Veikalas apie baltiškų vietovardžių slavinimą ir slaviškų lietuvinimą

“утка” = Lith. ant-uka “eine Schnepfe” Mielke I 6, añtukas “saxicola oenanthe” Dusetos (dep. Vozgėliai), antukỹs “t.c.” Veliuona⁵. Art. “Die Metatonie im litauischen und lettischen”. K. Būga indicates that the words añtukas and iñtukas have the suffix -ukas and again compares them with the word añtis “Ente”. In E. Frenkel’s etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language, under the entry for añtis “Ente” we find the words antuka “Schnepfe”, añtukas “saxicola oenanthe, wheat ear, Weisskehlchen”, antikas (Dusetos), intukas (Tauragnai, Bez. Utena), antukýtis (Veliuona) “Steinschmätzer, Steinschnäpper”⁶. These comparisons are hard to believe, since kúltupys is no more like a duck than anything else. K. Būga was probably somewhat misled by Chr. G. Mielke’s and other dictionaries, where the meaning of antuka is given as “eine Schnepfe, i.e. a woodcock”. In the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, this inaccuracy has already been corrected: the word antuka is cross-referenced to antukỹs, and the latter to antikas “Oenanthe oenanthe”. The formation of the dialectal terms antukas and intukas would more accurately be explained as follows: antė + -ukas and intė + -ukas. The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language notes that the words antė and intė mean “chaff”. In addition, the word antė (like antìs) also means “the space behind the stove”. The correlation between the meanings “back of the hearth, recess” → “chaff” is quite evident. Relating the Aukštaitian name kúltupys to these words allows for a more convincing explanation. K. Gaivenis A WORK ON THE SLAVICIZATION OF BALTIC PLACE NAMES AND THE LITHUANIZATION OF SLAVIC ONES Jurgen Prinz, The Slavicization of Baltic and the Baltization of Slavic Place Names in the Territory of the Former Suwałki Governorate, Wiesbaden (Otto Harrassowitz publishing house), 1968, 320 pp. with a map. The problem of the Slavicization of Baltic place names and personal names has been raised in linguistic literature before—not least, several works devoted to this question have appeared in the past decade¹. However, J. Prinz’s book under review far surpasses other works in this field in scope. The book consists of an introduction, ten chapters, and conclusions. At the end of the book, the author provides a thematic index. In the introduction, J. Prinz, among other things, draws attention to the difficulties involved in studying Baltic toponymy found in Slavic lands. He gives examples from V. Toporov and O. Trubachov’s book “Linguistic Analysis of the Hydronyms of the Upper Dnieper Region” (Moscow, 1962), and from the works of H. Schall, showing that some relics of Baltic toponymy interpreted by these authors can also be understood differently. In his general remarks, J. Prinz briefly describes the ethnic composition of Suwałki Governorate in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and critically surveys the sources used 5 K. Būga, Selected Writings, II, V., 1959, p. 393. 6 E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg—Göttingen, 1955, tt., p. 11—12. 1 K. O. Falk, Studies on the Slavicization of Lithuanian Place and Personal Names, „Scando-Slavica“, IX (1963), p. 87—103; On the Methods of Slavicizing Lithuanian Personal and Place Names. On the Origin and Spread of Names in -ánce, „Språkliga Bidrag“, vol. 4, No. 19, Lund, 1964, p. 1—16; J. Otrębski, Slavicization of Lithuanian Water and Place Names, „Z polskich studiów slawistycznych“, Series 2, Linguistics, Warsaw, 1963, p. 267—286. 194 toponymic sources. The author states that in cases where the forms of place names differed across sources, he included all of them, whereas where they were identical, he cited only the book “Inhabited Places of Lithuania” (Kaunas, 1925—hereafter L. 23), published on the occasion of the 1923 population census. In the section on translations (“Die Übersetzung”), the author draws attention to the fact that the particular nature of the interaction between Baltic and Slavic toponymy requires distinguishing translation (e.g., Lithuanian Raudondvaris – Polish Czerwony Dwór) from explanation, semantic interpretation—that is, essentially, from semantic substitution (the cases in question are those where place names of unclear semantics are “given meaning” and made semantically transparent because they resemble a common word in another language, e.g., Lithuanian Višakio Rūda – Polish Wysoka Ruda). In J. Princas’s view, those place names or their components whose original meaning is more general and simpler are translated more often. For example, Lithuanian Senieji Alk snėnai – Polish Ol kśniany Stare: only the concept senieji ‘old’ is translated, while Alksnėnai is merely adapted to the Polish phonological system. The author advances what at first seems a rather interesting idea: the adjective form depends on whether the qualifying toponym forms a polarizing pair or not. If the qualifying toponym is also polarizing, its adjective is supposedly definite (in Polish, the adjective follows the noun), e.g.: Lithuanian Senieji Alk snėnai and Naujieji Alk snėnai Polish Ol kśniany Stare and Ol kśniany Nowe; if the qualifying toponym does not form a polarizing pair, its adjective is supposedly indefinite (in Polish, it precedes the noun), e.g.: Lithuanian Naujas Kaimas Polish Nowa Wieś. This idea, however, seems questionable. First of all, it should be noted that the place name Naujas Kaimas also has the known variant form Naujasis Kaimas. In addition, there are examples in which qualifying place names form polarizing pairs but their adjectives are indefinite, e.g., Naujas Strūnaitis ir Senas Strūnaitis (Švenčionys District). Conversely, the adjective of a qualifying toponym that does not form a polarizing pair may be definite, for example, Senoji upė (Alanta). Apparently, the adjective form depends not so much on whether a toponym forms a polarizing pair as on how common definite adjectives are in the dialect. In this section, the author presents many interesting cases of translation: only the epithet is translated (Kirsna, Didžioji – Kirsna Wielka); the whole word is translated (Pilkalnis – Lysa Góra, Alkšninė, inaccurately written by the author as Alksnyne – Olszyna); a diminutive suffix is translated by a word expressing diminutiveness (Likiškėliai – Likiški Male), and so on. The author correctly observes that this kind of translation of a place name’s “meaning” is possible only under certain conditions of bilingualism. In the section on substitution (explanation, interpretation, die Deutung), J. Princas examines another case of interaction between place names which, unlike the one just discussed, is possible even without bilingualism. As mentioned above, what is “translated” here is not the “content” or “meaning” of the place name, but its form, which is phonetically quite similar in both languages. However, in the language performing the translation, the form, although little changed, often (with the important exception of anthroponymic place names) acquires an entirely different content (in addition to the above 13* 195 of the aforementioned example Višakio Rūda – Wysoka Ruda, cf. also Lithuanian Molinė: molis – Polish Malina: malina ‘raspberry’). It is important to bear in mind that in this case there can be no question of any phonetic regularities either, since substitution readily violates them. This chapter examines: a) derivatives from Christian names that are similar in Lithuanian and Polish (Belarusian, Russian), e.g., Lithuanian Jokūboniai – Polish Jakubańce (cf. Jokūbas, Polish Jakub); b) derivatives from common nouns, e.g., Lithuanian Pūpa-sodis – Polish Popasodzie (cf. Lithuanian pupà, Polish pop ‘priest’); c) cases of formant substitution, e.g., Lithuanian Kudrėnai – Polish Kudrany, and so on. The subsection on derivatives from common nouns is especially detailed and extensive. There the author noted many interesting cases of substitution (e.g., Polish góra – from Lithuanian giria, Polish ostrów – from Lithuanian aštrùs, Polish krasny – from Lithuanian krósnis, and so on). The classification, albeit with reservations, of the village names Drapaliai and Trumpaliai (pp. 60, 83) as compound formations is questionable; in the author's view, their second component is related to the Lithuanian common noun pàlios, which became pole ‘field’ in Polish through substitution. The village name Drapaliai derives from the name of the lake Drapãlis, which is most likely a derivative with the suffix -alis, cf. Tab-ãlis, a lake in Sij. Trumpaliai is probably formed similarly (cf. also Trumpališkiai, a village in Rokiškis District). In the chapter “Substantival components of compound and complex place names,” J. Princas gives a detailed account of how the second components of compound place names and the second words of complex place names are Slavicized. In addition, the author presents a few cases of Lithuanization. For example, the author believes that complex place names whose second word is būdà may be Slavic constructions that have been Lithuanized: Polish Dębowa Buda – Lithuanian Ąžuolų Būda, Polish Czysta Buda – Lithuanian Čystà Būdà, Polish Lipowa Buda – Lithuanian Liepavā Būdà (p. 74), and so on. The author bases this claim on the fact that complex oikonyms are supposedly very rare in Lithuanian, whereas they are especially common in Polish and Slavic languages generally. The latter point should essentially be accepted, but the origin of the entire place-name pattern with Būda may be open to question. For example, the genitival place name Ąžuolų Būda may also be non-Slavic. It may have retained its genitive form because its first word, ąžuolas, is a derivative, and longer derived stems combine with other words much less readily in Lithuanian. (Cf. also Rugėnų Būda vs. Šaravų Būda vs., Kėdainiai District.) Moreover, village names such as Mažoji Būda, Sen oji Būda, Naujoji Būda (cf. Čystà Būdà) also show that some complex oikonyms containing Būda may have arisen independently in Lithuanian, even though the common noun būdà itself is a Slavic loanword. Among compound oikonyms whose second component derives from gãlas, the village name Raugalai (p. 76) should not be included, since it is not a compound but an anthroponymic place name, derived from the surname Ráugalas (cf. also Ráuga, Ráugas, Ráugala), which in turn is most likely related to the common words ráugalas, ráugti, and so on. The place name Pirktavietė, Kepurienės (p. 91), treated as an exception, is in fact not a compound village name, but two different name variants, whose Lithuanian forms are: Kepurinė or Pirktãvietė. It is clear that they could not have turned into a single compound place name. Unreliable sources also misled the author regarding the origin (p. 91) of the place name Asiūklės Pamūrgiai, which is written in various ways (Pamurgiai, Asiūklės, Asiūklenskiai, Polish Pomorgi Osiukłańskie). The first word of this oikonym, Asiūklės, is that of a nearby 196 other village name, Asiūklė, in the genitive case. Thus, morphologically it is a simple genitival place name, and there is no basis for speaking of an originally Slavic character. J. Princas considers the reconstructed Polish or Russian proto-form *Макобское to be the original source of the village name Makauskai (Polish Makowszczyzna). However, this reconstruction is unnecessary here, since the village name Makauskai derives from the surname Makauskas. The chapter “Suffixes” first shows how Lithuanian suffixal oikonyms are Slavicized. The author discusses each suffix separately, indicating its Polish equivalents. Among other things, the author gives examples in which, instead of a Lithuanian oikonym with a diminutive suffix, Polish has a qualifying place name whose first word is the adjective małe or the like; cf. Lithuanian Likiškėliai—Polish Likiszki Małe (p. 105). These are very interesting cases, although it may not always be appropriate to regard them as calques of diminutives, especially where compound Lithuanian forms are also attested; cf. Lithuanian Geistariūkai, Polish Giejsztory Małe, E. Volteris—Geištarai Mažai2. The point is that the author compares spellings from different periods (the present-day form and one from the late nineteenth century). It is possible that diminutiveness is not expressed differently in Lithuanian and Polish here, but rather that the Polish forms indicate that an intermediate Lithuanian construction may also have existed in some instances (e.g., * Mažieji Geistārai). The author distinguishes suffixal derivatives from non-suffixal ones quite well. Only a couple of inaccuracies are noted: the author regards the place name Bedaliai as a derivative with the suffix -el- || -ėl-, although it is most likely simply the plural of the common noun bedalis (cf. dalia); the place name Pūskepaliai, which the author considers a derivative with the same suffix, is anthroponymic, derived from the compound surname Pūskepalis (cf. pūšė, kėpalas). In the second part of this chapter, the author presents a distinctive inverse view of the first part, showing which Lithuanian suffixes correspond to Slavic ones. The second part is not, however, a complete replica of the first, since some suffixes discussed in the first part are absent here, while we encounter derivatives not mentioned in the first part. In the chapter “Prefixes,” one of the shortest chapters, since relatively few prefixes are used to form oikonyms, the author surveys how prefixed settlement names are Slavicized (most often Polonized). In the chapter “Endings,” J. Princas first gives a detailed account of how the endings -a, -ė, -ia, -is, -ys, -(i)us, -ai, -ės, -iai, -ys (plural), -(i)os of Lithuanian place names are Slavicized. The author then surveys cases in which Slavic endings are Lithuanized. This survey will also be useful, among other things, in formulating rules for transcribing Slavic proper names into Lithuanian. The chapter on vocalism is especially extensive and detailed. The author first shows which Slavic vowels, mostly Polish, replace Lithuanian ones. In addition, J. Princas seeks to establish the frequency of these substitutions wherever possible and meaningful. Where authentic forms are lacking, the chapter also provides variants of names. In many cases this is useful, but at times the author expands the work too much by including “variants” of Lithuanian forms. These “variants” are usually obvious distortions (generally taken from Volteris) or dialect forms. For example, the “variants” of Lithuanian forms with a or o (pp. 179–180), corresponding to Polish o, have either the vowel a or o in the standard language, but not both side by side: Amalviškiai, Mockabūdžiai, 2 Э. Вольтер, Списки населенных мест Сувалкской губернии, С. Петербург, 1901, p. 38 197 Mólinė, Põcvietis, Valiai, Mōgiškės, Noreikai, Panoreikupiai, Ropydai Santakà. All these place names come from those Western Aukštaitian dialects that retain the vowel o (both stressed and unstressed) unchanged. The “variants” Amoliškės, Mackobūdzis, Malinė, etc., are merely distortions and therefore cannot be placed alongside genuine linguistic facts. The author does not always draw a strict distinction between dialect forms and features of the standard language. For instance, in discussing the reflex of Lithuanian a in Polish, he states that, among other things, Lithuanian a may also correspond to Polish e: Lithuanian Alksnekie­mis (it should be Alksniakiemis) – Polish Elksnokiemie. This example, however, proves nothing here, since the a or e at the beginning of the word is in this case a dialect feature, not a result of Polonization. Two other examples (Lithuanian Agliniškiai – Polish Agliniszki and Lithuanian Eglinčiškė – Polish Eglincziški) are entirely unnecessary, since the initial vowels are identical in both languages. Sometimes the author treats Slavicized forms of place names as dialect forms. For example, the forms (p. 177) Obromžiliai, Olakniškiai, Oleknonys, Otesnykai (from Volter), which are regarded as dialect forms (except for the not entirely clear case Oñčiškiai), are merely Slavicized or distorted Lithuanian place names: Abromžiliai (?), Alėkniškiai, Aleknōnys, Atesninkai. There are cases in which the author derives a rule from inaccurate or unclear place-name forms. For example, the author claims that Lithuanian -el-, -er- may correspond to -il-, -ir- in Slavic languages, and gives the following examples: Lithuanian Aviernyčia, Daugerdiškių k., Pošervintis – Slavic Авирница, Донгирдышки, Поширвинты. The Lithuanian place-name forms cited, however, are either clearly distorted (Pošervintis – it should be Paširvintis, cf. Širvintà) or irregularly altered, probably under Polish influence (Aviernyčia – cf. Avìris). Only the village name Daugerdiškiai may be open to question, since it is now also pronounced with -er- in the dialect. This pronunciation, however, is probably recent, because the place name is undoubtedly derived from the personal name Daugirdas (the form *Daugerdas is known neither from spoken usage nor from written sources). Moreover, the Polish form of this place name, Dowgirdyszki (1881), also shows that the root originally contained the diphthong -ir-, not -er-. Thus, the rule that Lithuanian -el-, -er- may correspond to -il-, -ir- in Slavic languages is entirely unsupported and can only mislead readers. A section on the correspondence Lithuanian e – Slavic i, y (p. 201) probably arose in a similar way. All the author’s examples in which Slavic languages have i, y in place of Lithuanian e are doubtful. For instance, Lithuanian Didvyžiai || Dedvyžiai (the author gives only the second variant) – Polish Dydwize, Volter’s Дидвиже: here the Slavic forms correspond to Lithuanian Didvyžiai, rather than showing Lithuanian e changing to i, y in Slavic languages. Lithuanian Kreštėnai – Polish Krekszczany; Volter gives an inaccurate Lithuanian form, Krištėnai, and, accordingly, an inaccurate Slavic form as well, Крикштаны. Thus, here too there is no change of e to i, y. Volter’s Neviedys, “Lietuvos apgyventų vietų” Niviedė – Polish Niewietka likewise does not show that Lithuanian e can become i, y, since the form Niviedė is inaccurate (it should be Neviedė), while the word-initial nie- in the Polish form (Niewietka) may have arisen by analogy with the Polish negation nie. Finally, regardless of how Polish nie- came to occur in place of Lithuanian ne-, there is still no basis for speaking of a Lithuanian e – Polish i, y correspondence. Other examples given in this subsection can be explained in a similar way. Thus, the claim that Lithuanian e can become i, y in Slavic languages is unfounded. It seems to have arisen from the unreliability of the material. 198 There are quite a number of instances in this chapter (and in the next one, “Consonantism”) where genuine forms are not distinguished from dialect forms or distortions (for example, p. 186, subsection c; p. 197, subsection c; p. 201, subsection c; p. 207, subsection c; p. 215, subsection c; p. 216, subsection a; pp. 244–247, subsections 1.1.2–1.1.6; pp. 250–251, subsections 1.2.3–1.2.6; p. 256, subsection 1.4.4, etc.). This reduces the precision and reliability of the conclusions and makes it necessary to assess the chapters on vocalism and consonantism with great caution, even critically. Apparently, since the author did not have reliable material, he should have taken a different approach: first presenting indisputable correspondences and changes, determined purely by the linguistic systems, and then discussing sporadic, irregular parallels (apparently separately in each case). Now that numerous forms that are unclear, doubtful, or even inaccurate, along with unreliable comparisons, have found their way into the chapter on vocalism—which is particularly “sensitive” and demands jeweler-like precision—the value of the entire chapter has declined noticeably. Despite the undesirable admixtures, however, it is nevertheless possible, on the whole, to form a general picture of the correspondences between Lithuanian and Slavic vowels. In this chapter, the author also surveys the correspondences of Slavic vowels in Lithuanian. In the chapter on consonantism, the author first shows which consonants in Slavic languages replace Lithuanian ones. Among other things, when discussing the reflex of Lithuanian consonant v in Polish, J. Princas quite rightly objects to J. Otrębski’s explanation of the place names Valkininkai and Varėnà, according to which the Slavic forms Олькеники and Орани supposedly arose through de-composition (Lithuanian Varėnoje→v-arėnoje→в Оранах). The author then shows how Slavic consonants are reflected in Lithuanian. In the penultimate, tenth chapter, the author discusses some general questions concerning sound change in place names and their sound “adaptation,” drawing attention to the similarities and differences between the vocalic and consonantal systems of the Baltic (Lithuanian) and Slavic (Polish) languages. The final chapter of the book consists of conclusions, in which the author, among other things, refines and sharpens the definitions of the principal concepts used in the work: transfer (Umsetzung), substitution, interpretation (Deutung), translation (Übersetzung), etc. At the end, J. Princas briefly addresses the problem of the “linguistic status” of a place name. The author’s idea that a place name’s proto-form (archetype) can be considered discovered only when it appears phonologically, morphologically, and semantically motivated within the language system that existed at the time the place name was formed is an interesting one. Thus, as this review also shows, the work under review is not only comprehensive but also interesting and necessary. Its practical value will above all lie in its usefulness as a basis for formulating rules for the transcription of Polish–Lithuanian and Lithuanian–Polish place names and personal names. Overall, the work has been prepared carefully; methodologically, it is well thought out and systematically organized. The principal shortcoming of the work is the inaccuracy of the material on which the author relies. The examples given above already show how unreliable material misled the author. The work contains a great many inaccurate place names—it is neither necessary nor useful to list them all, since this is less the author’s fault than that of others who circulated lists of place names riddled with errors and distortions. It can only be said that if J. Princas had had accurate material from the standard language and dia- 199 the forms of the place names, his work would have been much more compact and precise. The individual subsections and sections, naturally, would have taken on an entirely different shape. Among other minor shortcomings and inaccuracies, one may point to questionable etymologies that occur, especially when a suffixed oikonym is derived directly from a common noun. For example, from the common words of Slavic origin pōpas, pātašas (<German Pottasch), randas (<Polish rząd ‘authority, board...’), šābalas, tāboras, važnyčia are derived the place names Papiškės, Pāpiškiai (p. 55), Patašinė (J. Princas inaccurately writes Patašynė), Patašiškės, Patašiškė (p. 55), Rāndiškė (p. 55), Sabaliskėnai, Sabališkės (p. 56), Tabarai, Tabarauskai (p. 56), Vazniškiai (Gudeliai; J. Princas inaccurately gives Važniškiai), Vazniškiai (Liudvinavas; p. 57) are in fact derivatives formed with the suffix -išk- from the personal names Pāpas, Patašius, Rāndis, Sabalys, Tābaras, Tabarauskas, Vaznis, Vaznys, Vaznius. Another matter is that some of these personal names may be of Slavic origin. The village name Demeniškiai (p. 44) should be derived not from Russian Демьян or Polish Dominik, but from the Lithuanian lake name Dėmenas. The place names Pakūonis (Polish Pokojnie) and Salāperaugis (Polish Salopirogi) are clear examples of substitution (Deutung), but the author mentions them only in the section on Slavicization of endings. There are cases in which comparing Lithuanian and Slavic forms of a place name is not yet sufficient to determine which is earlier. For instance, discussing changes in suffixes and endings, the author claims that the Polish forms of the place names Alšėnai (p. 65, 126; Garliava), Barsūkai (p. 164; Liudvinavas), Bundōriai (p. 166; Alytus)—Olszamy, Borsuki, Bondary—are earlier, and that their Lithuanian counterparts are adaptations from Polish. Such a claim, however, requires evidence, or, more precisely, the history of the place name. After all, the place name Barsūkai may have arisen later than the common word barsūkas entered Lithuanian. It may therefore derive from the Lithuanian word (loanword) barsūkas. In that case, the Polish place-name ending -i would merely correspond to the Lithuanian -ai, not vice versa, as J. Princas claims. At the end of the book, the author added a map of the former Suwałki Governorate. This is a very useful supplement, but Lithuanian forms of the place names could also have been provided on the map, at least for the most distinctly Lithuanian place names. There are occasional citation inaccuracies; for example, L. 23, p. 1 has Likiškėlio, whereas J. Princas gives Likiškėliai; Sabeliškeniai (the correct form is Sabališkėnai) is in L. 23, p. 2, not p. 1; Jokūboniai is in L. 23, p. 281, not p. 218. A. Vanagas THE NEW “RUSSIAN-LITHUANIAN DICTIONARY” Russian-Lithuanian Dictionary. Compiled using printed and manuscript materials collected by J. Baronas. Prepared by V. Baronas and V. Galinis. Edited for A-I by Prof. B. Larinas, for K-H and T-Ž by J. Macaitis (editor-in-chief), and for O-C by K. Musteikis. “Mintis,” Vilnius, 1967 (vol. I, 569 pp., vol. II, 622 pp.). The well-known educator and lexicographer J. Baronas (1873—1952) published his “Russian-Lithuanian Dictionary” in 1924. The second edition of his dictionary, considerably expanded and sup- 200