Reikšmingas baltarusių kalbininkų leidinys

"Rudimeititini|li- (1) s,-ė biol. indicative; to the extent necessary underdeveloped, in decline, residual; ~ organs (organs that have lost their significance during the evolutionary development of the organism and are on the way to extinction, e.g. the appendix grows, the spinal bone, etc.) The definition of the composite term rudimentary organs in this case only duplicates the basic definition and is, in our view, completely unnecessary. The number of such cases The MRL is significant. . The Soviet linguist F. Sorokoletov is probably right when he says that the best way to define species terms in an explanatory dictionary is to include them in a group of related concepts, rather than explaining in detail what is made of what, what is used for, etc.2, because, in fact, such definitions (especially of tools and devices) become obsolete very quickly. In addition, without incorporating the concept to be defined into a broader subordinate concept or using an incomplete definition, it is very easy to slip into superficiality: Let's take a couple of examples- :. dauginllis- ,-¢ (2) —many: ~ies numerals (which go with plural nouns) minerdlinlis,-¢ (1) —mineral: ~és fertilizer. Mr. Alie-| jus. M. water (in which a mineral is dissolved) According to the incomplete definition of the compound term plurals in the first example above, it would appear that the plural used in the word combination five years can be considered. The simplest well. water also contains dissolved minerals, but why does no one call such water mineral? It would be more convenient to insert démeny synonyms of compound terms not after the whole compound term, as is done in most of the DLKŽ articles (cf. įsprūdinės durys —įsprūdinis, -ė str., fonetinė rašyba —garsinis, -ė str., garakštinis dantis —garankštinis, -ė str., etc.), but in the middle of the compound term (cf. tvirtapradė || tvirtagalė priegaidė —priegaidė str.), because in many cases single-word terms are also synonyms of the compound term (cf. smiltinis akmuo: smiltainis —smiltinis, -ė str.). Ks Saf By unifying the above-mentioned differences in the presentation and definition of compound terms in DLKŽ, the structure of its articles would become a little more compact and most importantly -—it > would be more convenient for people to use it, K. Gaivenis Nlasjnekranariunki araac GeJiapyckalt moss, Minecx, 1963, VIII +338 map.+970 p. Among the largest and most significant publications, which in recent years have enriched not only Belarusian, but also Soviet linguistics in general, undoubtedly belongs to the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” published by the J. Kolas Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the Belarusian SSR. This publication is a long year, a large 2 See. O. II. CopokoJieTon, CMeiči0Bax xapaKTEpHCTHKA TEP MHHOB B TO/IKOBbIX COBAPAX, "Jlėkcukorpaduueckafi cCopHuk", sain. V, M., 1962, p. 130. 229. the result of collective work. The material for the atlas was collected from 1027 settlements of the Belarusian SSR according to a special program. The work of collecting material, which took several years, was carried out not only by the linguists of the J. Kolas Institute of Linguistics in Minsk, but also by a large group of collaborators — lecturers of the republic’s higher education institutions, postgraduate students, students, and a number of secondary school teachers. The Atlas was also prepared for printing by a large group of researchers, and the entire publication was edited by R. Avanesov, a correspondent member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, K. Krapiva, an academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Belarusian SSR, and J. Mackevič, a doctor of philological sciences. The “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” consists of two large books. The first contains auxiliary (administrative, historical) and linguistic maps of the Belarusian SSR. The last maps show 338. They show the most important features of phonetics and morphology of Belarusian dialects, individual syntactic constructions, phraseologisms, the prevalence of various words and terms, zones of use. The second book of the Atlas is devoted to commentaries on these maps. In addition, in her introductory articles, she extensively examines individual issues of linguistic geography, describes the history of the Atlas’s emergence, its structure, and presents a bibliography of the study of Belarusian dialects. The technical design of the individual maps of the Atlas and of the entire publication in general is exemplary — tastefully chosen and coordinated colors, various signs, etc. The “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” has the greatest theoretical and practical significance for the study of the Belarusian language. The rich and diverse dialect material presented in the atlas will be an important resource for the practice of Belarusian literary language. This material, as well as the precise geographical distribution of individual linguistic phenomena, will help to better solve many questions of phonetics, morphology, syntax, lexical norming of literary language. In Belarusian literary language there are still a number of consonant forms, such as yaad, yar and (rarely) yeagnax "calf"; dgs. kilm. xam and xdmay "purchases"; dgs. innag. nasampi and nasusima "shoulders"; esama and eamas,-ae "this"; 6apom and 6pm “we take”; 20det and 2adet "years!". Based on the dialectal data published in the Atlas (see Zemél. no. 84, 101 and others), Belarusian linguists will probably decide which of the several neighbouring forms is best suited for literary language. The part of the Atlas devoted to lexical questions highlights the abundance of synonyms in the Belarusian language, cf. the names of spragilo jungo (259%): 2Ypxc6IK, yo, ByvKOYKa, npble13Ka, Yysfi3KA, 3dBA3KA, Yyzapbina, KAniya, nymya, pšmeHo, xamMijųik, npy3IŪjK, colpmsiys, nauonka, eapoyka and others. ; verb speak synonyms (320): ejjmapbiųs, camariyp, 6andrays, wijniųos, zyKduoss, 310Kaus, 2asapeiys. The rich lexical material of dialects presented in the atlas will be an indispensable source for Belarusian linguists, creating and improving national terminology in various areas of economics and culture. This material will also force linguists to review which of the synonyms used so far should be considered as the reference word or term of literary language. For example, the most common name of the shop (chamber) in cmOdnxa Atlas (240) is correctly put in the first place, 1 Pig. M. I. Bynaxay, AG HeKOTOpHIX MBITAHHAX HapMaJii3aupii i pa3Binus Genapyckai niraparypuait Mossi,,„Ilpaupi IucrsiryTa Mmosasmaycrsa AH BCCP®, smn. 1, Minck, 1954, p. 3-21. | 2 Here and elsewhere the number given in brackets indicates the serial number of the map of the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language”. 230 o Meanwhile ,,Belarusiy-rusy language dictionary“? from the to word sent in a į relatively small middle Word used in Belarusian area 6eapotynf; Words Oy16009nik „bulvienojas“ (281), nadckyni „‘pleiskanės hempės’“ (283), cmoe "cone, stirt" (288), question (py6enm6) “this time” (289) is much more widely used than the ir dictionary synonyms: jų 6yn66fixik, Mariųoi, cuipma, sc3poka ir and others The atlas will help to clarify many important theoretical questions concerning the formation of Belarusian dialects, the processes of literary language formation, historical relations of Belarusians with su neighboring Slavic languages. (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish) ir other nations. In the Slavic languages, Belarusian is generally considered to be an East Slavic language, with some influences from the West Slavic languages. Thus, in a certain sense, Belarusian is a transitional language between the eastern and western ir Slavic languages. The Atlas of Materials. Eastern ir wintertime The Belarusian vocabulary is closely su related to the vocabulary of the neighboring Russian dialects. Wax ‘Jopšys’ (247) — Russian. AOh6KA; adedA „(plūgo) verstuvė“ (256) — Russian. omeda; ejmka ‘antis’ (297) — Russian. emka; crdyepys ‘staltiesē’ (325) — Russian. ckdmepmeo; xassin "Host" (334) — Russian. attachment; 6aarsHel ,,sick, unhealthy“ (319) — Russian. 6046x0ii. West South ir West Belarusian vocabulary has more counterparts in Ukrainian ir Polish, plg. toje In Belarusian, the name is pronounced "Kaabicka", "xassuuka" or "JAopšys". — koadcka, left. rocking chair; naniųa (ndzniua) „verstuvė“ — ukr. nine; Kauka ‘antis’ — ukr. kdura, lenk. duck: abpyc (06pyc, abpijcax) ‘staltiesė’ — ukr. o6pijc, lenk. tablecloth; eacnaddp "The Host". — eocnooap, left. host; xe0pel "sick, unhealthy" — ukr. x0puti, left. Sick. There are also quite a few words that relate Belarusian to only one Slavic language, e.g. su su in Polish: cmyonsa „Šulinys“ (241) — left. a well; HaciO bi, xaciOma ‘matches’ (249) — left. Carrier: mšnua ‘rainbow’ (312) — left. a briefcase; 3imna “cold” (321) — left. It's cold. The lexical material presented in the atlas shows and clarifies the localization ir iš of borrowings į from other languages into the Belarusian language, helps to better understand the direction tų of spread of borrowings. For example, a precise area is highlighted, in which such Germanisms come through the Poles, as: andapdx ‘skirt’ (329) — vok. Underskirt, left. andarak (plg. also liet. intestine. andarok); uinixip ‘klėtis’ (239) — vok. (East Prussian) spiker, polk. spichler (lit. intestine. spykerė, Spykeris): wyp, tuijpoiK "stoginė, pašiūrė" (238) — vok. (East Prussian) šu (e)r. The dialectal differences in lexical, ir phonetic, morphological and syntactic features in most cases confirm the two main groups of Belarusian dialects in the West-East South-West. For example, the forms typical of the — eastern ir dialects, nipambiys "to wash, to wash, to wash out" e6pad (10), ‘city’ (13), Axis ‘child’ (85), x06y10 xamy ‘new purchase’ (124), 6apdys ‘has (v.s. 3 asm. )“ (148), dios ‘language (v.s. 3 asm. )’ (149), xd031045* "Walking (dgs. 3 asm. )’ (157), cecyp „sėsti“ in (174) southwestern dialects has the following equivalents: nepanmbiųo, See. 23 Beaopyccko-pycckuil cJIOBapb, Nojį pejaKuneli aKajieMuka AH BCCP K. K. KpatiuBbi, Mocksa, 1962. * Generalized present tense plural personal 3 forms su -Yuob (-1046) instead -a4o uses (-246) adjacent ir Russian dialects, e.g. IO. ®. Maukesniu, Mapganoris asescaopa y Genapyckaii mose, Minck, 1959, p. 175, 251, 231 20pod, O3iųs, Hoey xamy, 6ap3, Kdnca, x0O31ų46, céoyu. Based on the Atlas medZiaga, Belarusian linguists conclude that the southwestern Belarusian dialects have retained more archaic features than the winter-eastern* ones. However, a large number of dialects of Belarusian are distributed in a slightly different way. For example, the Atlas shows that the isoglosses of some syntactic features divide the area of Belarusian into the eastern and western parts. For example, in the eastern part are used the constructions narlititoijf K GausKy "he went (I went, you went) to the father" (217), exay Ha Kaui "he rode (I rode, you rode) on a horse" (222), y mane Ganiųus 2arasa -"my head hurts" (223), and in the western part —matituoijf Oa Gauski, exay Kanėm (this construction is also common in almost all southern Belarusian dialects), MH baqiys eanaea. The isoglosses of the distribution of the latter constructions, like many other features presented in the Atlas, extend beyond the territory of Belarus and cross the areas of neighboring Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish) or Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian) languages®. Thus, the “Dialectological Atlas of Belarusian Language” will provide valuable material also for the general atlas of Slavic languages, historical-comparative linguistics and various other studies. Of course, this publication is also important for the study of Lithuanian language. The close relations between the Baltic and Slavic peoples, which lasted for many centuries, left a clear mark on the languages of these peoples. Linguists have long been interested in the mutual influence of their close neighbours, Lithuanian and Belarusian. For example, the hardening of the / in Lithuanian eastern dialects (see lūdas < Iėdas, aukūnė < alkiiné), the pronunciation of Afrikaans c, dz instead of literary language consonants £, d (see diūoc, diena instead of duoti, diena) — is also characteristic of Belarusian (see eofx < 604K "wolf"; days < dams "to give", O3eKb < OeHo "day"). In the opinion of some linguists, the Belarusian language has helped to spread these characteristics in Lithuanian dialects. However, the greatest influence of the Belarusian language has been experienced by the Lithuanian dialect vocabulary. Here are some of the more commonly used Belarusianisms: batviniai, „beetroot, beetroot leaf soup“ (Belarusian. Gaubein(- H)e "beetroot leaves, stems"), bodia, būčius "father, grandfather" (Belarusian 6dysa "father- "), būlba "potato" (Belarusian 647662), uzbonas "pitcher" (Belarusian 36ax, "pitcher, pot"), fitaryti "to talk, to chat" (Belarusian eymapeiys). Some borrowings from Belarusian have even entered into the lexicon of Lithuanian literary language, e.g.: nordgas, préslas, sijonas (Belarusian: Kapd2; npdcaa, npsicaa; cašiH). It is true that sometimes there are doubts as to whether a loanword in Lithuanian comes from Belarusian or from another Slavic language (e.g. Polish, Russian). In these cases, the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” will be of great help to linguists, as it gives a precise geography of many Belarusian words and forms. Based on the factual material of this Atlas, it will be possible to clarify the interpretation of the origin of many Lithuanian words. For example, the origin of the dialectic grūčkas "strength" has been interpreted differently so far. The word has been tried to be linked to the Polish word gruszki" "a certain kind of potato", and the Belarusian 6pjuka®, "to squeeze", and derived from the Lithuanian dialect form 5 Pig. IO. O, Mankesuu, A. I'. Mypawxko, A. B. Opemonxrosa, O6 urorax paGori ro cocraB/teHHIO aT/Iaca GeJIOpyCCKHX HApOJIHbIX TOBOpoB,,- „,Boripochi JiHajiekTOJIOTHH BOCTO4HO- -CJIABAHCKHX S135IKOB“, Mocksa, 1964, p. 45 tt. e Plg. A. Tl. Henokynuuit, Apeajibusie acnekTbi 6anTo-CAABAHCKHX SI35IKOBbLIX OTHOwennft, Knes, 1964, p. 62 tt. ? Plg. E. Fraenkel, Lithuanian etymological dictionary, Heidelberg-Gottingen, 1955 tt., p. 302. 8 Plg, Dictionary of Lithuanian Language, III, Vilnius, 1956, p. 653. krúčka ‘griežtis’ (instead of this form, also borrowed from the Belarusian iš language, the original skardusis k is believed g, to have appeared already in the Lithuanian dialects?). Iš Atlas it turns out that in Belarusian, other be names of the string (6pfuxa, bpyuiKa, Opijkuua, epobicoina, eptica, Kpijuka...), have also epijuxa ir (276). The latter name, as ir KpijuKa, is typical of Lithuanian border Belarusian dialects (Glubokas, Pastovių districts). The forms krūčkas grūčkas used in individual Lithuanian dialects are probably borrowed from different Belarusian dialects. ir “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” will iš be of considerable use to linguists ir (Lithuanian, Latvian) influence on the Belarusian language. First of all, attention is drawn to those dialectisms that are mainly found in Belarusian dialects, which are in direct contact with Lithuanian-Latvian dialects, e.g. su ar -10K (-YK), used to form certain diminutive nouns with the suffix -eHe, used to form words such as 6yas6asére (296), "potato-grower" (cf. lit. intestine. potatoes, potatoes), kapmagréne „t.p.“ (280-2); separate words: pšaziroi, pšaeini: (254) —lit. scarring; ocdeene (234) —lite. Zaginjs; Osipedm (275) — lit. dirvonas; aceép, ceep, ceipunš, ceipens... (242-4) —lit. the lever. The following Baltic borrowings are widely used in Belarusian: manmd, marys, MėKMA, MĖKŲA... (264) —lit. shoulder; cyipma (cyipmd), cyipda... (288) —liet. tail; ceipan, ceėpaH, ceiporax (239) —lit. barn, etc. In the eastern part of the Belarusian SSR, a presumed Lithuanianism éjua, čijka (233) —lit. jduja®, and in the south-western corner (In Polesia) — xaynsa, kaons (235) — let. the barn. From the eastern Lithuanian dialects into the neighbouring Belarusian dialects have probably also entered certain Zodeliai of animal or bird calls, e.g. cows: mnpyce-- mnpyce (304) —liet. tprus(e)-- tprus(e), sheep: 6a36-6a36 (305) —lit. baz-baz, goose: at0- -310-310, 310M0-310010, MKynb-Kkyno (307) —lit. day-day-- day, day(s)-day(s), day-day, ir etc. The lexical material presented in the atlas will help to understand more easily the analogous word formation and the borrowing of individual meanings. The relation of the forms wmaeirki, mdeinki, mazinokik “cemetery” (318) used mainly in western Belarusian dialects to the word mazina “grave” is analogous to the relation of Lithuanian kapai, kūpinės to kapas*. From the Lithuanian language, Western Belarusians, a possible object, have borrowed one meaning of the word rauti, cf. baltar. 28x skin —little. Linen reds; in eastern Belarusian dialects in this case it is said: AēX Gpays (267). Iš The material of the atlas also better highlights ir the prevalence of some ir common Baltic Slavic words in the territory of Belarus, e.g.: kaeys (239) —lit. kletis; maaaKd, mdnara, manora (315) — let. talc; opium, Opygo (265) — let. crush. The study of the similarities between Lithuanian and Belarusian languages and their mutual influence will be even more successful when the Lithuanian language atlas will also be published. It is only a pity that the,,Programs”, according to which the material for the Belarusian and Lithuanian language atlases was collected, were not properly coordinated in advance — in both,,Programs”, let us say, could have been * Cf. V. Urbutis, Dvi etymologijos pastabos,,,Kalbotyra®“, I, Vilnius, 1958, pp. 220—221. 1 Pig, Fraenkel, E. Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch, form mogilki p. 192. Uu used in northern Polish dialects “cemetery”, in the opinion of some linguists, is a meaning loan, or so-called lime, from Lithuanian kalkas, cf. Cz. Kudzinowski, Jačwingowie w języku,,,Acta Baltico-slavica“, Bialystok, 1964, p. 224. be much more common or analogous syntax, lexical issues (the lexical relationships between these languages are best shown by the lexical). "The dialectological atlas of the Belarusian languageTM in its structure, principles of composition does not differ in a certain sense from the previously published Soviet atlases. and many foreign linguistic atlases. This atlas only presents factual material (the geographical distribution of the most important dialectal phenomena of the Belarusian language), but does not include any research or scientific analysis of this material. It is to be hoped that Belarusian linguists will carry out such work in the future and will publish the summaries and conclusions in other publications!s, A few other critical remarks that can be made to the authors of the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” mainly concern non-essential matters, individual details of a methodological nature. We will mention some of them here. In the atlas there are maps for names or terms whose scope is not more precisely detailed or differentiated. For example, map no. 231 is intended to show the distribution of various avid name. One of the most widely used names is ajudprik, which, however, in different parts of Belarus does not mean exactly the same object — this name is used both for a sheep fold in a common barn, and an annex for sheep to the barn, and a separate sheep shed (kolkhoz). Such differentiation of the meaning of the word affudprix and its other synonyms and the localization of those meanings are not visible from the map. It is true that such shortcomings also arose for certain objective reasons — mainly because of insufficient or not quite accurate linguistic or ethnographic data recorded by the collectors of the Atlas material. Unnecessarily, it seems, the Atlas maps do not show the geographical distribution of such beautiful or comparatively widely used synonyms as icmonxa, edpaijka greta emonka, eapoiijkA “shopper, chamber” (240); cieepxa, cēsepka next to xOAadOnma, ctuoOd3ėna, 3imna „Šalta“ (321) and others. : Syntactic constructions are not presented in exactly the same way: in some constructions All words are interspersed (208, 209, 212, 213, 216, 217, 219), and in others — not (206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259). 214, 215, 218). ir to iš jų ne always clear. This is particularly true when the title word has several meanings, cf. the ambiguous title name “Ha3Bbi rapbi” on map no. 229 — the map shows the prevalence of names of shelters, but the Belarusian word 2apd means not only “high”, but also “mountain” (the latter meaning is given in the dictionary as the first). In addition to the title names, which mean plants, it was appropriate to give Latin terms. Among the auxiliary Atlas Maps we are missing a geographical (relief) map of the Belarusian SSR, which, possibly, would help to better understand the emergence of isoglosses of individual dialectal characteristics and their layout. K. Morkūnas and A. Vidugiris 12 For example, ArJiac pyCCKHX HApO/HBIX TOBOPOB LeHTpAaJIbHbIX OOJIaCcTEH K BOCTOKY or Mockssl, moa penakumeit P. H. Apanecosa, Mocksa, 1957; WU. O. Il3en azeniBcbKuii, Jliarsicrnunuii aTaac yKpaiHcbKHX HapoIHHX roeopis 3 rampasTtcbkoi obaacti YPCP (Jlekcuka), Yxropon, 13 Belarusian linguists, based on the 1, material 1958. of the Atlas, have already published some works of a summarizing nature, e.g. the significant collective work,,,Hapkicki na Genapyckai AkKaJieKTOJOrii“ (Minck, 1964, 416 p.), individual articles in the publications,,Bornpockhi JMAJIEKTOJIOTHH BOCTOYHO-CJIaBAHCKHX S3bIKOB“ (Mockea, 1964), | Benapyckas MoBa““. Įlacjenapaiumi na Jiekcikanorii (Minck, 1965) ir kt 234