Knyga apie žuvų pavadinimus

5. The reviewed dictionary is a long-awaited and necessary work. One can only be pleased that the engineers of the Vilnius Computing Machinery Factory and the Special Design Bureau for Computing Machinery undertook such a monumental task. SKŽ represents contemporary Lithuanian computing terminology well. However, the extensive material in the dictionary has not yet been sufficiently standardized and systematized. This work is only a good beginning for the development of computing terminology. For compilers of terminology dictionaries in other branches of technology, it can serve not only as an example of enthusiastic work to follow, but also as a foundation on which to begin building even more perfect structures. A. Kaulakienė A BOOK ABOUT FISH NAMES B. Laumane, Zivju nosaukumi latviešu valodā, Rīgā, 1973, 307 p.1 Benita Laumane’s monograph is highly relevant not only to Latvian studies but also, since many fish names have been inherited from antiquity, to Baltic and Indo-European linguistics and ethnogenesis. This monograph is the first major study of Baltic fish names. B. Laumane notes that P. Tymė, on the grounds that salmon live only in the Baltic Sea basin and that cognate names are found in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and also Tocharian languages, attempted to prove that the Indo-European homeland was in the Baltic region. Connected with this hypothesis is the question of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Baltic Sea coast, which the author mentions in more than one place. Drawing on archaeologists’ opinion that the Balts or their ancestors migrated to the Baltic Sea region around the eighteenth century B.C.2 and established contact there with other inhabitants of the southeastern Baltic coast—the aboriginal peoples who, in the author’s view3, may have been Indo-Europeans related to the Balts, as well as Finno-Ugric peoples (p. 14), B. Laumane… The hypothesis that the aforementioned aboriginal inhabitants of the Baltic region were Indo-Europeans is highly significant for the question of Baltic and Indo-European ethnogenesis. At present, some scholars strongly support it4. In the Mesolithic, the eastern Baltic region was characterized by two cultural (and, in Rimantienė’s view, ethnic) groups: the microlithic-macrolithic and the Kunda. The microlithic-macrolithic culture belonged to Lithuania and partly to Belarus. The Kunda culture was widespread across the territory of present-day Estonia and Latvia, while in Lithuania it extended only into the very northernmost 1 Because of space limitations, this review discusses only the question of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Baltic Sea coast, raised in B. Laumane’s book. 2 Archaeologists currently maintain that the bearers of Corded Ware reached Lithuania toward the end of the third millennium B.C.; see R. Rimantienė, Pirmieji Lietuvos gyventojai (XI—IV tūkstantmetis pr. m. e.), Vilnius, 1972 (hereafter: Rimantienė PLG), p. 96. 3 Su nuoroda į: Л. В. Ванкина, Торфяниковая стоянка Сарнате, Рига, 1970, p. 140, 144—145, kur Sarnatės stovyklos radiniai datuojami III tūkst. pr. m. e. pirmą pusę ar vidurį, o gyventojai hipotetiškai laikomi indoeuropiečiais; plg. taip pat R. Rimantienės tvirtinimą, kad „apie kokį nors kultūrinį-etninį finougrų klodą Lietuvos akmens amžiaus medžiagoje, tuo labiau senųjų, vietinių, priešvirvelinės kultūros gyventojų priskyrimą finougrų gentims, negali būti nė kalbos“ (Žr. R. Rimantienė, Lietuvos akmens amžiaus šukinė puodų ornamentika ir finougrų klausimas, — Lietuvos istorijos metraštis. 1972 metai, Vilnius, 1973 (toliau: Rimantienė LIM), p. 26; plačiau žr. p. 5—26; taip pat žr.: Rimantienė PLG; Р. К. Римантене, Палеолит и мезолит Литвы, Вильнюс, 1971 (toliau: Римантене ПМЛ). 4 See A. Seibutis’s popular science articles: Padavimai ir tikrovė, — Mokslas ir gyvenimas, Vilnius (hereafter: MG), 1971, No. 5, pp. 38—40; Vėlyvojo ledynmečio vietovardžiai, — MG 1971, No. 10, pp. 16—20; Kaip Nemunas į Vyslą tekėjo, — MG 1973, No. 3, pp. 28—30, and others. 260 area. These two cultures are linked by elements of the Maglemose culture5. According to R. Rimantienė, “the inhabitants of the Baltic region in the Mesolithic were clearly Europoid”6. The early Neolithic culture of the upper Nemunas developed out of the microlithic-macrolithic culture, while the Narva–Nemunas culture developed out of the Kunda culture7. Lithuanian pottery, whose earliest artifacts, in R. Rimantienė’s view, most probably appeared at the end of the fourth millennium BCE, “belongs to a vast cultural group of the southern and eastern Baltic, extending from western Latvia to Jutland”8, while “in many other respects (at least the campsites of western Lithuania) […] it belongs to the narrower Narva–Nemunas cultural area, which existed between these rivers”9. There is convincing linguistic evidence to support the view that the cultural groups mentioned are closely related. Indeed, the so-called Old European hydronymy (alteuropäische Hydronymie—a term coined by H. Krahe) is also widespread in Scandinavia10. Pajunen, having found a great many hydronyms of this origin in Finland, considers them specifically Baltic11. V. P. Schmid points to a characteristic feature of Old European hydronymy: it is concentrated in the former and present-day Baltic linguistic area12. In the opinion of scholars, there exists a “Baltic pitch-accent union” comprising, in addition to the Baltic languages, Livonian and Estonian, North Kashubian, some of the dialects of Baltic Germans, the dialects of eastern Schleswig and neighboring Danish islands, and Swedish and Norwegian. This union is characterized by the fact that melodic tonal correlation is a new phenomenon for the other “members,” unlike the Baltic languages themselves13. Interesting parallels can be observed between Scandinavian and Baltic word formation, semantics, and other features14. B. Laumane, drawing on the views of other researchers, considers—or is inclined to consider—more than one fish name to have been inherited from the aboriginal inhabitants of the Baltic coast. The main arguments for this view are the distribution of the fish names under consideration across many Baltic coastal languages and their obscure etymology. In our view, the second argument is not valid, and the author makes uncritical use of it without good reason. For this reason, the discussion of some fish names in the monograph is highly contradictory. For example, in the section on works, B. Laumane treats Latvian sapals “leuciscus cephalus” as a derivative with the suffix -als and compares it with Lithuanian šapalas “ditto” (p. 40); however, in the main section—the one on fish names—after noting that Latvian sapals, sapalis and others are supposedly cognate with Lithuanian šapalas, which 5 Rimantienė ПМП 95–196. 6 Rimantienė PLG 95. 7 Rimantienė ПМП 196, plg. 176; Rimantienė PLG 95–96; plg. Rimantienė LIM 9–10. 8 Rimantienė LIM 20. 9 Ibid. 10 See, for example: W. P. Schmid, Zum litauischen Flußnamen Aitra, – “Baltistica,” VII (1), Vilnius, 1971, pp. 37–42; idem, Aura und Aurajoki, – “Baltistica,” IX (2), Vilnius, 1973, pp. 189–194; Heikki J. Hakkarainen and Matti Ruoh tula (Finland), Das Auftreten indogermanischer (alteuropäischer) Gewässernamen in Finnland (hereafter: Hakkarainen – Ru ohtula), – XIe Congres international des sciences onomastiques. Sofia, 28 June–4 July 1972. Résumés des communications, Sofia, 1972 (hereafter: XIe Congres), p. 89. 11 Hakkarainen – Ru ohtula 89. 12 Wolfgang P. Schmid (BRD – Göttingen), Baltische Gewässernamen und das vorgeschichtliche Europa, – XIe Congres, p. 205. 13 See Б. Лаумане, А. Непокупный, К постановке вопроса об атласе морской и рыболовецкой лексики Балтийского моря, – Baltistica, IV(I), Vilnius 1968 (hereafter: Лау-мане – Непокупный, – Baltistica), p. 69 and the literature cited there. 14 See Лаумане – Непокупный, – Baltistica, pp. 69–78; Б. Лаумане, А. Непокупный, Балто-славяно-финские языковые параллели из области мореплавания и рыболовства, – Взаимосвязи балтов и прибалтийских финнов, Riga, 1970, pp. 189–202, and the literature cited in these articles. 261 Linguists compare it with Sanskrit s’aphara-h “cyprinus sophore”15; below, she writes that A. Gėrdas points to similar names in Slavic, Germanic, and Finno-Ugric languages and considers them all a phenomenon of a common substrate, formed in the Baltic Sea area in the pre-Indo-European period16 (p. 213). Thus, here the linguist does not even defend her view, mentioned above, that the aborigines should be considered Indo-European. B. Laumanė did not include Latvian sapals and Lithuanian šapalas in the lists of shared Baltic fish names (see pp. 10–11 and 278). In our view, the name šapalas is indeed related to a language that existed across a broad area along the Baltic coast, but there is no reason not to consider this name Baltic. Let us consider one or two more examples. Like other researchers, B. Laumanė considers Latvian salaka (salaks) “osmerus operlanus” a loan from Livonian salāk or Estonian salakas (p. 101), while, following V. P. Schmid’s view, she is inclined to regard the latter Finnish fish names as pre-Finnic in origin, since they lack a reliable Finnic etymology (p. 18)17. E. Fraenkel, treating Latvian salaka as a loan from the aforementioned Livonian and Estonian cognates, also connects it with salata, -te “aspius aspius” or “aspius rapax” and Lithuanian salatis, salotė, celatis “the same.” But B. Laumanė disagrees with this conjecture: in her view, this would require acknowledging that Latvian salata is supposedly a loan from the Baltic Finns, i.e. from Livonian and Estonian. It is true that similar forms are found in Karelian dialects and Finnish (cf. Karelian dialectal salat’t’i, Finnish salatti “alburnus lucidus”). Nevertheless, setting this aside and making effective use of the linguogeographical criterion (loans from Finnic languages are generally distributed across a smaller area than the name under consideration), B. Laumanė connects Latvian salata, salate, salāta, salāts; saluonis, saluozis, Lithuanian salotė, salatis “aspius aspius” or “aspius rapax,” and the Latvian hydronym salates upīte and Lithuanian lake names Salōtas, Salōtė, Salōtė, Salōtis with Lithuanian dialectal sālti “to flow” and Old Prussian salus “stream,” offering as a semantic parallel also Latvian upītis, upietis “leuciscus indus” (p. 209). This is the author’s etymological discovery (other linguists have not proposed the etymology mentioned); the monograph contains quite a number of such discoveries, showing that B. Laumanė generally has a good linguistic sense.18 Lithuanian dialectal sālti, Old Prussian salus, or similar words may also be the source of Lithuanian sėliavà “coregonus albula,” seliavà “the same,” sėliova “a kind of lake fish,” and others. B. Laumanė, considering Latvian sēlava a loan from neighboring languages, claims that it is very difficult to determine the source of borrowing precisely, since phonetically equivalent forms, besides the Lithuanian cognate mentioned, exist in the Russian areas around Pskov and Novosokolniki—селёва—and in Polish (recorded in writing as early as the 15th century)—sielawa19. In the author’s view, the further origins of these words are unclear: opinions have apparently been expressed that the Slavic names originated from Lithuanian 15 With reference to: K. Mūlenbachs, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Rediģējis, papildinājis, turpinājis J. Endzelīns (hereafter: LVV), III, Rīgā, 1928, p. 696; E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg, 1962–1965 (hereafter: LEW), p. 963. 16 For A. Gerdo’s view, see А. С. Г е р д (reply to a questionnaire), – Лексичные балтизмы ў беларускай мове, Мінск, 1969, p. 9–10. 17 See also: Лаумане – Непокупный, – „Baltistica“, p. 76. 18 LEW 759. 19 Despite its narrow distribution, this Latvian name could also be related to the Lithuanian name—the difference between the Lithuanian and Latvian cognates lies only in the quantity of the root vowel. But e: ē is also characteristic of Lithuanian: besides the aforementioned sėliova, seliavà: sėliavà, compare also the hydronyms: on the one hand, Seliovinaičiai (two lakes), derived from Lake Seliovinis (A. Vanagas, Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius, 1970 [hereafter: Vanagas], p. 76), which in turn derives from the aforementioned sėliova (Vanagas 158–159); on the other hand, Šėliupis (Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas, Vilnius, 1963 [hereafter LUEV], p. 143). 262 and vice versa20. However, in reality, Lithuanian sėliavā, sėliavā, etc., are Baltic in origin not only in their root but also in their suffix. The origin of Russian селёва ‘bleak, cyprinus alburnus’ (according to Dal’s dictionary), селёва ‘aspus clupeoides’ on the Black Sea coast and in the Kuban region, Belarusian селёва, and Polish sielawa ‘bleak’ cannot be explained using Slavic-language data, while the suffix ава (-awa) and -ява is foreign to Slavic (it is characteristic of Baltic and Thracian languages, as well as the so-called Old European hydronymy). M. Fasmer’s claim that the Lithuanian words salavā, selavā ‘moray eel’ cannot be the source because the Russian word is widespread in the south should be amended: селёва of the Black Sea coast and the Kuban region may have arisen under the influence of the Thracians, close relatives of the Balts. We regard the corresponding forms in Slavic languages geographically closer to the Balts—Belarusian селёва, Polish sielawa, and those in Russian dialects closer to the Baltic area—as the result of Baltic influence, most likely through a substrate. From the examples given above, we see that there are sufficient semantic parallels to derive Latvian salaka (salaks) from Lithuanian šalti ‘to flow’ and Old Prussian salus ‘stream’. The view that Latvian salaka (salaks) is not a loanword is also reinforced by the existence of corresponding Lithuanian place names: Lake Salakai, Salakas (Degučiai, Palivarkas village)21, the small town (Zarasai district) Šalkas, Šalko giria22. Thus, relics of the fish name salaka are found within the Baltic linguistic area far from the Latvian Baltic coast. The formation of Latvian salaka (salaks) is also Baltic (cf., for example, the derivational examples with the suffixes -aka, -aks, -ėka, though these are few, given on p. 39). Naturally, the Finnish equivalents of Latvian salata and salaka and of other Baltic names with the root sal-, having no reliable Finnish etymology, should be regarded as Baltisms. German dialect forms (in former East Prussia) Salat, Zalat should likewise be regarded as Baltisms; together with the Latvian salate and Lithuanian salotė mentioned above, they form an isogloss linking Courland through Lithuania (Samogitia) with the former Prussian-language area. Incidentally, B. Laumane has identified several such isoglosses. We should agree with the author’s claim that such isoglosses are particularly valuable (p. 278). On this occasion, it should be added that German dialect forms (in former East Prussia) Perpel, Parpel and Kashubian parposz, pelpaże, corresponding to Latvian dialectal pērpele, perpele and Lithuanian pērpelė ‘shad’ (pp. 152–153), should also be considered Baltisms. This view is supported by both linguistic-geographical and etymological criteria. By contrast, the author interprets some Latvian–East Slavic isoglosses clearly and correctly: Belarusian and Russian dialectal курмель ‘gobio fluviatilis’ (p. 98), and вягало, вягело ‘lota lota’ (p. 244) are Baltisms. But let us return to the so-called aboriginal lexicon. There are still quite a few words that have been tentatively assigned to this lexicon but for which a good Baltic etymology can also be found. One example is Latvian leste, lekste ‘pleuronectes flesus trachurus, flounder’. V. Thomsen quite rightly linked this name with Latvian lē̃sns, lēsns, lėss and Lithuanian lėkštas, while considering Estonian lest ‘flounder’ a loan from the Baltic languages (p. 173). There is an excellent semantic parallel for the etymology of the aforementioned Latvian leste, lekste: Latvian plekste, pleksta, plėkste; plekzde, plekzde and Lithuanian plėkšnė, plėkštis, plėkštė, plėgždė ‘flounder’ are associated with Latvian plāškans ‘flat, broad’, Lithuanian plókščias23 (p. 174). However, B. Laumane, apparently following L. Kettunen and V. Zep, who consider Latvian leste a loan from Livonian ļieštā 20 See LEW 774; М. Фасмер, Этимологический словарь русского языка (hereafter: Фасмер ЭСРЯ), III, Москва, 1971, p. 594. 21 LUEV 141. 22 Mažoji lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija, III (R–Ž), Vilnius, 1971, p. 148–149. 23 LEW 611, 628. 263 (Estonian leste) (p. 173); she also considers the Latvian fish name to be a loan from the Baltic Finnic languages (pp. 17, 281). This view was probably also influenced by the existence of the Estonian lest meaning ‘Flaches, Plattes’, associated with the aforementioned Finnic names for flounder (p. 173). Like the names mentioned above, B. Laumane, following V. P. Schmid’s view, tends to regard Estonian lest and Livonian lestā ‘flounder’ as inherited from a pre-Finnic language, since the latter forms lack a reliable Finnic etymology (p. 18)24. In our view, on etymological and linguistic-geographical grounds—that is, because Lithuanian lėkštas, Latvian lēsns, etc., have a good Baltic etymology, whereas Estonian lest ‘Flaches, Plattes’ is used only in Estonian, a language close to the present-day Baltic area (and apparently included in its former extent)—Estonian lest, both as the aforementioned fish name and in the sense ‘Flaches, Plattes’, should be considered a Baltism. There are also words hypothetically assigned to the aboriginal lexicon for which neither a reliable Baltic nor an Indo-European etymology has been found. The meaning of some names may have been forgotten (can all native words really be etymologized?). Other words, whose distribution more or less covers the Baltic coastal area, may have arisen through the influence of another language (not Baltic) that came into use along this coast on the remaining languages of the area. Such elements have also been identified25. These are the result not of an aboriginal substratum, but of later influence. The emergence of fish names should apparently be associated first and foremost with the arrival of Mesolithic (Maglemosian culture) fishers in the Baltic region26. This view is supported by the fact that most of the microlithic–macrolithic culture was brought from the Maglemosian culture, and that a wave of the latter culture in northern Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia gave rise to another culture—the Kunda culture27. Thus, we may assume that the fishers in question spoke a Baltic language or one closely related to the Baltic languages. According to R. Rimantienė, “the Maglemosian culture is related to the Baltic Magdalenian”28. Yet the appearances of representatives of the latter culture during the Paleolithic are truly remarkable! They “would arrive from the West in small groups and then leave again”29, and thus were merely visitors in the Baltic region30. The fact that, from Paleolithic times onward, representatives of the local Svidrian culture maintained contact only with those of one culture—the Baltic Magdalenian—while in the Mesolithic the sole wave of a culture related to the latter, the Maglemosian (which, as already mentioned, played the principal role in the formation of the microlithic–macrolithic and Kunda cultures), appeared, suggests that special relations existed between the local inhabitants and the visitors. We are inclined to regard these relations as the earliest Baltic–Thracian relations31, which continued until the first centuries CE. But examining these relations is a matter for a separate study, not for a review of B. Laumane’s book. Here we shall return only to P. Tyme’s hypothesis, mentioned at the beginning of the review. Apparently, the Indo-Europeans, having left Asia Minor, had not had a single homeland for a very long time. 24 In addition, see Laumane–Nepokupny, — Baltistica, p. 76. 25 See, for example, Laumane–Nepokupny, — Baltistica, pp. 70–71. 26 Римантене ПМЛ 118—125, 174—175, 196; Rimantienė PLG 57—65; 95. 27 Rimantienė PML 174—175, 196. 28 Rimantienė PLG 63. 29 Ibid., p. 95. 30 Ibid., p. 95; see also: pp. 30—39. 31 Ibid., pp. 63—65, 95. The Baltic and Thracian terms here are relative: by Baltic we mean the northern Baltic—Thracian (or Baltic in the broad sense) language area, and by Thracian, the southern one. 264 But contacts did not cease. Apparently, the name salmon spread from the Baltic region into those Indo-European languages that had not yet forgotten their ancient kinship and continued to communicate with one another. B. Laumane’s monograph is a significant achievement in Baltic linguistics. It is hardly possible to regard the insufficient assessment of Baltic influence on neighboring languages as a particularly serious shortcoming. After all, there are still relatively few studies in which Baltic influence on neighboring languages is explained better. V. Rimša K. DRAŠUTAVIČIUS’ (DRAŠUTIS’) GLOSSARIES AND LISTS OF TERMS A prominent, yet until now very little-known cultural, literary, and press figure of the second half of the 19th century, K. Dra­šutavičius also made a significant contribution to lexicography and terminology. Thirteen glossaries and lists of terms1 have been found among his extensive manuscript legacy. While preparing curricula and questions for textbooks in natural science (botany, zoology, parasitology, etc.), geography, history, literature, and other subjects (a multi-part “chrestomathy”), gathering material for them, writing individual sections, translating various texts from Polish, Russian, and German, and preparing their summaries, K. Drašu­tavičius must have encountered a shortage of Lithuanian terminology, sought it in various sources, and compiled glossaries and lists of terms in various fields. 1. Glossaries and Lists of Botanical Terms K. Dra­šutavičius searched for, collected, and recorded terminology in the natural sciences, especially botany, more than any other field. As can be seen from the curricula he drew up (F₁ – 2453, 2468, 2489, 2547), and as the home tutor J. Juškytė states in her memoirs, K. Dra­šutavičius was considering compiling a multi-part “chrestomathy” (or, more precisely, textbooks), one of which was to provide older children with basic knowledge of natural science2. The prospectus “Programs for the Second Part” (F₁ – 2489) makes it clear that this elementary natural science textbook was to cover domestic animals, rodents, fish, beetles, trees, and so on. J. Juškytė3 was to prepare the textbook, but K. Dra­šutavičius himself also contributed, as he wrote the articles “Worms” (F₁ – 2493), “Plants without Seeds” (F₁ – 2492), “Plants in the Seas” (F₁ – 2941), “Beetles” (F₁ – 2490), “Fish” (F₁ – 2488), and others. Here is a short excerpt from the article “Plants without Seeds”: “All those plants that we have come to know have flowers; fruits develop from the flowers, and in the fruit there always appears 1 It is held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR (F₁ – 2324–2560, a total of 230 folders containing more than 6,400 manuscript pages of various formats). 2 Mūsų senovė, vol. II, No. 4(9), 1939, pp. 11–614. 3 Ibid., p. 611. 265