Latvių kalbos poveikis palatvės vakarų aukštaičių šnektų gramatinei sandarai

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATINĖ SANDARA LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA THE INFLUENCE OF THE LATVIAN LANGUAGE ON THE GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE OF THE WESTERN HIGHLANDER DIALECTS ADJACENT TO LATVIA A. JONAITYTĖ Lithuanian and Latvian, as closely related languages, share many features: words, morphological forms, syntactic constructions, and so on. The Lithuanian dialects along the border of the Latvian SSR have especially many such features in common with Latvian. In addition to old shared features, various kinds of Latvian borrowings acquired through prolonged contact are also found in them. Although, in general, the process of contact and borrowing is more or less similar throughout the Lithuanian dialects adjacent to Latvia, each dialect also has distinctive features unique to it, since neither the extent of contact nor the strength and nature of Latvian influence is uniform everywhere. This article attempts to examine how Latvian has influenced the dialects in the zone of generalized stress retraction among the northwestern Highlanders1 and what accounts for this comparatively strong influence. Since a short article cannot encompass borrowings in both vocabulary and grammatical structure, it focuses mainly on the general causes of Latvian influence and examines the more prominent morphological, and to some extent syntactic and phonetic, Latvianisms, as well as certain new developmental tendencies in these dialects that have arisen under the influence of Latvian. The study of both lexical and grammatical borrowings from Latvian is greatly complicated by the fact that it is far from always possible to find a precise and clear boundary separating individual borrowings from old features that these dialects themselves share with Latvian. On the other hand, there are also cases in which it is almost impossible to determine whether a particular word or grammatical form is borrowed from Latvian or merely from neighboring Lithuanian dialects, for which that word or form is an old feature shared with Latvian, since, as already noted, both shared features and borrowings vary considerably among the individual Lithuanian dialects adjacent to Latvia. For this reason, in such unclear cases the article seeks to present as much of the available material as possible, but generally refrains from reaching a conclusion. 1 These are the dialects of the Skaistgirys and Žagarė areas in Joniškis District, the Gruzdžiai, Sakyna, and Šiupyliai areas in Šiauliai District, and the Kruopiai area in Akmenė District. 171 Borrowings can enter in two ways: through the written language and orally, from person to person, through direct or indirect linguistic contact. The first case is not characteristic of the dialects under study. Latvianisms could hardly have entered these dialects through written texts, because Latvian books were not widely circulated in their area, while Latvianisms were absent from the Lithuanian publications that were more widely read. Some borrowings, especially lexical ones, did enter these dialects through indirect contact—via neighboring Highlander or Samogitian dialects—but most came directly from neighboring Latvian dialects, with which direct contact was very strong. Living near Latvia (until recently called Courland by local people), the inhabitants of the area covered by the dialects described here had more or less frequent contact with Latvians. The intensity of this contact was not always the same. For example, after Lithuania was annexed to the Russian Empire, there was no state border between Lithuania and Latvia, and inhabitants, especially after the abolition of serfdom, could interact freely. There were various occasions for contact. First, one should mention the shared markets and fairs in nearby Riga and Žagarė, which, before the railway was built through Joniškis, was a fairly important trading center in northern Lithuania. Furthermore, quite a few landowners in the area of these dialects owned estates in Latvia, while some Latvian landowners had estates in the area covered by the dialects described here. As a result, estate workers moved back and forth to some extent—from Lithuania to Latvia or vice versa. In addition, mostly after the abolition of serfdom, many Lithuanians from the area went into service with wealthier Latvian farmers or traveled to work in Latvian cities, including Riga, Mitau (Jelgava), and others. After the bourgeois states of Lithuania and Latvia were established, this free contact was somewhat restricted, as a state border came into being and crossing it required more formalities. Even then, however, many Lithuanians from the region hired themselves out to wealthier Latvian farmers and lived in Latvia for extended periods. When Lithuania and Latvia became Soviet republics, the border between them was no longer closed, and nothing restricted contact; consequently, migration between the two countries increased, particularly from Latvia to Lithuania and especially from Lithuania to Latvia. People from Lithuania traveled to large industrial centers nearby in Latvia, and, to some extent, to collective and state farms as well. As a result of such extensive contact with Latvians, most speakers of the dialects described here understand Latvian, and many speak it well. In addition to contact “across the border,” a considerable number of Latvians also lived within the area of these dialects, particularly in certain localities, and their language influenced the local dialects “from within”: that is, they interacted daily with their Lithuanian neighbors and also contributed some of their own features to their speech. Individual Latvian homesteads were scattered throughout the area covered by the dialects described here, while larger Latvian “islands” existed around Šakyna, Zarėnai-Latveliai, Girkančiai, Kyburiai, Aukščiai, and other villages. At present these “islands” have been almost entirely assimilated into the Lithuanian population, mostly through intermarriage. It is noteworthy that members of such mixed families are usually bilingual—they speak Latvian and Lithuanian equally well. Latvians appear to have begun settling in the area of these dialects in the second half of the eighteenth century, but most arrived in the nineteenth century. This was because many of the estates in the area, especially 172 Formerly part of the royal estates of feudal Lithuania, after the partition of Lithuania and Poland these lands gradually came into the possession of the Tsar’s nobles by various means—the German landowners of Courland, whose principal estates were in Latvia: in Bukaičiai (Bukaiši), Kalno muižė (Kalnamuiža), Medžio muižė (Mežamuiža), Elėja (Elėja), and elsewhere. The people of those Courland estates constantly had to travel to work on their lords’ estates in Lithuania, and many of them also settled for longer periods on lands belonging to these estates, as forest guards, field laborers, estate overseers, stewards, craftsmen, and so on. In time, many acquired land of their own there and became permanent residents. Their settlement increased especially when some of these estates began to be sold off in plots. How many Latvians lived in that part of Lithuania at the end of the nineteenth century can be judged from the information provided by A. Bielenstein. He writes that the Šiauliai Lutheran parish of Kaunas Governorate, together with its three large branch parishes—Alkiškiai, Žagarė, and Joniškis—had 10.000 believers2, and notes that most of them were recent arrivals3. Where such a Latvian colony was older and larger, not only various borrowings but also minor place names have remained. Cf. the names still in use today for parts of the Girkančiai forest: āndžules ~ Andžiulės, cf. the Latvian personal name Andžis; circinīškes ~ Circiniškės, cf. Latvian circenis ‘cricket’; mālīnes ~ Mālinės, cf. Latvian mala, maliņa ‘edge, little edge, outskirts’, or perhaps mālēne ‘coltsfoot’, and so on. Similar Latvian place names occur elsewhere too, for example the name of a forest tract (bog) in Mantoriškiai, nīlaitis ~ Nīlaikis, cf. Latvian nelaitis ‘deceased person, dead person’. The Latvian language has affected the phonetics of the dialects under consideration least of all. The clearest example of this influence is the retraction of stress from the middle of a word to the first syllable, found only in individual cases, e.g.: gīrkančei ~ Girkančiai (village), gūdrībe ~ gudrybė ‘cleverness’, nèlāime4, pāsaulis || pāsaule ~ pasaulis, -ė ‘world’, žāgare ~ Žagārė, less often: kēpure ~ kepūrė ‘hat’, mērgele ~ mergelė ‘girl’, vīrelis ~ vyrėlis. It may also be noted that, alongside the various factors in the development of the dialects themselves and, in part, the influence of neighboring Samogitian dounininkai dialects and, in individual cases, dūnininkai dialects, Latvian, through corresponding lexical commonalities and borrowings, seems to help reinforce the studied dialects’ marked tendency to generalize short stressed vowels a and e widely in place of the standard Lithuanian lengthened vowels, e.g. ābre ‘trough-shaped bread tub’, ām ac, ātmatas ‘abandoned, uncultivated fields’, gābals (alongside gā·bals), kēpšes ‘vulg. feet’, lākac ‘large woolen shawl’, sāš kus ‘polecat’. Finally, though very rarely, there occur individual genuinely Lithuanian words in which the mixed diphthong an has changed exactly as it has in Latvian, e.g. the name for a molar used around Skaistgirys, Šakyna, and Žagarė: garuokštinis dāntis, alongside the corresponding standard form garankš- 2 A. Bielenstein, Die Grenzen des lettischen Volksstammes und der lettischen Sprache in der Gegenwart und im 13 Jahrhundert, St. Petersburg, 1882, p. 4. 3 Ibid., p. 5. 4 It may also be a Samogitian dialect form, cf. Kuršėnai nē·laimi. 173 dental stop5. This phenomenon is undoubtedly connected with Latvian, although it is unclear whether it should be explained as the result of that language’s direct phonetic influence or, perhaps more accurately, regarded as traces of the passage into northern Lithuanian dialects of an isogloss reflecting the Latvian an. Latvian has had a greater influence on the morphology of these dialects, especially on word formation. Not without the influence of Latvian, the verbal-noun suffix -šena || -šenas (in reflexive nouns usually -šenos) has arisen in these western dialects, as well as in neighboring Central Aukštaitian (e.g., Joniškis) and Samogitian dūnininkai dialects (Kuršėnai); it corresponds to the Lithuanian suffixes -imas and -sena, e.g.: ant rišenas (wrestling bouts) tėp isimikilines, ka baisu, po-pietų, preš saules lė-išena (setting) prijojį kriškeline (crossroads) Dilb; ge’ršenas (drinking) pre’ ano nebūd’āva; net apsiverkau iš to šviekšena (because of that squealing) Sk; pirmā nāktis — ne gulėšena (lying down, sleeping) Žg; o’ ant ā’rkle jōšens (riding) — dūlkt, dūlkt kiek tik ārkli·s gā·l kaip ā·mals ē·je, tāi ju’ ēišens (going) būva! Kyb; gālvos sūkšens (turning) ār tām mō·ki·ta·m žmō·gui (an educated person also has to rack their brains) Darg; šendie jau nēbeišeis važiuōšena (driving); riej i riej ta· vi·ra viena riešena (in one bout, i.e. without stopping); nu, kąs čė par blā·usti·šeno·s (wailing, shouting)! Škn. Cf. Latvian būšana ‘being’, došana ‘giving’, iešana ‘going’. Derivatives with -šena || -šenas are fairly common, but are distributed unevenly across the area of the dialects described. Most are found right along the Latvian border and in places where more Latvians have lived (Kyburiai, Šakyna, Girkančiai, etc.). The Lithuanian and neighboring Samogitian dounininkai dialects (Akmenė, Vegeriai) that use the suffix -sena now have almost none in the dialect under study; it occurs only occasionally at the western edge of the area. Given the relatively extensive distribution and abundance of the suffix -šena || -šenas, it may perhaps be supposed that it is not a pure borrowing in the dialects described, but could have arisen through the assimilation of the Latvian suffix -šana to some Lithuanian suffix, most likely -sena, and its generalization throughout the area as -šena. Its parallel masculine form -šens may have arisen through analogy with the concurrently used suffix -imas, which has the same meaning. It is true that the suffix -šena is also used in the southern Western Aukštaitian dialects (Vilkaviškis, Pilviškiai, etc.), but there its origin and, it seems, its meaning are different6. Under the influence of Latvian, the suffix -(i)ninks ~ -ininkas in these dialects sometimes takes on the meaning of the Lithuanian suffixes -iškis and -ietis, e.g.: duōbel-ninks ‘resident of Dobele’ (mā’s būvo·m nuvažā·ve· pas tuos duōbel·ninkus Žg), ēlininks ‘resident of Eleja’ (čė gi·vėna lā·tvei ēlininkai 5 This unusual form of the word is also used in some other Aukštaitian dialects, usually northern ones. See Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vol. III, Vilnius, 1956, p. 146. 6 J. Senkus, Pazanavykio kapsų tarmė, doctoral dissertation in philology, typescript, Manuscript Collection of the Scientific Library of VVU, 1955, p. 209. 174 Kyb), tarbuč:čnipks “resident of Tarbučiai village” (ana· vis po· vārdų šauk tie tarbū·čnipkai Dilb), „vegė·rninks “resident of the Vegeriai area” (vegė·rninkai dá· daugau laūvoj ir už mum Škn); rī·gininks “resident of Riga” (lá·ukam, ga·l, sā·ko·m, mū·su rī·gininkai ši· mē·nesi pārvažuos ant aplankų Škn). Cf. Latvian dob elnieks “resident of Dobele,” rīdzinieks “Rigan,” liepājnieks “resident of Liepāja.” It seems that the Latvian suffix (i)nieks corresponds, for speakers of these dialects, to their own suffix (i)ninks; cf. loanwords: dá·ržininks, Latvian dārznieks; māšinıks “motorist,” Latvian māšinieks, etc. At least a dozen verbal nouns with the suffix -iens, approximately corresponding to the Lithuanian suffix -imas, have entered these dialects from Latvian, e.g.: bė·ziens “a forceful blow” — Latvian belziens “same,” dú·riens “a stab, stabbing” — Latvian dūriens “same,” grū·diens “a forceful shove” — Latvian grūdiens “same.” Following their model, though very rarely and sporadically, new hybrid words are also formed with this suffix, e.g.: spi·riens “a kick, kicking” (nė·raus tik greitai pro duris laukia, ka negá·tunu ir aš ko·ke viena spi·riena Škn). The unusual use of verb prefixes found in individual cases should probably also be explained by the influence of Latvian. For example, the prefix nu- is sometimes used with the verb ‘give’ instead of the usual prefix į- or ati-, e.g.: a jau nūdavei vilnas i karši·kla? jau kūris laiks nertinis nudioc ta'i nė·rė·jei, o· dá· negatáus! Škn. Cf. Latvian nodot. The prefix pa- occasionally occurs with the verb ‘disappear’ instead of the usual iš- or pra-, e.g.: jau tie dviračei greitai pani·ks Sk. In this case, the prefix pa- seems to have arisen by analogy with Latvian pag aist “disappear, vanish.” The use of pa- with the verb smukti “flee, bolt” instead of the much more usual iš- in this context is also explicable as an influence of Latvian pamukt “run away, escape,” e.g.: džiaugaus tiktai pasmukus pati Auks. Also worth mentioning here is the fairly frequent use of the prefix nu- with certain verbs instead of the usual prefixes pra- and iš- to express duration, e.g.: gė·ra vā·landa nubuvau pas kārves, parėjau — o· ans dá· teb esē·dž; pār ilgai nulā·ukei, reikė·je sen ei bulbes nukaišt, matai, ką pridegė; tai nugulė·jo·m (we overslept, slept through it) kol tiktai devintinė mašina praėję! Škn. Cf. Latvian nogaidīt “wait out,” nogulēt “sleep through, lie for a long time.” Sometimes in these dialects the indefinite pronoun kas nebūt(u) “someone, something” is found, formed with the particle nebūt(u), and in very rare cases also with būt(u), e.g.: vá·ligi·k a mė·so·s, a ko·pū·stu, a ko· nebūt·tu Škn; ans čūpt ig·vali, a višta· i kā· bū·tai, tēip i vākte· (lies in wait) Žg; nù, kā·m nebūt rēi·kė·s už viską· acakī·t Kyb. Adverbs are also sometimes formed with this particle: kāip nebūt(u), kūr nebūt(u), e.g.: usisė·des persis kaip nebū·tai Kyb; pajėško·k tu· bū·tu· ar ant aukšta, a kamą·ro·, a kur nebūt Škn. However, whether this use of the particles nebūt(u) or būt(u) should be regarded as a Slavicism (cf. Russian что-нибудь, как-нибудь), a Latvianism (cf. lai duod uguni, kuo nebūt “let them give [me] fire, or something”; uz pirts krāsns un vēl kur 175 nebūt “on the bathhouse stove and somewhere else”7), or a feature of the dialects themselves, is unclear. The cases examined so far have resulted from the borrowing of Latvian-language elements. Sometimes, however, the influence of that language is also manifested in that it merely helps certain old tendencies in these dialects to survive, or encourages new derivational tendencies akin to those of Latvian. For example, these dialects have long had the adjectival suffix -ainis, -ė, which is very similar to the Latvian suffix -ains, -a. There are very few words with this suffix in the dialects under discussion: akuotainis, -ė, ašakainis, -ė, drižainis, -ė, langainis, -ė, lingainis, -ė (about a birch), margainis, -ė, sė-lenainis, -ė (about bread, flour), and a few others. Almost all of them have counterparts in these dialects with other, much more numerous suffixes, supported by neighboring dialects and standard Lithuanian norms, such as -uotas, -a, -otas, -a, -ėtas, -a, etc., e.g.: ašakuoc, -uota, drižuoc, -uota, languoc, -uota, žolėc, -ėta. These derivatives with more numerous suffixes might perhaps have completely displaced the few words with the suffix -ainis, -ė if they were not supported by Latvian loanwords, e.g.: kėburainis, -ė “branchy, twiggy (tree)” — Latvian ķeburains, -a “same,” migłains, -a (dā-tōks migłains ōrs Dam) — Latvian migłains, -a “same,” pipkainis, -ė “fluffy” — Latvian piņkains, -a “same,” stri-painis, -ė “striped” — Latvian stripains, -a “same.” Furthermore, the suffix's survival is supported not only by direct lexical borrowings but also by the fact that the Latvian suffix -ains, -a is extraordinarily productive. As a result, speakers of the dialects under discussion who know Latvian to a greater or lesser degree—and they make up the vast majority—cannot help associating it with their own suffix -ainis, -ė, preventing the latter from becoming completely “outdated” and disappearing. A tendency is now clearly discernible in the West Aukštaitian dialects along the Latvian border for present-tense passive participles (usually masculine), or adjectives derived from them, to become substantivized. Such nouns derived from participles usually denote an instrument, e.g.: dùrams “a spear, something used for stabbing,” ištempiams “a device for maintaining the uniform width of woven cloth,” spáudžams “blotting paper,” šáunams “something used for shooting: a rifle or revolver,” uštráukams “zipper.” In this case, the participial modifier displaces the noun it modifies and comes to stand alone for the name of the whole object. Thus, instead of spáudžams pọ-pierus, šáunams dá’ike, with time, as the participle becomes substantivized, spáudžams, šáunams, and so on, emerge. A similar phenomenon, but only with definite participial forms, is also observed in literary Lithuanian, e.g.: miegamasis, valgomasis (kambarys). In the dialects under discussion, however, this tendency seems also to be encouraged and sustained by Latvian analogy and corresponding lexical borrowings, since nouns of this origin are also characteristic of Latvian, though they are derived mostly from definite forms, e.g.: metamais “a stick, belt (something used for striking),” nesamais “a load, something carried: a carrying pole.” The clearest Latvianism in nominal inflection is the occasional use of the masculine singular dative with the ending -am or -im8. 7 ME, t. I, p. 360. 8 The material of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language shows that such morphological borrowings are possible in other Aukštaitian dialects along the Latvian border as well. For example, the same Latvian-type singular dative is used 176 pirštam, šunim, viram, e.g.: what did you do to that finger? and did you wear a dog, I wonder? Skn.: tá-m viram didesnis balsas (while threshing with a flail), o tái móterei — piš, piš Žg. Cf. Latvian viram, sunim. The forms of the singular accusative of the pronouns kas, tas, kuo, tuo, found occasionally in these western Aukštaitian dialects and more frequently in the neighboring borderland Samogitian dounininkai dialects of Vegeriai and Akmenė, are most likely also attributable to Latvian influence. For example: tūr būt labai sveiks žmogus, ką tuo dėra Skn.; kuo ans pasūki, tas viskas báikas (nonsense); kuo pas mani dari'si? Krp. Cf. Latvian ko, to. However, judging from the distribution of these forms, confined to the area near the Samogitian boundary, one may suppose that they entered the area of the Aukštaitian dialects described here not directly from Latvian, but through the aforementioned borderland Samogitian dounininkai dialects. In the dialects described here, alongside permissive mood forms made with the particle tegu(i) (e.g., tegu(i) dirb), and the old forms that still occur occasionally (e.g., teāimie, tepašūntie), forms made with the particle lai || lei are very widely used, as in all neighboring dialects; for example: lai dėra, lei sāka. These permissive mood forms are shared with Latvian; cf. Latvian lai ēd ‘let him/her eat’, lai strādā ‘let him/her work’. Moreover, in these Aukštaitian dialects, a clear tendency can be observed for forms with lai || lei to become dominant. This is indicated, among other things, by the emergence of forms with the hybrid particle lægu(i) (e.g., lægu(i) vá·lga) and by the addition of lai || lei to old permissive mood forms in place of te-, e.g.: lai bū·nie, lei daiñūoje, lai ē·die. This tendency is supported, in addition to the internal developmental patterns of these dialects themselves and the influence of neighboring Lithuanian dialects, indirectly also by Latvian, in which permissive mood forms with lai are the only ones. Another case of the same kind is the occasional occurrence, within the area of these dialects (around Šakyna, Auksučiai, Dilbinai, and Dameliai), of certain reflexive verb forms ending in -ies alongside the usual forms in -is, -ys. The ending -ies is sometimes found in the third person of the future tense (e.g., dirpsies ‘will work on oneself’), the second person of the imperative (e.g., sūkies ‘turn yourself’), nominatives of both genders of active participles in all tenses (e.g.: vėda·sies ‘leading oneself’, jūokenties ‘laughing’, sā·ke·sies ‘having said’, vėšenties ‘about to carry’), half-participles (e.g., dauži·dam,ą·sies ‘while breaking oneself’), and converbs (e.g., sūkanties ‘while turning oneself’). No such forms have been recorded in neighboring Aukštaitian dialects. They seem to occur occasionally in some neighboring Samogitian dounininkai dialects; cf. forms recorded in the vicinity of Klykoliai: acetū·po·sėis ‘having squatted down’ (acetū·pos·ėis tō·p·o), mūovos·ėis ‘having washed oneself’ (ęs tu· bōlb·o) (the cow) mūovos·ėis e bāt·ęn·os⁹. Apart from the second-person imperative forms of unclear origin (e.g.: nėški·s, vėski·s, cf. present-tense second-person forms in -ys: vedi·s ~ vedys), in the neighboring Samogitian dūnininkai dialects eastern Aukštaitian dialects around Žeimelis, though here they are much more widespread (cf. the texts recorded by D. Gargāsaitė in 1960, Rg. No. 607). In the vicinity of Kuldūnai in Biržai district, Latvian plural instrumental forms are widely used, e.g.: su kareivėm ‘with soldiers’, su tē·m karēm ‘with those wars’, senēm pinigēm ‘with old money’ (see the texts recorded by I. Jašinskaitė in 1961, Rg. No. 706). ⁹ See the texts recorded by A. Milkintaitė in 1961 for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, Rg. No. 689. 12. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sandara 177 These forms do not occur in the dialects10. However, such reflexive forms occur in some more distant Lithuanian dialects. In Latvian, this ending is standard. Since the ending -ies is rare in the dialects described here, almost absent from neighboring Lithuanian dialects, and entirely unknown in the standard language, it might already be on the verge of disappearing altogether in these dialects too, were it not sustained by Latvian. That Latvian does indeed exert an influence in this case is shown by the fact that reflexive verb forms in -ies are used most widely by those dialect speakers who know Latvian well and speak it frequently. In almost the entire area of the dialects described here, with the sole exception of the Giruzdžiai area on the southern edge, the masculine singular locative form of the pronoun tas is used in place of the feminine singular locative form, e.g.: tō· dāržinė· ir tāme dāržinė· Kyb; tō· jā·ujē·, tō· priepirtė· ir tāme rā·štinė·, tāme vanā·lo· (in the little boat) Sk; tō· kākto·, tō· kū·tė·, tō· virtuvė· ir tāme bā·lo·, tāme lietuvo· (in Lithuania), tāme rī·go· (in Riga) Žg; tō· vieto·, tō· trō·bo· ir tāme duobė·, tāme valgi·klo· Škn; tūo prieglauduo ir tāme pūsie Auks; tēmi vietuo, tāmi jā·ujno Krp. Moreover, around Kruopiai and Šakyna, probably by analogy with the pronoun tas, masculine singular locative forms of some other pronouns and even numerals are used instead of the feminine forms, e.g.: šeme trō·bo·, šēm pūsē·, āname vāgo·, vienam lō·vo·. In individual cases, the locative of an adjective is used this way as well, e.g., pienas tam kanūk ie (~in the canister) mažamē·jie Krp. The same phenomenon is observed in all neighboring dialects (Kuršėnai, Papilė, Akmenė, Vegeriai, etc.), as well as in more distant Samogitian dūnininkai and dounininkai dialects. Since this use of the masculine singular locative form of the pronoun tas is found even near Lydavėnai11, it appears not to be a Latvianism, but probably an independent development in some Lithuanian dialects, merely coinciding with Latvian. Nevertheless, in the Aukštaitian dialects described here, the dominance of the masculine singular locative form of tas, as suggested by its more frequent use closer to the Latvian border, may also be encouraged by neighboring Latvian dialects (Zalenieki, Mežmuiža, etc.), in which the singular locative forms of the demonstrative pronouns tas, tā, šis, ši, tanī, šinī, are common to both masculine and feminine gender12. The syntax of these Aukštaitian dialects has also not escaped the influence of Latvian. This is shown by certain distinctive usages of individual prepositions and particles, as well as of particular syntactic constructions. The more characteristic examples are presented here. Among prepositions, the use of no· ‘from’ has been most strongly influenced by Latvian. First to be mentioned are no· constructions used, as it were, to indicate origin, e.g., ta kūkne, musē·t, no· pāties vē·lne· rū·kst i rū·kst, darī·k kā· nedā·res ‘that woman, a witch, from the devil himself—she curses and curses, doing all sorts of things’ See the material recorded by V. Vitkauskas in 1955 and 1958 for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, Rg. Nos. 233 and 446.10 Based on material from the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language.11 12 J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīgā, 1951, p. 527—529. 178 the mill, most likely, is cursed by the devil: do what you will, it keeps smoking, and that’s that” Škn: cf. Latv. nu ta aita jau ir no paša vella “well, that sheep is already cursed by the devil himself” (recorded near Šakyna). Sometimes constructions with no· occur, expressing an agent, e.g., laidas nutrauktas no· to· graustine “the wires were torn down by a thunderstorm” Dilb; cf. Latv. ne ūdena balināti (vaigi): asarām balināti nuo nelieša “not bleached by water (faces): made pale by a scoundrel’s torment, bleached by tears¹³”. Occasionally the preposition no· is used instead of the dialects’ usual iš ‘from’, e.g.: kàs gi no· tó:ke ti:laus zmō:gaus! sėsāte mūsu, jaunōji mūsu, kō· tū išēini no· mo·tusā·tes? Sk; no· to·s būrno·s kaip i pažīnau, ale bālsas visā:i kitō·niškes Škn; cf. Latv. ej man nuo acīm! “get out of my sight!”; kuo nuo tam mācities “what is there to learn from him?” nuo acīm vien pazinu, kas bì barga mātes meita¹⁴ “I could tell just from her eyes which one was the fierce daughter of a mother”. In very rare cases no· is used instead of the usual apē· ‘about’, e.g., nēžinau no· tó:ke Dilb; cf. Latv. ne man miega, ne man darba, nuo tēvim duomājot “I can neither sleep nor work, thinking about you”¹⁵. Sometimes constructions with no· also occur, apparently arising under the influence of Latvian, such as: juokūos iš dē·des: skūndžes ā·jfonsui no· kā·lve “...complains to Alfons about the blacksmith” Škn. Also borrowed from Latvian is a construction with no·, used fairly widely in these dialects: āk tu pāršas no· vāika, — suvilka visus lūpatus i viduri trō·bo·s i palika “that’s a pig of a child...”; tai biesas no· bō·bas: su liežūvu pāti āpmet, pāti atā·udz “that’s a demon of a woman...”; ė, sprūogena nuo pārša: nieka nied, tik žvieg i žvieg susirietis “hey, what a sow of a woman...”, Krp. Cf. Latv. vēlns nuo sievieša “a devil of a woman”, titars nuo puikas “a turkey of a boy”¹⁶. Clearly borrowed from Latvian and often encountered are the fixed expressions no· dieva pūses “for God’s sake”, no· rīta pūses “in the morning”, e.g.: no· dieva pūses tik tū su ānuo nesigėncīk! no· rīta pūses āš sveika, viškas gōrai, o· pavārikšēoju — nieka nebēgahu i tiek Škn. Cf. Latvian expressions with the same meanings: no dieva puses; no rīta puses. With the preposition par ‘through’, the most widely used expressions are par lāime ‘fortunately’, par nēlaime ‘unfortunately’. They characteristically describe circumstances accompanying an action, e.g.: šindie būva kā·rve nusitrā·ukus, ale par lāime greit pāma·cau Krp; viškas jau būva bēpasibāiga·, kaip par nē·laime acivīlka ta rā·gana, i vēl pāķla iš nāuje Škn. Cf. Latvian expressions with the same meanings par laimi, par nelaimi¹⁷. Occasionally the preposition par is used instead of the usual apie in constructions denoting the object toward which the action of the sentence is directed, e.g., 13 J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīgā, 1951, p. 663. 14 ME, vol. II, p. 755. 15 Ibid., vol. II, p. 756. 16 Ibid., vol. II, p. 756. 17 ME, vol. III, p. 85. 12* 179 kàs jiem gálvo· par kitus “why should they care about others?” Kyb. Cf. Latvian par puišiem es dziedāju, domāju “I sang and thought about the boys.”¹⁸ In certain cases, the preposition par is used with the verbs pavirsti, palikti, paversti, padirbti “to make, transform,” šaukti “to call,” and others; for example: pà·nče par·e·tvara palika “the willow twig turned into a kite” Kyb; tā pirti pāvertē·m par trō·ba Dilb; pàs mum atlē·gd,·āva i ānā glūosni (a cuckoo), pàs-kui atlēk i tuos glūosnius par vā·naga (having turned into a hawk) Dam; senò·ves žmò·ni·s šāugd,·āva par tē·vini (used to call them fathers); rā·gana (juos) būva pavērtus par ā·kminus Dilb; tō·ki jā·una vī·ra visd·m ā·mžiui par ūbaga padirba Škn. The preposition par was probably also adopted with this meaning under the influence of Latvian. Cf. Latvian: vēlns meitas pārvērse par kēvēm “the devil turned the daughters into mares”;¹⁹ viņu sauc par Pēteri “he is called Peter.”²⁰ The preposition su is probably used under Latvian influence in sentences of the following type, for example: viena mǟ·ta kà·rves šē·rēm su tais gelto·nāiseis sē·tineis Sk; sā·ka, (jie) su kūojum, su gàlvums minta “...they mostly eat legs and heads” Auks; su širdže sirga Dam; dāba jaunā·uses mò·teris is mire su vē·zeis Žg; su tvò·ra būva aptvē·rta; karā·liškes (Karališkės) dāba su mišku apā·uga, apsò·dina su pūšim Dilb; apā·ugus jau dāba su ālksneis tā kertē·la Dam; sē·seris kē·tures nudrìškuses, nuplì·suses, su vāikais apsì·kō·vuses Sk; garļauškis (Garliauskis) krāučus pas jācku (Jackų) šūva (he) sumo·kē·je su ā·uksu Škn; tu pac smirdi: pārleikei su žmūonims pasmirdis Krp. Cf. Latvian: mirt ar diluoni “to die of consumption”; sirgt ar kaklu “to suffer from a sore throat,” and so on.²¹ Among other more widespread syntactic Latvianisms, mention should be made of the construction with the particle lai || lei, for example: kūr lai ēinu tō·ko· li·nañčo “where can I go (how am I to go) in such rain?” Škn; kā· lai dārai žmò·gus — sāva vāikāi, sāva vārgai “what can one do...—one’s own children, one’s own troubles”; agi visus reikē·tu sā·udi·i (the dogs), ale kā· lei žinai “...you can’t know (you don’t know) which one to shoot and which not to” Žg; nūtreikei biēsas žīna kūr, i kāip as dāba lai rāndu “...where should I look (how am I to find it)?” Škn. Cf. Latvian: kurp lai einu? “where should I go?” es nezìnu, kuo lai es iesāku “I don’t know what to do.”²² In certain cases, under Latvian influence the particle lai is used instead of the conjunction kad ‘that’, for example: ka turē·tumēm iš·ka· sumo·kē·t kūnigui, reikē·tu, lai pašvē·stu (a cross) “so that we would have something with which to pay the priest, it would be necessary for him to bless (it would need to be blessed)” Kyb; lēi ans kāip dirb, ale vis padirb “however slowly he works, he still gets the job done” Sk; lai i kāip nenō·ru vis tiek tūru šēndie ēit i rūnkelus “however much I don’t want to, I still have to go weed the beets today” Škn. Cf. Latvian bijis jā·aun kājas nuost, lai arī cik salis “it would be necessary to put on shoes, no matter how cold—” 18 Ten pat, t. III, p. 85. 19 Ten pat, p. 187. 20 Ten pat, p. 772. 21 See ME, vol. I, p. 140, and Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika, vol. I, Rīgā, 1959, p. 738. 22 See ME, vol. II, p. 400. 180 having cut their legs off, no matter how cold it might be”; aitinai kūti daru, lai tā ziemu nenuosaltu “I make a gate for the sheep so that it won’t freeze in winter”23. The use of the intensifying particle gan(t) and its variants gan(t) jau, gan(t) jau nu also seems to be attributable to the influence of Latvian, e.g.: gan aš āna· šaukau, gan kā· ē·je i nuē·je, ne· acisūkt neacisūka “I called her, and whatever I did, but he...” Skn; užkāisti gērai gānt, kol iškuli “well, it’s warmed up...” Kyb; nebijō·k, gān jau (vis jau) kaip nōns isišūksme; jei tik blō·gau nebābus, gān jau nu galē·s gi·vē·nī “if it doesn’t get worse, it will be possible to live” Skn. Cf. Latvian: Dzirēdēsi gan tu tik tālu! “You’ll hear all the way over there, just you wait!” Gan es viņu pierunāšu “Well, I’ll persuade him anyway”24. Finally, another more conspicuous Latvianism is a construction of the type mā·n (tā·u, mūms, tē·vui...) used instead of the usual aš tū·riu... tē·us tūr, e.g.: tū li·sk i māiša, aš tāvi panēšu, o· māisas i· mūm “...we have a sack” Dlb; a tā·u pinigai i·r li·gei? “do you have money with you?” Žg. Cf. Latvian zirgs mums ir labs “we have a good horse”; nauda mums ir “we have money.” Finally, mention should be made of the fairly frequent and interesting use of present-tense verb forms with negation instead of the usual conditional forms, e.g.: prasidē·k tik su tō·keis, tai bijō·k, ka nenužnā·ug “...so that [it] does not choke (strangle)” Sk; užēin dēbes·s didžā·usis, bē·kem nāmo·, ka nēsūl·nam “...so that we don’t get rained on,” žu rē·k, kur ēina·s, ka bā·tu nēprisemti “watch where you’re going, so that you don’t get water into your boots” Skn. The use of present-tense forms in this way is characteristic of Latvian, e.g.: jājam, brāļi, vienu pulku, lai nezviedz kumeliņi, lai nedzird meitu māte, lai neslēpa malējīņu “let us ride, brothers, as one group, so that the little horses do not neigh, so that the girls’ mother does not hear, so that she does not hide the young maiden”25. The same phenomenon is also known in some Samogitian dialects (Kuršėnai, Mosėdis). Since the full distribution of such present-tense forms in Lithuanian dialects has not yet been established, it is unclear whether this is a borrowing or an old feature shared with Latvian. Having surveyed the influence of Latvian on the grammatical structure of the West Aukštaitian dialects along the Latvian border, we can conclude that it is fairly considerable and manifests itself in various ways: through direct borrowings, the fostering of shared developmental tendencies, and, in certain cases, the preservation of old shared features. Latvian could have exerted this influence not only because of the very extensive and varied contacts with the dialects described, but also because it is very close to Lithuanian; consequently, representatives of these dialects probably do not always clearly distinguish what is Lithuanian and what is Latvian. 23 See ME, vol. II, p. 400. 24 See Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika, vol. I, p. 788, 791. 25 ME, vol. II, p. 400. 181 THE INFLUENCE OF THE LATVIAN LANGUAGE ON THE GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NORTHWESTERN AUKŠTAITIAN DIALECTS OF THE LATVIAN SSR BORDER REGION А. ИОНАЙТИТЕ Abstract The article examines the influence of the closely related Latvian language on the grammatical structure of the northwestern Aukštaitian borderland dialects, which belong to the zone of complete stress retraction. It is noted that this influence affects word formation, inflection, syntax, and, to some extent, the phonetics of these dialects. The reasons for this very noticeable influence are indicated: first, the very close and prolonged contacts between speakers of these dialects and Latvians, with whom they communicate almost every day; as a result, most of them understand and speak Latvian more or less well; and second, the close similarity between the grammatical structure of Latvian and that of the dialects under study. A brief overview of the history of these contacts is provided. The following different aspects of the influence are identified and examined: 1) the stimulation in the dialects of developmental tendencies shared with Latvian (e.g., the very widespread use of permissive forms formed with the particle lai|lei “let”: lai ēin “let him/her go, let them go,” cf. Latvian lai iet); 2) the conservation of shared or very similar grammatical elements, which in the dialects under study have most often survived only as distinctive relics, whereas in Latvian they are used very widely and are sometimes even standard in Lithuanian (for example, the preservation of the unproductive adjective suffix -ainis, -e: drižainis, -e “striped,” margainis, -e “variegated, florid” is partly supported by the Latvian suffix of the same meaning -ains, -a: miglains, -a stripains, -a; one may also mention the familiar forms of reflexive verbs ending in -ies, e.g., 3rd-person future mazgō'sies “he/she/they will wash themselves,” 2nd-person singular imperative: mazgō'kies “wash yourself,” present participle: mazgō'jenties, and others; cf. the corresponding forms of the same verb in Latvian mazgāsies, mazgājies, mazgājoties); 3) borrowing, which likewise has its own varieties. Two types of borrowing are distinguished: a) complete borrowing (e.g., dative singular forms of masculine nouns ending in -am or -im: vi'ram “to the man,” šunim “to the dog,” cf. Latvian vīram, sunim); b) partial borrowing, when, for example, not the entire suffix or prefix is borrowed, but only one of its meanings (e.g., the use of the suffix -(i)ninks to denote a resident of a particular city or village: ri'gininks “a Rigan,” tarbū'činiks “a resident of the village of Tarubčiai,” cf. Latvian rīdzinieks, liepājnieks). It is noted that some of the borrowings were acquired not directly from Latvian, but through neighboring borderland dialects. Specific instances of the influence of Latvian in the phonetics, morphology, and syntax of the dialects under study are described. 182