the ė stem because of the neutralization of the difference in stems after palatal consonants*, which is characteristic of one of the western Lithuanian dialects. Thus, this word actually belongs to íū kam en (i. e. ne ja ir ė gaibia < *gaibja), where there are words ir of collective meaning (e.g. gang). 2. White *head Baltic head name *head semantic connection su balt. *all(s) ,,das Ende", repeating in ir other ideas. by envy. languages*, is quite clear. Ne so clear is the operative tų relationship of the words (kamiengalis -4, element -v-, long root vowel resp. acute). It may be assumed that in the proto-Baltic dialects the name of the head was feminine u (or root #) noun *end (or *galis) as a name of many body parts in other ide. Languages (plg. Five. lot. manus ",hand," got. handus ‘t. p.’, Art. yshvos ,,žandikaulis”, s. ind. fraction ‘,,antikis’). That next to the o-stem noun *gala(n), “das Ende” in the proto-Baltic dialects there was also an u-stem word *galu-* ,,gals, viršūnė, galva“, would suggest a preposition may ir abundant compound words (galuardis, galūdaržė, galūdienis, galūdirvis, galūgalvis, galūkaimé and others.*), the first component of which mayprobably be pure u stem. This stem was characterized by the fact that in the paradigms of feminine nouns, particularly in the forms of secondary vowels, the degree of ablative of the stem *-ye-| -uoappeared in addition to *-eu-| -ou, e.g., s. ind. gen., abl. sing. dhenohk“, dhenvah, dat. sing. Dendve, Dendve, ir Mr. Dendve. (nom. sing. Five. 10 ,,cow’’). That the latter 1 Drumoaorus 1971, Mocksa, 1973, p. 281 ff. 2 LKZ III 286. ?* For more details see. A. Sabaliauskas, Iš History of Livestock Terminology in Baltic Languages, LKK XII 18. * Plg. J. Gerullis ir Chr. Stangas, Lithuanian fishermen's dialect in Prūsuose, Kaunas, 1933, p. 31. 5 B. H. Uekmau, Barrwiicko: un cJaBauckos *head, III — International Conference on Baltic Studies. Thesis, Vilnius, Lithuania 1975, p. 154—5; plg. dar,,Baltistica®“, VI, 1970, p. 47—8. e LKŽ III 72 tt. 207 type u (or whether @) the stem flexion was present in the ir proto-Baltic dialects, would be shown by such pronoun infinitives as su darwei ‘,to give’’, girtwei ,,girti’’ ir etc. " The decline of feminine genders in Baltic languages u (and the #) stem, feminine noun *end (ar *ends) go į ū trunk was the easiest way because other body parts names were also g-trunks (plg. ranka, rūoka, rancko, naga, pr. nage ‘which’, p. leg, foot, hammer, etc.) ir ir existed type *galua- | *galueu-trunk forms, which became the basis of generalization. During the thematization, the opposition of the derivative of the base word ir apparently caused the elongation of the vocal of the ir Vedic root (*ga- | *galua- | *galue-* > *galua) (or, if it happened with the appearance of po intonations, the root jo acquired an acute) that it was assigned ir to the mobile paradigm. Since the feminine nouns of the genus u-kamieniy are also not preserved in Slavic languages, a similar process can be imagined in Pre-Slavic dialects. ir 3. Ms. — karkis Prussian compound word birga-karkis ‘,which (ein grosserer Schopfloffel, a scoop)’, second part -karkis is not necessary to fix nor į *karikis®, nei į*kartis*, because in Lithuanian it could be kdrka ‘,,swine, ovine shoulder, leg; leg from the knee to the thick; a ham bone, on which it is hung for smoking; už the heel of the animal’*. Similar semantic relationships exist, for example, in Lithuanian. kdušas , wooden with short handle for food, water, grain, flour, ir etc. dislocation ...; of the hind legs at the bend; heel, ankle’ (plg. foot shower Alsėdžiai) LKŽ V 445—6 (but plg. krdjus ‘,the ar sides of the ridge crest, crest, crest; rise of the paw of the foot, rise; boot position at the landing’; lat. puéds ,,where Pot; der Kessel pot"* ‘a Spann (legs rise)“). 4. Ms. bytes Ms. bytes ,,zeeb (Sieb, sietas)" to remind us of lit. su sieve, lat. sičts, V. Babe is making į *saytan''. This is quite possible, considering the frequent spelling inaccuracies and even errors in Prussian script ir monuments. Ir However, it should be noted that, firstly, due to the fragmentary nature of the texts, the polysemantic character of the word characteristic of the living language is completely lost in the Prussian language and, secondly, the (basic) meaning of the word often derives from a meaning that has nothing in common with the known historical meaning of the word iš su (Plg., e.g., liet. rėtis, rėtys meaning ",sietas"- ,,,pintiné, krepšys", (K. (Dictionary) ,,arvai'' ir jų relatives lit. retic, retic, retjs ,,mark of healed wound, scar; "Knife-hit place, comb, breaks off", lat. retta, retta ,,the Narbe, Wunde“, redness, rhinitis, thinning, -ing ,,to be rare; darytis nesuspaustam, intervalais su rėsti, rėta, -ė, ...“, retéti, -ėja “,to strengthen in healing; grow in healing; darytis rečiui, rumbėti“!2). Then, perhaps, pr. ir bytes „,sietas, rėtis“ as pr. ir -karkis represents a semantic chain that " Plg. V. Mažiulis, Baltic and other ir Indo-European languages, Vilnius, 1970, p. 272 tt. * J. Endzelins, Old Prussian language, Riga, 1943, p. 151. ?* V. Mažiulis, Prussian etymology,,,- Baltistica“, XI, 1975, p. 84. 1 See jį below. E. Fraenkel, LEW 222. "V, Mažiulis, op. cit., p. 85. 12 E. Fraenkel, LEW rios 724-5. 208 end would be lat. Beer ,,ein Kalk-, LehmschligelME I 306. Jų 's vowel ratio would be as it mų has, for example, pr. playnis: liet. Plumeria, lat. steel, o connecting the semantic link would form, perhaps, lat. bite , there Provision bag, the Speisepaudel" ib. 304 (hereinafter referred to as verbs bit ,,push", bi-d-id ,,pushing, smoking, pushing and pushing“). S. THE QUEENS ON POROS PHONETICS 1000 mg/ day INTERPRETATION 1. Lithuanian literary language ie, equivalents uo in the Dūnininkai dialect When XVI dunes a. in their i* ~ y ir i* ~ ie pronunciation had coincided, well shows J. Blast the dictionary! data. Here are the Russian-written placenames of the mud area next to the Žemaitijos genders su H - Yeah. - Yeah. I, I. ie) frequently presented ir su e, ie (=1k. ie), e.g. : CeroBa (p. 289), CuroBa (p. 290) ‘upé, jungianti Paršežerį su I'm looking. Cka6s nieBa (p. 290) (Pavandenės valsčius), KsBjiec nuBac MHIIKAC (p. 159) (Karšuvas valdsčius), YKapauuseruc (p. 112) “The soil of Krazi vald”, YKapjiuHBHTbI (p. 112) ‘Karšuvos valsčiaus dirva’ ir d. kt Forms su e, ie (=Ik. ie) most likely — a result of the exaltation of placenames. That this is probably the case, shows the iš hypercorrectisms of place-name forms in this dictionary, me t. y. instead of i my writing e((=ie), e.g. : Exus (p. 108) = Yžnė “Karšuva village river' near lonxxHH I (p. 246) = Payznps "Karsuva Manor'; Ilekottrn (p. 225) = Pykdiciai “Pajūrio valsčiaus dvaras’ nearby [Tukoiitn (same) etc. ir So, already ir The users a. of the 16th-century dialects could not distinguish the overlapping I'm going. y ir ie (also ū ir uo). The first hints about the pronunciation of the uo diphthong ie in the Žemaičių dialect can 7, ū already be found in A. Schleicher’s Lithuanian grammar®. Subsequenšį tly, the statement no ir was specified in more detail. J. "Yushka". It is clearly attested by all the ir linguists who have studied the Žemaičių mudininkų spoken language — K. in the works A. of Jaunius, J. Salis, P. Gerulis, V. Jonikis, Z. Grinavecki, A. Zinkevičius, V. Balašaitis, ir Vitkauskas and in the publication „The dialects of the Lithuanian language in the comparatively qualified texts of these dialects“. But the linguist A. This is not recognised by the RIAA. In the article „,,What do the Dūnininkai have instead of literary language ie, uo“* he seeks to check, ar , ,bendrinés lietuviy kalbos ie, the equivalents in the uo Žemaičių dinininky dialect are long monophthongs not different i, ū, from the long ones 7, ū = y, ū“ (p. 143). For this purpose, as the author of the article indicates, “, word pairs were chosen, which in the common language of the ir Altay dialect are se distinguished only by ie: 7, uo : ū oppositions: griiodas : grain, kuédas : body ‘cast’, cast : 1! See. Teorpaduuecknit CJIOBAapb JApeBHeil >xxoMOHTCKOHK seman XVI croserus, CocraBjienHbllt HBanoM SikoBjreBuueM Cnporuconm, Busibua, 1888, 363 cTp. * Zr. Handbook of Lithuanian Language of August Schleicher, I, grammar, Prague, 1856, p. S. 3 Zr. Jon's Juszka, Kalbos resort Iēžuv'o ir I€tuviszkas statraszimas or orthography, in St. Petersburg, 1861, p. 12, 14. 4 Zr. LKT, p. 93-129. 5 Zr. A. Instead of Ka the literary language ie, uo,,,Baltistica“ VI(2), 1970, p. 143-146. 14. Us. No. 1026 209