IŠ LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOLOGIJOS IR LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

ON SEVERAL LOANWORDS IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

S. KARALIŪNAS

As is well known, traditional research into the etymology of Indo-European languages primarily focused on finding cognates in other IE languages, in order to identify the most archaic layer of the IE lexicon or innovative lexemes shared by several related language groups. Words for which cognates in other IE languages could not be found were set aside as late, worthless neologisms for historical reconstruction. In many cases, lexemes denoting realia associated primarily with material culture which, on superficial inspection, appeared isolated in the language system but had readily identifiable counterparts in other (IE or non-IE) languages tended to be considered borrowings. That objects of material culture and the words denoting them travel from one people to another, that is, from one language to another, is a well-known phenomenon (cf., e.g., gatvė, pipiras, šilkas, turgus, etc.). This, however, is an extralinguistic factor, and, obviously, it is insufficient; on its own, it is not appropriate to determine whether a word is native or borrowed, even if it denotes some cultural reality.

Recently, as attention to the position of lexical elements within the language system and their relations to other elements has sharpened, and efforts to etymologize a lexeme first by using evidence from the language system itself have increased, the question of borrowings has often been raised and reconsidered. For instance, J. Otkupshchikov, drawing on Baltic-language evidence, refutes the view that Lithuanian karštas is allegedly a Finno-Ugric word that came through Slavic, and argues very convincingly for its Baltic origin: “Since in Lithuanian the alternation keŕstas/kaŕstas ‘coffin’ fully coincides with the alternation keŕstas/kaŕstas ‘shrew’, one may hypothesize a Baltic origin for Lithuanian keŕstas ‘coffin’ and Latvian šķīrsts. A comparison of Lithuanian keŕ-s-tas ‘coffin’ with keŕ-s-las ‘chisel’ and kìrsti ‘to chop, hew’ clarifies the etymology of the Baltic words under consideration to a sufficient degree. The form with the vocalism o (Lithuanian kār-s-tas) coincides semantically and genetically with Lithuanian prā-kar-tas ‘manger’ (= ‘hollowed-out log’). The etymology of Latvian šķīrsts is clarified by comparison with Lithuanian skērsti ‘to cut’; semantically, all the Baltic words cited can also be compared with Russian колода ‘coffin’, ‘trough for feeding livestock’

¹²*

179

‘and so on’—Lithuanian kálti ‘to hollow out’¹. Likewise, V. Urbutis, drawing on a whole series of cognate words found in dialects, quite reasonably suggests that Lithuanian áčiū, áčiū, áčiuo, etc., which E. Fraenkel regards as Slavicisms², may be native Lithuanian words³.

On the basis of the methodological principles set out here, this short article aims to examine several Lithuanian words that researchers unanimously regard as borrowings (dėka, kūbilas, poškia, šišavà), bringing forward relevant Baltic-language evidence that has hitherto been ignored and shows that there is no compelling reason to regard the Lithuanian words under discussion as borrowings.

1. dėka

duōkia, duōkė, duōkti ‘to figure out what work needs to be done’, LKŽ II 612, has a variant with -g- as the final root consonant; cf. nūduogia ‘he/she figures it out’, Išlaužas. It is related to the nominals duōgas ‘mind, understanding; person of little intelligence’, Daugėliškis, Kuktiškės, Linkmenys, Subačius, Vidiškės; duoga ‘the same’, Kiaukliai, Panevėžys; duōgis, duōgius ‘person of little intelligence’, Daugėliškis, see LKŽ II 611; duōkas ‘person of little intelligence; blockhead, ignoramus, fool’, Ignalina, Kirdeikiai, Kuktiškės, Linkmenys, Tauragnai⁵.

With root vocalism o, there are dokia, dokė, dokti ‘to understand, comprehend’, LKŽ II 412, and savo dokià ‘voluntarily, of one’s own accord’, R II 149, M II 196. An identical phrase is savo dėką; cf. Rugių kirsti jis ir savo dėka (of his own accord, without being asked) ateis ‘he will come’ (LKŽ II 262), which already has ė vocalism. The nominal dėka (and dėka) ‘thanks, gratitude; favor; will’ (LKŽ II 262) is widely used both in dialects and in old writings; cf. also dėkas ‘thanks, gratitude’ (LKŽ II 262), its denominal verbs dėkóti, dėkúoti ‘to give thanks’ (LKŽ II 264), and the adverbs dėkui, dėku, dėkuo (LKŽ II 264) (the latter are most likely historically singular dative forms of an o-stem; cf. dėkas). Particularly significant is the fact that a segment with root vocalism ē is also found in Latvian; cf. Latvian dēka ‘free will; temperament, individual character’ (ME I 46), whose specific meaning precludes treating it as a borrowing from either Lithuanian or Slavic. Perhaps Latvian dāgā (dial. duogā) ‘for the benefit or advantage’ (loc. sing.) (ME I 461, EH I 318) may also be included here.

Since the contrast between d and t has phonemic status in Lithuanian (cf., e.g., dégti: tékti, daryti: tarýti), and since the words with the root under consideration do not belong to expressive vocabulary, in which voiced and voiceless consonants often lose their distinctive function, we will regard the words mentioned as belonging to a separate root and will not associate them with words that are phonologically and semantically comparable to them

¹ Ю. В. Откупщиков, Из истории индо-европейского словообразования, Ленинград 1967, р. 221—2. Liet. karštas, lat. š, kirstis senais baltiškais žodžiais dar 1911 m. taip pat laikė ir K. Būga, žr. K. Būga, RR, I, p. 308—9. Šios savo nuomonės, deja, jis vėliau atsisakė, žr. K. Būga, RR, II, p. 192—4.

² E. Fraenkel, LEW, p. 1.

³ V. Urbutis, — Baltistica, V(1), 1969, p. 48—9.

⁴ See E. Fraenkel, LEW, pp. 86, 304, 641, 990—991, and the literature cited there.

⁵ Duōkas could otherwise be distinguished from dvākas ‘simpleton, half-wit’, LKŽ II 663, and dvākti ‘to gape, stare, breathe; to grow foolish, become an idiot’, LKŽ II 664 (for the relation between the root vowels, cf. apvalūs ir apuo- lūs), but their areas of use do not entirely coincide: dvākas is used north of the area in which duōkas occurs (Biržai, Dusetos, Kupiškis, etc.), which allows them to be distinguished.

180

with words such as tūokas ‘intelligence, ingenuity’, (m)tuōkti ‘to infer, understand, intuit’, etc.⁶ The root to which duōkti (with -k- from -g- before tenu­es), duōgas, doktī, dėka, dėkas, and Latvian dēka may belong is PIE *dēg- ‘to pack’ (Pokorny 183), represented by Gothic tēkan ‘to touch’ (preterite taikōn), Old Norse taka (English take) ‘to take’, Tocharian B tek- ‘to touch’ (preterite teksa, with root vocalism ē or o).

The genetic relationship between the semantic components ‘(to) take’ and ‘to think, consider, suppose; thinking, ingenuity, intelligence’ is well attested in Indo-European languages; compare, for example, German annehmen ‘to accept, agree; suppose’ alongside nehmen ‘to take’; Greek δέχομαι, Ionic δέχομαι ‘I accept, receive’: δοκέω ‘I think, consider’, δόξα ‘opinion’, δοκεῖ μοι ‘it seems to me (i.e., it is acceptable to me)’. The semantic component ‘to think, consider, suppose, etc.’ can give rise to the component ‘to thank’; compare Gothic þagkjan, Old High German denken, Old English þencan ‘to think’, from which the nouns Old High German danc (German Dank), Old English þanc (English thank), and Gothic þagks ‘gratitude, thanks’ are derived (compare especially the meanings of Old English þanc: ‘thought, opinion, thinking; favor, goodwill; joy, pleasure, delight; gratitude, thanks’). Thus gratitude, thanks are understood as ‘das in gedenkenkender Gesinnung sich äußernde Gefühl’; compare German Dank wissen and French savoir gré ‘to be grateful (i.e., to know gratitude)’.

Generally speaking, ē should be regarded as the primary vocalism, and ō as secondary. This creates a contradiction: the components with secondary vocalism manifest the primary semantic component ‘to think, suppose’, whereas those with primary vocalism ē manifest the secondary semantic component ‘to be grateful; gratitude, thanks’.

Since the semantic component ‘to take, touch’ is not attested in the Baltic languages, one must suppose that the root *dēg- (-k- before tenu­es) meant ‘to think, suppose, understand’ in the Balto-Slavic linguistic community. The nouns duōgas, duōkas ‘intelligence, understanding’ were regularly derived from it, and served as the basis for the emergence of verbs with vocalism uo; compare duōgti, duōkti. Nouns, however, can also be formed without a change in root vocalism; compare Lithuanian slėgti: slėgą, slėgas (alongside sluogą, sluōgas). The regular nouns derived from the verb *dēg- (-k-) ‘to think, suppose, understand’ were likewise dėkā, dėka, dėkas, whose somewhat modulated meaning relates to that of the base verb as the meaning of the Germanic noun Gothic þagks relates to that of the base verb Gothic þagkjan⁷.

2. kūbilas

Lithuanian kūbilas is universally regarded as a Germanic loanword that entered via the Slavic languages (compare Old Russian къбьлъ) (compare German Kübel ‘barrel’, and also Old High German miluh-chubili ‘milk barrel’⁸).

Lithuanian kūbilas has a broad range of meanings: ‘a wide-bottomed barrel for storing flour and grain, fermenting vegetables, and holding liquids; a lidded barrel for clothing-

⁶ For its etymology, see E. Fraenkel, LEW, p. 1141.

⁷ The forms in old writings dėkuju, dėkjam ‘I thank, we thank’, compare, for example, the line from a hymn by M. Mažvydas, Diekui tau Diewe tiewe / Jog mane /che nakti /saug ojei /Nuog /kadu wi /siu bei priegadu, could in fact be Slavicisms (compare Old Belarusian дзякую, дзякуем).

⁸ This German word, in turn, is regarded as a loanword from Latin cupella ‘small barrel’; see A. Walde — J. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, I, Heidelberg, 1938, p. 310; compare Fr. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 17. Aufl., Berlin, 1957, p. 408.

181

for storing grain; a dowry tub; a large hollowed-out wooden vessel with an inserted bottom, a dugout vessel; a bread trough, bread tub, bread-baking vessel; a concrete well ring; a large vat placed in a mill beneath the millstones; a Lithuanian folk dance; a young men’s game resembling javelin throwing; a percussion instrument resembling a drum (the bottom and sides are made of planks of different wood and uneven thickness)” LKŽ VI 749–750. It is used throughout the Lithuanian-speaking area, in both Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects. It occurs both in old writings (e.g., M. Daukša’s “Postilla Catholic-ka,” p. 170) and in dictionaries (those of P. Ruigys and Kr. Milkus). It is widespread in folklore (e.g., in songs collected by A. Juška). A great many surnames were derived from it: Kubilas (20 families), Kubilius (361 families), Kubilis (12 families), Kubilėnas (4 families), Kubilinas (2 families), Kubiliūnas (39 families), Kubiliavičius (2 families), Kubilevičius (5 families), Kubilinskas, Kubilinskis (20 families), Kubilskis, Kubilskas (4 families), Kubilnikas (2 families). All this gives good reason to ask whether kūbilas is in fact a loanword.

First, it should be noted that there are also several variants of this word. The form kubilis is recorded in the dictionaries of P. Ruigys and Kr. Milkus: Kubbilis, lo “ein stehend offenes Gefäß; ein Kiefen” R I 69, Kubillis, lio, Kubilas, lo “ein offenes Böttcher-Gefäß, ein Kiefen zum Bier” M I 133, while F. Ness elmann’s dictionary records not only Kubilis, io “ein Kübel, ein offenes Böttchergefäß, das oben an der Oeffnung enger ist als am Boden” N 206, but also the curious form Kublulis, io “ein aus einem Stücke Holz gehöhltes Gefäß” (Ragnit) N 207, which may perhaps derive from the diminutive *kubululis or *kubululis, with i and u elided.

A variant of the word, kūbelas, is known from Laukuva, LKŽ VI 748 (if e here does not denote i, pronounced broadly in the Samogitian dialect).

The following Lithuanian words could share a root with kūbilas: kub-árka “small wooden vessel, box; a grain measure, a measure for oats,” kubarkis “wooden bucket” LKŽ VI 748 (perhaps with the Slavic suffix -ka from *kub-ara; cf. kaukara “hill, hummock,” kūkštara “hump; space between cultivated rows; burden”), kūbikas “small clay or wooden vessel,” kubikė “wooden butter dish,” kūbikis “vessel for storing groats and flour; cooking pot with two handles” LKŽ VI 749, kubilkė “small wooden vessel for holding butter” LKŽ VI 750 (probably from kūbilas with the Lithuanianized Slavic suffix -ka), kuborė “large wooden spoon for ladling broth,” kaborkà “small wooden vessel, box; a grain measure, a measure for oats” LKŽ VI 751 (possibly from kuborė with the Slavic suffix -ka; for the alternation of the suffixes -ar- and -or- in kub-ara and kub-orė, cf. kaūkaras “little hill, hill, hummock”: kaū-koras “the same”), kubūrka “small wooden vessel, box; a grain measure, a measure for oats,” kubūrkė “the same” LKŽ VI 754 (perhaps from *kub-ura / *kub-urė with the Slavic suffix -ka; for the alternation of the suffixes -ara: -ura, cf. kaūkaras: kaūkur as), kubūlkė, kubulkė, kubulkis “small wooden vessel, box; a grain measure, a measure for oats” LKŽ VI 753 (from *kubula / *kub-ulė, cf. Latvian kubuls; for the alternation of the suffixes -ul-: -il- in *kub-ula / *kub-ulė and kūb-ilas, cf. jūnd-ulas: jūnd-ilas “one who is constantly moving; restless person, rascal,” and also kib-uras: kib-iras “small dry twig”).

The Latvian equivalent of Lithuanian kūbilas varies remarkably; cf. Latvian kubIs “der Kübel, Bottich” ME II 297, kublis, kubla EH I 666. These forms undoubtedly have syncopated u; cf. the full forms Latvian dialectal kubuls and kubulis EH II 666. The diminutive forms Latvian kublītis, kublins “ein aus Holz verfertigtes Gefäss zur Aufbewahrung von Milch, Grütze” ME II 297 also have a syncopated vowel; cf. the full form kubuliņš ibid.,

182

and this apparently confirms the derivation of Lithuanian kubulis from *kubulis or *kubululis. Besides the suffix -ulis, Latvian uses -als (cf. kubals EH I 665), -els (cf. the diminutive kubelelis “ein kleiner Kübel” EH I 665), and -ils (cf. the form kubils⁹ in J. Kurmin’s dictionary).

Apparently, Latvian kubilis and kubucis “eine grosse ciba (a kind of vessel); ein hölzernes Trinkgefäss; ein mit einem Deckel versehenes Gefäss aus Birkenrinde, worin man Beeren sammelt od. Tabak bewahrt” ME II 297 also share the same root as kubilis.

Thus, Lithuanian and Latvian share the following variants: kūbilas|kubuls (the alternation of the formatives -il-|-ul- is quite common), kūbikis|kubucis (for the alternation of formatives -ik-|-uk-, cf. durūkas “one that pricks” alongside dūrīkas), and, with the same suffix, kūbelas|kubel-elis.

The verb Lithuanian kūbti “to bend (toward the ground)” may be regarded as the base of these numerous derivatives: Kubstu, jau suvisum kubstu (Tauragnai) LKŽ VI 753; Latvian kubinât “decken” ME II 297, ap-kubinât “umlegen”: lakatu ap galvu ap-kubinâties “sich umdecken” ME I 96 (for their semantic relations, cf. Lithuanian gaūbti “to wrap, cover, lay, envelop; bend, curl” LKŽ III 159). These verbs are further related to the Indo-European root *keu-b|bh- “biegen” Pokorny 589, to which belong Greek κύπτω “I bend, I bow,” κυφω “I bend.”

The fact that lexemes denoting various wooden vessels are often connected with roots meaning ‘bend,’ ‘curl,’ or ‘cover’ is a relatively common phenomenon; cf. Lithuanian guobinūkas “a vessel hollowed out of wood” LKŽ III 736: guobti “to hollow out, scoop out, carve” ibid.; dibuō “a vessel deeper than a plate, for soup” LKŽ II 549: dūbti “to sink, bog down, bend” LKŽ II 547; duobīnys “a hollowed-out wooden vessel with an inserted bottom” LKŽ II 609: duobti “to make a hollow; to hollow out, carve” LKŽ II 610; gūbužis “a wooden vessel without handles for straining milk” LKŽ III 692: gūbti “to sag, bend” LKŽ III 691; kaukorė “wooden vessel for pounding bacon; mortar, pestle; wooden vessel for storing fat or pounded bacon” LKŽ V 424: kūkti “to bend, droop, stumble, stoop” LKŽ VI 808: Sanskrit kumbháh “pot, pitcher,” Greek κύμβος “vessel, implement”: English hump “hump,” Latin cumbo “to lie down” (< “to bend” or “to curl”); Latin cūpa “tub, vat”: Sanskrit kūpáh “pit, cave,” associated with the Indo-European root *keu-p- “to curve, arch.”

A particularly strong argument that Lithuanian kūbilas and Latvian kubls may be Baltic words is the fact that Lithuanian also uses, to denote a vessel or implement, the regular ablaut variant of the root kūb-ti with the root vocalism au—the very root to which we have assigned Lithuanian kūbilas and Latvian kubls. Cf. Lithuanian kaubarė, kaubo-rė “a wooden hollowed-out vessel, wooden bowl” Tverečius, see LKŽ V 417. The semantic relationship of Lithuanian kūbilas and Latvian kubls, like the names of the aforementioned vessels and implements, to the verb kūbti “to bend” is entirely understandable, since the original meaning of Lithuanian kūbilas was apparently “a large hollowed-out wooden vessel with an inserted bottom,” the sense in which it is recorded from Prienai; see LKŽ VI 750.

⁹ J. Kurmin, Słownik polsko-łacinsko-łotewski, Wilno, 1858, p. 233. — Dėl jos tikrumo abejoja J. Endzelīnas, žr. K. Mühlenbach–J. Endzelin, Lettisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, II, p. 297 s. v. kub[s]ls.

183

3. pošnia

Closer acquaintance with the relevant Lithuanian-language data—other dialectal variants of this word, its accentuation, and its meanings—raises doubts as to whether it is really foreign. This doubt is reinforced by the fact that the word can, moreover, be etymologized relatively easily using Lithuanian material.

First, it may be noted that Lithuanian pošnia and Slavic *pašnja, from which the Lithuanian word is presumed to have originated, do not have entirely identical meanings. In addition to the meanings “plowed land; plowed field; crops,” Russian па́шня/пашня also has the meanings “bread, rye; honey harvest, honeycombs in a hive, the work of bees.”¹⁰ Lithuanian pošnia does not have these meanings.

The range of meanings of Lithuanian pošnia is considerably broader; cf. pošnia (acc. sing. pošnią) “manor fields” in Liškiava (cf. also Pošnia, a village in Paberžė parish), pošnėlė “manor fields” in Punskas and Seinai (cf. also Pošnėlė, a forest in Seirijai district and a wood in Simnas district), pošnia “manor field” in Lazdijai (Barčiai), pošnia (acc. sing. pošnią) “field where the manor’s pastures used to be” in Gudeliai and Kalvarija, pošnia “field, soil” in Kazlų Rūda and Salakas, pošnia “crops” in Tauragnai, pošnia “spring crops” in Strūnaitis, pošnia “grain” in Daugai, Kuktiškės, Linkmenys, Palūšė, and Ramaškonys, pošnia (acc. sing. pošnią) “produce, wealth” in Dusetos, pošnia (acc. sing. pošnią) “produce” in Jūžintai, and pošnia (acc. sing. pošnią) “place where cleaned grain is piled” in Onuškis. In Dieveniškės (cf. pošnis “crops”) and Šimonys (cf. pošnis “farm”), an i-stem form is used. In the manuscript of A. Juška’s dictionary, we find the following entry recorded in Veliuona: Pošmė “wielkość pola” [“size of a field”]: Pošmė yra lauko didumas=liolės.

Thus, here we already have the suffix -m-, and in that case, if Lithuanian pošnia is regarded as a Slavic borrowing, it would be difficult to explain satisfactorily the substitution of the Slavic suffix -n-. The i-stem form of this word used in Lithuanian dialects, which, generally speaking, fits into the system of nominal inflection (cf. pošnia, pošnė, pošnis and mūsià, mūsė, mūsis), likewise argues against treating the word as a Slavicism. Finally, one may also mention the acute accent of the word in question, which is not characteristic of Lithuanian borrowings of Slavic origin, apart from a few isolated cases (cf. bėsas from Slavic *běsъ).

Lithuanian pošnia, pošmė, with the suffixes -n-, -m- or -sn-, -sm- (since the suffixes -n- and -m- can occur in words with a bare root, cf., for example, barnìa, barnė, barnis and barmė LKŽ I² 661; bėgsnis, bėgsnė and bėgsmė LKŽ I² 724; dogmis, dógsnis and dogmė LKŽ II 411), will have been formed from the root found in the verbs pošyti (-ija, -ijo) “to plow, work” in Breslauja, “to work diligently, toil” in Rokiškis and Šimonys, and pošinti “to break, damage” in Lazdijai and Šėta, following the pattern kopnia: kópti, smuknia: smūkti etc., krósnis: Latvian krât etc. One can observe a shift in the meanings of Lithuanian pošnia from what appears to be the original meaning “soil, field” to “produce, wealth,” “farm,” and even “a lot” (cf. pošnis “a lot” in southwestern Aukštaitian dialects). The relationship between the sememes “soil, field” and “to plow, work” is readily understood; cf. arimai: árti; dirvà: dirti, etc.

The verb pošyti/pošinti has the vowel o in its root, which is the lengthened grade of the root’s normal vowel. The normal vocalism a is found in the verbs įpašyti (-ija, -ijo) “to plow, cultivate”: Žemė gera, tik reikia ją įpašyti, tai ir derės [“The soil is good; it just needs plowing, and then it will yield a crop”] in Tverečius, pašyti “to card (wool)” in Rimsė and, undoubtedly, in the related verb pašyti (pašo, pašė) “to pluck, card (e.g. wool, flax, tow, etc.); to shuffle (cards)” DLKŽ 556. The verb pašyti differs from pašyti in inflection (the former is

¹⁰ В. Даль, Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка, III, 1955, p. 25.

184

an -įo-stem verb) and accent placement. Identifying these verbs etymologically presents no great difficulty, since variation in both inflection and accent placement is fairly common; cf. pašūti, -ija, -ijo|pašūti, pašū, -ė and lópyti, -ija, -ijo| lópyti, -o-, -ė LKŽ VII 651, lúodyti, -ija, -ijo| lúodyti, -o, -ė LKŽ VII 690, etc.; for accent placement, cf. pašyti| pašyti and maigyti|maigyti, mangytis|mangytis.

Since the connection between pašyti and the primary verb pėšti is entirely obvious, the verbs pašyti “to card (wool); to plow, work,” pošyti “to plow, work; to work diligently, toil,” pošinti “to break, damage,” pošinti in Liškiava, and pošinti in Švent-ežeris “to shuffle (cards)” (: pašyti “to shuffle (cards)”) are likewise derivatives of the primary verb pėšti.

A parallel from Latvian may be cited for the semantic-derivational relationship of the noun pošnia with pošyti, pašyti, pašyti, and ultimately pėšti. B. Jēgers demonstrated that Latvian puōsums “a cleared forest area, a clearing, a swidden” is formed from the verb puōst “reinigen, säubern, fegen, aufräumen; roden; putzen, schmücken etc.” (cf. also puōst “einen Baum beschneiden; roden”: kuokus puōst “aushauen” EH II 347), which corresponds in Lithuanian to puōšti, puōšti “to adorn, beautify; to dress, clothe,” and that Latvian puōst, and thus Lithuanian puōšti, puōšti, is further related to Lithuanian pėšti “to pull out, pluck hair, feathers, hay, and the like.”¹¹ It should also be noted that the semantic components “a cleared forest area, a clearing, a swidden” are related to “fallow land” and “plowed fields, soil.” Lithuanian dialectal puōšumas (unaccented) has precisely this meaning, “fallow land, abandoned place”: Puošumuose auga varnažolės [“Crow herbs grow in Puošumai”] in Tirkšliai.

Since, as we have sought to demonstrate here, Lithuanian pošnia, pošmė most likely developed within the Lithuanian language, the Slavic words Russian пашня, dialectal пашня, and Belarusian пашня (cf. also Old Russian pašьnja) constitute a typological parallel. Because of the geographical contact between the Baltic and Slavic languages, their direct contact, and a certain convergence of Baltic and Slavic border dialects, new lexemes that are semantically and derivationally similar arose in these languages on a typologically close but genetically different basis (cf. Lithuanian pošyti, pošinti, derived from pėšti, and Slavic pachať, associated variously with Slavic pasti “to herd,” with pacháť “to weed; to sweep,”¹² and with Czech para ti “to tear”¹³). Moreover, this convergence is manifested not only in the emergence of parallel shared features, but apparently also in the dominant influence of one dialect group on another: for instance, the Lithuanian meaning of pošnia “manor field” may have arisen under the influence of the Slavic language used at the manor.

4. šišavà

Having found Lithuanian šišavà “a crowd of small children”¹⁴, recorded in J. Otrębski’s description of the Tverečius dialect, F. Specht, in a note published in 1951, regarded it as an inheritance from deep antiquity: “Lit. šišavà ist regelrechte Ableitung aus einem u- Stamm *šišus, der genau ved. šišu- „Kind, jugendlich“ entspricht”¹⁵. In a short article published a year later, E. Fraenkel, by contrast, thought that Lithuanian *šišis, from which šišavà was formed, was a word of Finno-Ugric origin that had come through the Slavic languages (cf. Russian шиши “vagabond”).

¹¹ B. Jēgers, Verwandte Bedeutungsverwandtschaften baltischer Wörter, KZ, 80, 1966, p. 13 tt.

¹² M. Vasmer, Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, II, Heidelberg, 1955, p. 326–7.

¹³ Georg Y. Shevelov, A Prehistory of Slavic, Heidelberg, 1964, p. 133.

¹⁴ J. Otrębski, Wschodniolitewskie narzecze Twereckie, I, p. 166.

¹⁵ Fr. Specht, Litauisch šišavà, KZ, 69, 3/4, 1951, p. 184.

185

word (cf. Estonian sišš “robber”)¹⁶. There is no doubt that, in thinking so, E. Fraenkel was relying on K. Mülenbach and J. Endzelyns’ “Latvian Dictionary,” which gives: “sisís ‘1) ein Mörder, Räuber etc.; 2) ein kleines Kind’; In der Bed. I direkt oder durch r. usu ‘Vagabund, Francitreur’ aus estn. sišš ‘Räuber’”¹⁷.

What is the truth of the matter?

Lithuanian sišavà (acc. sing. sišavą) “children” is used only in a small area of eastern Lithuania (Mielagėnai, Paringys, Tverečius, Vidiškės). But this is not yet grounds for regarding it as a foreign word. It has a clear collective meaning. This can be seen particularly well from the data of the Mielagėnai dialect: a mischievous, restless child is called šišas, and a group of such children šišavà; cf. šunavà “dogs,” velniavà “devils,” žydavà “Jews,” in Tverečius; bernavà “lads,” in Ceikiniai, Daugėliškis, etc.¹⁸ Thus šišavà is clearly a derivative of the noun šišas “child”; cf. the aforementioned šišas “mischievous, restless child” in Mielagėnai. The noun šišas has further meanings too, cf. šišas “lad, shepherd boy, insignificant person, frog”: Kožnas šišas visur kišas “Every šišas sticks his nose in everywhere,” Troškūnai; šišas “an obstinate, bad-tempered person”: Tokio šišo neperkalbėsi “You can’t talk such a šišas around,” Lyduokiai; šišas “frenzy, rage; creative inspiration,” DLKŽ 810. These nouns, cf. also šišus “bad-tempered, grumbling” (unstressed), Tauragnai; šišūs “beaten, pounded (of clay),” Gegužinė, are further related to the verbs šišti, šišta/šiša, šišo (unstressed) “to be angry, go wild, rage,” Tauragnai (it could also be šyšti, šyšo, since the quantity of the root vowel is uncertain owing to the lengthening of stressed vowels); šišti, šišti “excandesco, I flare up, become angry,” Kvėdarna (attested by K. Jaunius), and further, apparently, to šišta “begins to scab over,” Bg II 244; šišti, šyšti, šišau “to scab over,” NdŽ IV 501; (nu)-šišęs “grindig, räudig,” N 520, K 278, 429. The manifestation of the content-plane segments “to be angry, rage, storm, go wild” and “to scab over, decay, rot” in a single expression-plane segment is entirely possible; cf. Lithuanian áidytis “to quarrel, wrangle, fight, be at odds,” Slovenian jād “anger, wrath; poison,” jādīti “to make angry, cause resentment, irritate”: Old High German eiz “sore, boil, suppurating swelling,” eitar “pus,” Greek οἶδος “abscess, swelling”: Latvian idra, idrs “the rotten pith of a tree”; Old Church Slavonic gnĕvъ “anger, ill temper, wrath”: Old Russian Church Slavonic gnĕvъ “decay”; Old Church Slavonic gniti “to rot, decay.”

The Lithuanian words mentioned above are further of the same root as Lithuanian šašas “scab formed on the surface of a wound or sore, etc.,” Latvian sass “Schorf auf einer halbverheilten Wunde etc.”¹⁹ and, apparently, Lithuanian šešti “to get angry without cause, look for trouble, pester” (unstressed), Tauragnai.

In the word family of Lithuanian root šiš- or šeš-, we find a confrontation between the content-plane segments “to scab over, decay, rot; scab” and “(mischievous) child; lad, snot-nosed boy, insignificant person.” This is a semantic phenomenon with parallels elsewhere, where these content-plane segments are likewise manifested by a single expression-plane segment; cf. šaša-vaikis “unripe apple or immature person, child,” Biržai, whose first component is undoubtedly šašas (cf. also the latter’s…

¹⁶ E. Fraenkel, Zwei Nachträge. 2) Ostlit. šišavà „Schar kleiner Kinder,“ KZ, 70, 3/4, 1952, p. 240; cf. LEW, p. 990–991.

¹⁷ K. Mühlenbach — J. Endzelin, Lettisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, III, p. 849.

¹⁸ Plačiau žr. P. Skardžius, Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius, 1941, p. 379 tt.

¹⁹ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEW, p. 966.

186

meaning “a lowly person, a suckling” DLKŽ 798); krāmas “scab, pimple; rascal, mischief-maker; child’s bottom” LKŽ VI 409; cf. also gebene (and gebėnė (?), gebenė) “a small pimple, pimple, pustule, rash; a small thing, diminutive” LKŽ III 191. The clearest parallel to the semantic contrast mentioned above is Lithuanian šašavà “small children” (Mielagėnai), which undoubtedly denotes the collective meaning of the noun šašas. This is nicely illustrated by Latvian sass, which, among its many other meanings, also has the meaning “ein Kind, ein Jüngling (verächtlich)” EH II 450, coexisting with “Schorf auf einer halbverheilten Wunde”. Thus, to summarize schematically, we can state:

krāmas “scab”: “(mischievous) child” šašas + + (šašavà) 1a. sass + + šašas 0 + (šišavà)

For symmetry, the zero (0) in the diagram should be replaced by the sememe “scab, or rather to scab over,” which is precisely the meaning of the lexeme šišti.

Consequently, the material presented here makes it possible to regard Lithuanian šišavà “children, their group” as a Lithuanian word with a collective meaning, and to connect it with Lithuanian šišas “mischievous child, restless one; boy, shepherd, lowly person, driver, etc.”; šišti “to scab over,” šėsti “to get angry for no reason, to look for something to pick at, to fret,” šašas, Latvian sass, and so on.

The origin of Latvian sisis “murderer, robber, etc.; contemptible people; a small child” is very unclear. There is no sound basis for claiming that it was borrowed from Estonian; cf. Estonian sišš, siššik “robber, plunderer,” especially since the Finno-Ugric origin of this Estonian word and its Finnish equivalent sissi, sissika “excurs or militaris in silvis, latro, praedo silvestris” is not entirely certain either: J. Mikkola considers Russian съльник “scout” to be their source.²⁰ On the other hand, one cannot confidently assume that it is Baltic either, although some circumstances (see below) support this. Morphologically, Latvian sisis could correspond to Lithuanian šišis “miser” (Alsėdžiai, Žilinai; cf. also šišė “miserly woman” J I 405), although their meanings are distant. In its meaning “ein kleines Kind,” Latvian sisis is especially close to Lithuanian šišavà “children, their group” and šišas “boy, shepherd, lowly person, driver,” and this may be considered a strong argument for its Baltic origin. Its meaning “Mörder, Räuber; Marodeure” could also have arisen on Latvian soil; compare the meanings of Lithuanian šašvàlka “rascal, vagabond” (Baisogala, Kuršėnai, Skirsnemunė, Upyna), šāšvalka “vagabond” (Tverai). As Latvian sass shows (= Lithuanian šašas), Latvian may formerly also have had forms with root-vowel e, alongside which forms with root-vowel i could readily have arisen, especially through insertions, similarly to what happened in Lithuanian.

ON THE QUESTION OF SOME LITHUANIAN LOANWORDS

С. КАРАЛЮОНАС

Summary

New material from Lithuanian and Latvian is presented, indicating that there is insufficient basis for regarding Lithuanian dėkà “gratitude,” kūbilas “vat, tub, barrel,” pošnià “field, arable land; crops, grain, etc.,” šišavà “(a group of) children” as loanwords.

²⁰ J. J. Mikkola, Berührungen zwischen den westfinnischen und den slavischen Sprachen. I. Slavische Lehnwörter in den westfinnischen Sprachen, Helsingfors, 1894, p. 167.

187

ON SOME LITHUANIAN LOANWORDS

S. KARALIUNAS

Summary

The Lith. words dėka “thank, gratitude”, kūbilas “vat, tub; tun“, pošnia “ploughed field; crops, corn etc.”, šišava „children“ are commonly considered to be loanwords. As is well known in etymological studies Lithuanian words used to be compared with words in the other IE languages rather than with the facts of the Lithuanian (or other Baltic) language itself. Not always sufficiently taking into consideration the data of the Baltic languages some Lithuanian (and Latvian) words were thought to be loanwords. An attempt is made in this paper to bring to light some Lithuanian (and Latvian) material which shows that there is no basis to consider the words dealt with here as loanwords.