BALTŲ IR SLAVŲ KALBŲ KALBARYŠIAI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

REVIEWS

A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO BALTIC LINGUISTICS

Chr. S. Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, Oslo—Bergen—Tromsø, 1966, 485 p.

The name of the distinguished Norwegian linguist Professor Chr. Stang entered the bibliography of Lithuanian linguistics almost forty years ago. It is interesting that this linguist began his first significant work in Lithuanian studies with an investigation of the first Lithuanian book: at the age of 29, he published a monograph about the book “Catechismsa prasty szadei,” which appeared in 1547, and its compiler, M. Mažvydas¹. A few years later, Chr. Stang, together with J. Gerulis, described a dialect of Lithuanian spoken in East Prussia², and later still published a study of the Slavic and Baltic verb³, investigated the Belarusian language used in the offices of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and explored the problem of the earliest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages.

Chr. Stang’s greatest and undoubtedly most significant work is his recent book, “Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages.” The immense importance of this work for Baltic studies and Indo-European studies in general becomes especially clear and understandable when one recalls that until now the only comparative grammar of the Baltic languages was the relatively small book “Sounds and Forms of the Baltic Languages”⁴, published on the basis of lectures given at the University of Riga by the Latvian linguist J. Endzelīns. Thus, the appearance of Chr. Stang’s grammar is an important event in linguistics, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view: for many philologists interested in the Baltic languages and their history, this grammar will now be an indispensable textbook.

In the introduction to “Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages” (pp. 1–21), Chr. Stang briefly characterizes the Baltic languages and indicates their relationship to the Slavic languages. The phonetics of the Baltic languages—Lithuanian, Latvian, and Old Prussian—is treated in great detail (pp. 22–174), while the section on morphology deals with inflection (pp. 175–482). Questions of word formation and syntax are not specifically addressed in the work.

In explaining the history and development of phonetic and morphological phenomena in the Baltic languages, the author compares them with corresponding evidence from other Indo-European languages, especially Slavic. In the phonetics section, he often draws on Baltic loanwords in the Finnic languages of the Baltic region. The book, however, understandably presents mainly factual material on the Baltic languages

¹ Chr. S. Stang, Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas, Oslo, 1929.

² J. Gerullis ir Chr. Stang’as, Lietuvių žvejų tarmė Prūsuose, Kaunas, 1933.

³ Chr. S. Stang, Das slavische und baltische Verbum, Oslo, 1942.

⁴ J. Endzelīns, Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, Rīgā, 1948 (lietuviškas vertimas: J. Endzel-ynas, Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos, Vilnius, 1957).

191

materials collected from old written sources and various contemporary sources. The author relies especially often on Lithuanian-language data and the works of Lithuanian linguists. He is well acquainted not only with the works of A. Baranauskas, K. Jaunius, K. Būga, J. Jablonskis and other linguists, but also with Lithuanian linguistics of recent years—Chr. Stang cites in his work the works of more than twenty Soviet Lithuanian linguists.

Both the phonetics and morphology sections contain many new claims. Admittedly, not all of them can be accepted at once; nevertheless, many will undoubtedly attract the attention of other linguists through their originality and prompt them to look anew at particular questions in the history of the Baltic languages.

For example, to this day there is no consensus about the emergence of Lithuanian š from s after the vowels š, ū. Having critically assessed the views on this question (J. Endzelīns, J. Otrębski), Chr. Stang argues that the presence of the consonant š in the words maišas, rieš(ut)as, aušra, rišti and of s in the words mūšė, lysė, klāusiu is not merely a phonetic problem but also a dialectal-geographical one (p. 96 ff.). He also believes that the s (ss) frequently found before consonants in old Lithuanian texts, especially those by authors from western Lithuania—Mažvydas, Vilentas, Bretkūnas, Daukša, and others—in place of š (e.g., schestas ‘sixth’, auktas ‘high’, ischreske ‘expressed’, penukslas ‘penukšlas’) is not purely a matter of orthography but also reflects the different pronunciations of š in the cases mentioned (pp. 99–100).

The singular dative ending -ai of a-stem (ō-stem) nouns in the Debeikiai dialect of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect group (e.g. vaikai ‘to the child’) has also interested and continues to interest many researchers of the Lithuanian language. There are differing opinions about its origin. Chr. Stang puts forward a new idea: since in the dialect in question the unstressed diphthong uo becomes a, he considers the singular dative ending -ai to have arisen from the old Lithuanian-Latvian triphthongal ending *-uoi in this case (p. 70). However, the ending -ai, whose first component is in fact somewhat reduced (= α), may also have developed from -ui according to the dialect’s phonetic laws; compare the nominative plural vīrai ‘men’ and the dative singular vīrai ‘to the man’, as well as the locative singular turgāi < turgūj(e)⁵.

Chr. Stang also disagrees with the widespread view that Lithuanian plural locative forms in -uose are formed from plural accusative forms and the postposition *en. This view is supposedly incorrect because forms in -uosu already existed earlier. According to the grammar’s author, the plural locative in -uose arose from these forms by analogy with the singular locative. The element uo in the older plural locative forms in -uosu was taken from plural illative forms in -uosna (pp. 186–187).

Some critical observations can also be made about the authenticity, interpretation, and localization of particular Lithuanian-language data presented in the work.

For instance, alongside the singular genitive ending -aus of u-stems (sūnaūs), the ending -ūs (sūnūs) is also cited (p. 214); it is found in a description of the Buivydžiai dialect published by the French linguist R. Gauthiot⁶. However, dialectological studies in recent years have not confirmed the ending -ūs either in Buivydžiai or in other Lithuanian dialects. Most likely, R. Gauthiot too recorded it inaccurately in place of the ending -aus, which is pronounced indistinctly in the Buivydžiai dialect⁷.

⁵ Žr. Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966, p. 95–96.

⁶ R. Gauthiot, Le parler de Buividze, Paris, 1903, § 44.

⁷ See Z. Zinkevičius, op. cit., p. 92.

192

On the basis of A. Salys’s map of Lithuanian dialects⁸, the author of the grammar indicates the distribution of certain dialectal features with less than complete accuracy. For example, among the places where, instead of the stressed non-final vowels a and e, o (ɔ) and ė (ę) are pronounced, Alanta and Giedraičiai are also listed (p. 25). In fact, the aforementioned a and e remain unchanged in these places. The diphthongs am, an, em, en with a rising accent also remain intact in the vicinity of Smilgiai (the grammar states that they become ąm, ęm there, pp. 85–86).

For the dative singular form žmuōgun (a typographical error for žmuōgun), cited from the writings of K. Būga, Kvėdarna is indicated (p. 85). In fact, K. Būga notes that the dative singular form žmuōgun in the Varniai Samogitian dialect corresponds to žmuōgū in Kvėdarna and žmuōgō in Alsėdžiai, Rietavas, and Salantai⁹.

Since the work usually gives, after the tilde sign (~), a dialectal form transposed into the phonetic form of the standard language, in this case the Samogitian dative singular forms gālōu 140, lōngōu 169, ārk·l’ōu, vā·kōu 170 should be transposed not as gālui, lāngui, ārkliui, vaikui, but as gāluo, lānguo, ārkluo, vaikou.

In some cases, dialectal forms rather than forms of standard Lithuanian are given in the work without good reason or an accompanying note; for example: opšrýs 9 (= opšrūs); gimti 7 (= gimti), gulbė 8 (= gulbė), ińkstas 109, 112 (= inkstas), laiškas 8, 63 (= laiškas), mušė 97 (= mušė).

Readers may also sometimes be somewhat confused by the non-standardized transcription of examples taken from various dialectological works (the examples are generally presented in the transcription used by the source).

There are also clear typographical errors, which might not even warrant mention. However, some of them could mislead readers with less knowledge of individual Baltic languages, so we will point out the more important ones: ąžuole 298 (= ąžuolė), dievūtis 3 (= dievulis), gálva 141 (= gálva), kraštėlin 192 (= kraštėlin), kriáušė 204 (= kriáušė), meslti 61 (= melsti), plūoštas 110, 360 (= plūoštas), sājka 169 (= šājka), švenčiausis 193 (= švenčiausis), žvėris 91 (= žvėris).

The forms of some proper names also need correction, including place names: Alantų 25 (= Alanta), Anykščiai 181 (= Anykščiai), Dieveniškis 478, Dieveniškis 479 (= Dieveniškės), Dubiniai 104 (= Dubingiai), Gervėčiai 70 (= Gervėčiai), Mosėdis 207 (= Mosėdis), Musininkai 86 (= Musninkai), Oniškis 99 (= Onuškis), Pagirai 86 (= Pagiriai), Pagramančių 160 (= Pagramančio), Panevėžys 85, 86, 125 (= Panevėžys), Pašilė 227 (= Pašilė), Svedasai 207, 302 (= Svėdasai), Švėkšna 471 (= Švėkšna), Švenčionėliai 188 (= Švenčionėliai), Švenčionys 433 (= Švenčionys), Širvintai 4, Širvintas 170 (= Širvintos), Veiviržėnai 194 (= Veiviržėnai), Vendžiogala 170 (= Vandžiogala); personal names: Algimant 4 (= Algimantas), Daukža 231 (= Daukša), Grynaveckis 139 (= Grinaveckis), Mikol auskaitė 168, 169, 478 (= Mikalauskaitė), Otrebski 207, 212 (= Otrębski), Шобтнивль 5 (= Товтивиль). In addition, the Lithuanian equivalent of the 14th-century Russian form Минигаило should be Minigaila, not Minigailas 6; compare Švirigaila (Швиртигаило) 5. Likewise, a more precise Lithuanian equivalent of the Prussian personal name Minnegayle is Min(i)gaila, rather than Mangaila 4.

The few minor inaccuracies that, for various reasons, found their way into the grammar and remained there in no way diminish the scholarly significance of this work, carried out with extraordinary care and method, and of the author’s many years of study.

⁸ Archívum Philologicum, 4, Kaunas, 1933.

⁹ Žr. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 376.

13. Baltų ir slavų kalbų ryšiai

193

In the preface to the grammar, the reader is addressed in the modest words of M. Mažvydas, the pioneer of Lithuanian writing: “mana darba usz gier prymkiet”. There is no doubt that this wish of the distinguished Norwegian Balticist will be fulfilled many times over. On every page of the book, the reader feels deep gratitude to the author, recognizing that *Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages* is a substantial and landmark contribution to contemporary Baltic and Indo-European studies.

K. Morkūnas

A NEW GRAMMAR OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

A. Senn, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, Bd. I: Grammatik, Heidelberg, 1966.

For a long time, entire generations of foreign linguists learned Lithuanian from the handbook prepared by A. Leskyn, consisting of a chrestomathy, a brief grammar, and a dictionary. Almost fifty years have passed since its publication (1919). During that time, not only has Lithuanian spelling changed considerably, but the usage of some forms has also shifted; belles-lettres and scholarly literature have grown immeasurably, and many questions of phonetics, morphology, and syntax have been thoroughly investigated. Preparing a new, comprehensive handbook of the Lithuanian language became necessary. The Swiss-born linguist A. Zenas (Senn) undertook this work. In 1957, he published Part II of the *Handbook of the Lithuanian Language*, comprising texts selected from works by various Lithuanian writers, marked for stress, and accompanied by commentaries and a Lithuanian-German-English dictionary¹. In 1966, the first and most important part of the handbook appeared—the grammar of the Lithuanian language. This is a substantial 495-page work that gives a detailed description of the phonetics and morphology of contemporary Lithuanian, as well as the usage of many grammatical forms.

The author of this grammar, A. Zenas, professor at the University of Pennsylvania, is well known to Lithuanian linguists through his work. He is one of the compilers of the five-volume *Dictionary of the Lithuanian Written Language*², recently completed in Heidelberg, and the only one to have worked on this dictionary from the very beginning of its publication. He has long been interested in the Lithuanian language, has lived in Lithuania, and taught phonetics and other linguistic subjects at Kaunas University. In 1929, he wrote *A Short Textbook of the Lithuanian Language*³ for foreigners wishing to learn some Lithuanian. A. Zenas maintained his ties with Lithuanian studies thereafter. He has written many articles and other works on Lithuanian and Baltic studies, as well as on comparative linguistics in general, and in recent years has actively participated in addressing the problem of the earliest relations among the Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic peoples. His new work seems to synthesize the results of many years of Lithuanian studies.

The grammar consists of ten parts. The very first—the introductory part—is already broad and substantial: after briefly surveying the history of the Lithuanian people, it discusses the place of the Lithuanian language among the Baltic languages and its connections with other related languages. Here the author concisely sets out his conception of the earliest relations among the Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic languages. In his view, at the very end of the period of Indo-European unity, as the ancestors of the Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic peoples interacted closely with one another, there arose

¹ A. Senn, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, II, Heidelberg, 1957.

² M. Niedermann, A. Senn, F. Brender, A. Salys, Wörterbuch der litauischen Schriftsprache, Litauisch-Deutsch, I–V, Heidelberg, 1934–1967.

³ A. Senn, Kleine litauische Sprachlehre, Heidelberg, 1929.

194