rudimentary (1) biology incipient; insufficiently developed as needed, degenerating, vestigial; vestigial organs (organs that have lost their function during the evolutionary development of an organism and are on the way to disappearing, e.g., the appendix, the coccyx, and the like)

The definition of the compound term vestigial organs in this case merely duplicates the main definition and is, in our opinion, entirely unnecessary. In this respect, DLKŽ is quite deficient.

The Soviet linguist F. Sorokoletovas is probably right in asserting that the best way to define taxonomic terms in an explanatory dictionary is to include them in a group of related concepts, rather than to explain in detail what something is made of, what it is used for, and so on², because such definitions (especially of tools and devices) become outdated very quickly. Moreover, unless the concept being defined is included within a broader superordinate concept, or if an incomplete definition is used, it is very easy to lapse into superficiality. Let us take a couple of examples:

daugin|is,-ė (2) → daug: ~iai skaitvardžiai (kurie eina su daugiskaitiniais daiktavardžiais) mineralin|is,-ė (1) → mineralas: ~ės trąšos. M. aliejus. M. vanduo (kuriame yra ištirpęs koks mineralas)

According to the incomplete definition of the compound term multiplicative numerals, the first example cited above would imply that the numeral used in the phrase fifth year may be regarded as multiplicative. Even the water in the simplest well contains dissolved minerals, but why does nobody call such water mineral water?

Sudėtinių terminų pažyminių dėmenų sinonimus patogiau būtų dėti ne po viso sudėtinio termino, kaip kad daroma daugumoje DLKŽ straipsnių (plg. išprūdinės durys — išprūdinis,-ė str., garsinė rašyba — garsinis,-ė str., garankštinis dantis — garankštinis,-ė str. ir kt.), bet įterpti į sudėtinio termino vidurį (plg. tvirtapradė || tvirtagalė priegaidė — priegaidė str.), nes daugeliu atvejų sudėtinio termino sinonimais būna ir vienažodžiai terminai (plg. smiltinis akmuo: smiltainis — smiltinis,-ė str.).

If the inconsistencies in the presentation and definitions of compound terms discussed above were standardized in DLKŽ, the structure of its entries would become somewhat more compact, and, most importantly, it would be more convenient for people to use.

K. Gaivenis

A SIGNIFICANT PUBLICATION BY BELARUSIAN LINGUISTS

Дыялекталагічны атлас беларускай мовы, Мінск, 1963. VIII + 338 žemėl. + 970 p.

Among the major and most significant publications that in recent years have enriched not only Belarusian linguistics but Soviet linguistics in general is, without doubt, the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language,” published by the Institute of Linguistics named after J. Kolas of the Academy of Sciences of the Byelorussian SSR. This publication is the result of many years of extensive

² See Ф. П. Сороколетов, Смысловая характеристика терминов в толковых словарях, „Лексикографический сборник“, вып. V, М., 1962, p. 130.

229

collective work. The Atlas’s material was collected according to a special program from 1,027 inhabited localities in the Byelorussian SSR. In addition to linguists from the Minsk Institute of Linguistics named after J. Kolas, a large group of assistants took part in gathering the material, a task that lasted several years: lecturers, postgraduate students, and undergraduates from the republic’s higher education institutions, as well as numerous secondary-school teachers. A fairly large team of research staff also prepared the Atlas for publication, and the entire work was edited by R. Avanesov, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, K. Krapiva, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Byelorussian SSR, and J. Mackevič, Doctor of Philology.

The “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” consists of two large volumes. The first contains supplementary (administrative and historical maps of the Byelorussian SSR) and linguistic maps. There are 338 of the latter. They show the distribution and areas of use of the most important phonetic and morphological features of Belarusian dialects, individual syntactic constructions, phraseological units, and various words and terms. The second volume of the Atlas is devoted to commentaries on those maps. In addition, its introductory articles examine in detail specific issues in linguistic geography, describe the Atlas’s history and structure, and provide a bibliography of research on Belarusian dialects.

The technical presentation is exemplary both in the individual Atlas maps and in the publication as a whole: the design features tastefully selected and harmonized colors, various symbols, and so forth.

The “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” is undoubtedly of the greatest theoretical and practical significance for the study of the Belarusian language.

The rich and varied dialect material presented in the Atlas will first and foremost be an important source for the practice of the Belarusian literary language. This material, together with the precise geographical distribution revealed for individual linguistic phenomena, will help resolve many questions concerning the standardization of the literary language’s phonetics, morphology, syntax, and lexicon.

The Belarusian literary language still contains numerous variant forms, for example: цярля, цярлё and (less commonly) целёнак ‘calf’; gen. pl. хам and хамаў ‘huts’; instr. pl. плячамі and плячыма ‘shoulders’; гэта and гэтая,-ае ‘this’; бяром and бярэм ‘we take’; годы and гады ‘years’1. Drawing on the dialect data published in the Atlas (cf. maps nos. 84, 101, etc.), Belarusian linguists will presumably decide which of several variant forms is most suitable for the literary language.

The section of the Atlas devoted to lexical matters reveals a wealth of Belarusian synonyms; cf. the names for the strap of a flail (259²): гужчык, уж, вуісоўка, прывязка, увязка, завязка, угарўна, каніца, пуціца, рэмень, хамуцік, прузік, сырмац, набойка, вароўка, among others; and synonyms of the verb to speak (320): гутарыць, гаманіць, балакаць, жгуціць, гукаць, зюкаць, гаварыць. The rich lexical dialect material presented in the Atlas will be an irreplaceable resource for Belarusian linguists developing and refining national terminology for various fields of the economy and culture. This material will also prompt linguists to reconsider which of the synonyms used to date should be regarded as the basic literary-language word or term. For example, the most widespread name for a pantry (storeroom), смо́нка, is rightly given first place in the Atlas (240),

¹ Cf. М. Г. Булахоў, Аб некаторых пытаннях нармалізацыі і развіцця беларускай літаратурнай мовы, „Працы Інстытута мовазнаўства АН БССР“, вып. 1, Мінск, 1954, р. 3—21.

² Here and elsewhere, the number in parentheses indicates the sequence number of the map in the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language.”

230

Meanwhile, in the “Belarusian-Russian Dictionary”³, that word refers to варбу́нá, a word used in a relatively small area in central Belarus; the words бульбоўнік ‘potato haulm’ (281), плёскуни ‘flax with shed seeds’ (283), стог ‘cone, haystack’ (288), and рубель (рубель) ‘hay-beating pole’ (289) are used and known much more widely than their synonyms given in the dictionary: бульбянік, манцы, сцірта, жэрдка, and others.

The Atlas will help clarify many important theoretical questions concerning the formation of Belarusian dialects, the processes involved in the development of the literary language, and the historical ties between Belarusians and neighboring Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish) and other peoples.

Among the Slavic languages, Belarusian is generally treated as an East Slavic language with West Slavic influences. Thus, in a certain sense, Belarusian is a kind of transitional language between the eastern and western Slavic languages. In many cases, the Atlas’s lexical material provides particularly strong confirmation of this.

The vocabulary of eastern and northeastern Belarus is closely related to that of neighboring Russian dialects; cf. ло́вька ‘cradle’ (247) — Russian ло́вка; адва́л ‘(plough) mouldboard’ (256) — Russian отва́л; ву́тка ‘duck’ (297) — Russian у́тка; ска́церць ‘tablecloth’ (325) — Russian ска́терть; хозя́ин ‘master of the household’ (334) — Russian хозя́ин; балны ‘ill, unwell’ (319) — Russian больной. The vocabulary of western and southwestern Belarus has more correspondences in Ukrainian and Polish; cf. synonyms for the names mentioned above that are used in that part of Belarus: кало́чка, кало́ўка ‘cradle’ — Ukrainian колі́ска, Polish kołyska; палі́ца (па́ліца) ‘mouldboard’ — Ukrainian полі́ця; ка́чка ‘duck’ — Ukrainian ка́чка, Polish kaczka; абрус (абрус, абру́сак) ‘tablecloth’ — Ukrainian обру́с, Polish obrus; гаспадар ‘master of the household’ — Ukrainian госпо́дар, Polish gospodarz; хворы ‘ill, unwell’ — Ukrainian хворий, Polish chory.

There are also quite a few words that link Belarusian with only one particular Slavic language, for example Polish: студня ‘well’ (241) — Polish studnia; насі́льды, насі́ла ‘pack saddle’ (249) — Polish nosidło; тэнца ‘rainbow’ (312) — Polish tęcza; зі́мна ‘cold’ (321) — Polish zimno.

The lexical material presented in the Atlas also reveals and pinpoints the distribution of loanwords borrowed into Belarusian from other languages, helping us better understand the directions in which they spread. For example, it identifies the precise area where Germanisms introduced through Polish are used, such as: андарак ‘skirt’ (329) — German Unterrock, Polish andarok (cf. also Lithuanian dialectal andarokas); шні́хір ‘granary’ (239) — German (East Prussian) spiker, Polish spichler (Lithuanian dialectal špykerė, špykeris); шуп, шу́рбк ‘shed, shelter’ (238) — German (East Prussian) šu(e)r.

Differences among dialects in their lexical as well as their principal phonetic, morphological, and syntactic features in many cases confirm the existence of two main groups of Belarusian dialects—the northeastern and southwestern. For example, forms characteristic of the northeastern dialects include прамыцьцо ‘rinse, wash through, wash out’ (10), го́род ‘city’ (13), дзі́це́нак ‘child’ (85), новую хату ‘a new hut’ (124), бярэць ‘takes (3rd person singular)’ (148), кажыць ‘speaks (3rd person singular)’ (149), ходзюць⁴ ‘walk (3rd person plural)’ (157), and сецць ‘sit down’ (174) have the following counterparts in the southwestern dialects: перамыцьцо,

³ See Belarusian-Russian Dictionary, edited by Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR K. K. Krapiva, Moscow, 1962.

⁴ Generalized third-person plural present-tense forms with -уць (-юць) instead of -аўц (-яўц) are also used by neighboring Russian dialects; cf. Ю. Ф. Мацкевіч, Марфалогія дзеяслова ў беларускай мове, Мінск, 1959, p. 175, 251.

231

э́род, дзіўя, новую хату, бярэ, кажа, ходзіць, се́сці. Drawing on the Atlas material, Belarusian linguists conclude that the dialects of southwestern Belarus have preserved more archaic features than those of the northeast⁵.

Indeed, many features of Belarusian dialects are distributed somewhat differently as well. For example, the Atlas shows that the isoglosses of certain syntactic features divide the Belarusian-language area into eastern and western parts. Thus, in the eastern part, the constructions пайшоў к бацьку “went (I went, you went) to the father” (217), ехаў на кані “went (I went, you went) on horseback” (222), у мяне баліць галава “I have a headache” (223) are used, whereas in the western part the forms are пайшоў да бацькі, ехаў канём (this construction is also widespread in almost all southern Belarusian dialects), мне баліць галава.

The isoglosses marking the distribution of these constructions, like those of many other features presented in the Atlas, extend beyond the borders of Belarus and cross the areas of neighboring Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish) and Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian) languages⁶. Thus, the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” will also provide valuable material for the general atlas of the Slavic languages, historical-comparative linguistics, and various other studies.

Naturally, this publication is also important for the study of the Lithuanian language. The close ties between the Baltic and Slavic peoples, maintained over many centuries, have left clear traces in their languages as well. Linguists have long been interested in the linguistic commonalities of particularly close neighbors—the Lithuanians and Belarusians—and in the influence of their languages on one another. For example, the hardening of the consonant l in eastern Lithuanian dialects (cf. láDas < lėdas, aukūnė < alkūnė), and the pronunciation of the affricates c, dz in place of the literary language’s consonants t, d (cf. dúoc, dzienà instead of dúoti, dienà), are also characteristic of Belarusian (cf. воўк < волк “wolf”; даць < дать “give,” дзень < день “day”). Some linguists believe that Belarusian was instrumental in spreading these features in Lithuanian dialects. However, Lithuanian dialectal vocabulary has been most strongly influenced by Belarusian. Here are a few more widely used Belarusianisms: batviniai “beetroot, beet-leaf soup” (Belarusian бацвін(н)е “beet leaves and stems”), bočia, bočius “father, grandfather” (Belarusian бацька “father”), bulba “potato” (Belarusian бульба), uzbonas “pitcher” (Belarusian збан “pitcher, jar”), ūtar yti “to speak, chat” (Belarusian гутарыць). Some loans from Belarusian have even entered the vocabulary of literary Lithuanian, for example: norągas, priešlas, sijōnas (Belarusian нарог; прэсла, прісло; са́йн).

Indeed, doubts sometimes arise as to whether a Lithuanian loanword came from Belarusian or from another Slavic language (e.g., Polish or Russian). In such cases, the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” will now be of great help to linguists, since it gives the precise geographical distribution of many Belarusian words and forms. On the basis of the Atlas’s factual material, the explanations of the origins of many Lithuanian words can be refined. For example, the origin of the dialect word gručkas “rutabaga” has hitherto been explained in various ways. Attempts have been made to connect the word with both the Polish word gruszki “a certain variety of potato” and the Belarusian бружка⁸ “rutabaga,” and it has also been derived from a Lithuanian dialect form

⁵ Cf. Ю. Ф. Мацкевич, А. Г. Мурашко, А. В. Орешонкова, Об итогах работы по составлению атласа белорусских народных говоров, „Вопросы диалектологии восточно-славянских языков“, Москва, 1964, p. 45 tt.

⁶ Cf. А. П. Непокупный, Ареальные аспекты балто-славянских языковых отношений, Киев, 1964, p. 62 tt.

⁷ Cf. E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955 tt., p. 302.

⁸ Plg. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, III, Vilnius, 1956, p. 653.

232

krūčkas “griežtis” (instead of this form, also borrowed from Belarusian, the voiced initial k, g, is thought to have arisen already in the Lithuanian dialects themselves⁹). The Atlas shows that Belarusian, in addition to other names for the kohlrabi (бручка, бручка, бручна, грыжчына, грыжа, кру́чка...), also has гру́чка (276). This latter name, like кру́чка, is characteristic of the Belarusian dialects along Lithuania’s border (the Glubokoye and Pastavy districts). Thus, the forms krūčkas and grūčkas now used in certain Lithuanian dialects were most likely borrowed from different Belarusian dialects.

The “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” will also be of considerable use to linguists investigating the influence of the Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) languages on Belarusian. Of particular interest are those dialectal features that are most widespread in Belarusian dialects in direct contact with Lithuanian or Latvian dialects, e.g., the suffix -юк (-ук), used to form certain diminutive nouns (296), and the suffix -ене, used to form words such as бульбаве́не “potato haulm” (cf. Lithuanian dialect bulviẽnis, bulbiẽnis), кармафле́не “the same” (280–2); individual words: рэгзіні, ре̨зіні (254) – Lithuanian rėžginės; жэгін (234) – Lithuanian žaginys; дзірван (275) – Lithuanian dirvonas; асве́р, свер, свіршня, свірсня... (242–4) – Lithuanian svirtis. The following Baltic loanwords are quite widely used in Belarusian: мянта, мянця, ме́нта, ме́нця... (264) – Lithuanian mentė; сіірта (сіірта), сіірда... (288) – Lithuanian stirta; свіран, све́ран, свіро́нак (239) – Lithuanian svìrnas, and others. The presumed Lithuanian loanword ёўня, ёўня (233) – Lithuanian jauja – is most widespread in the eastern part of the Byelorussian SSR, while in the southwestern corner (Polesia) the form клу́ня, клёня (235) – Lithuanian klúonas is found.¹⁰

Certain calls used to summon animals or birds, too, most likely passed from eastern Lithuanian dialects into neighboring Belarusian dialects, e.g., for cows: тпрусь-тпрусь (304) – Lithuanian tprus(e)-tprus(e); for sheep: базь-базь (305) – Lithuanian baz-baz; for geese: зю-зю-зю, зюлю-зюлю, жуль-жуль (307) – Lithuanian žiu-žiu-žiu, žiul(e)-žiul(e), žiu-žiu, and others.

The lexical material presented in the Atlas will also make it easier to understand analogous cases of borrowing in word formation and in individual meanings. The relationship between the forms mažinki, mažilki, mažilnik “cemetery,” used chiefly in western Belarusian dialects (318), and the word mažila “grave” is analogous to the relationship between Lithuanian kapai, kapinės and kapas¹¹. Western Belarusians may have borrowed one meaning of the word rauti from Lithuanian; compare Belarusian лён рваць – Lithuanian linus rauti “to pull flax”; in eastern Belarusian dialects, the expression used in this case is лён браць (267).

The Atlas material also brings into sharper focus the distribution across Belarus of certain words common to Baltic and Slavic languages, e.g.: клець (239) – Lithuanian klėtis; малака, мо́лака, мало́ка (315) – Lithuanian talkė; арúць, о́руць (265) – Lithuanian arti.

Research into the commonalities between Lithuanian and Belarusian and their mutual influence will be even more successful once an atlas of the Lithuanian language is published. It is a pity, however, that the “Questionnaires” used to collect material for the atlases of Belarusian and Lithuanian were not adequately coordinated in advance – in both “Questionnaires,” for example, it could have

⁹ Plg. V. Urbutis, Dvi etimologijos pastabos, „Kalbotyra“, I, Vilnius, 1958, p. 220–221.

¹⁰ Plg. E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, p. 192.

¹¹ In northern Polish dialects, the form mogiłki “cemetery” is, in the opinion of some linguists, a semantic borrowing, or so-called calque, from Lithuanian; cf. Cz. Kudzinowski, Jacyngowie w języku, “Acta Baltico-slavica,” Białystok, 1964, p. 224.

233

there are many more common or analogous questions of syntax and lexicon (it is precisely vocabulary that best reveals the historical ties between these languages).

In its structure and principles of compilation, the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” does not, in a certain sense, differ from previously published Soviet¹² and many foreign linguistic atlases. This atlas presents only factual material (the geographical distribution of the most important dialectal phenomena of the Belarusian language), but offers no investigation or scholarly analysis of that material. It is to be hoped that Belarusian linguists will carry out such work in the future and publish their generalizations and conclusions in other publications¹³.

Several other critical remarks that can be made to the compilers of the “Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language” concern mostly nonessential matters and individual methodological details. We shall mention a few of them here.

The atlas contains maps devoted to names or terms whose meanings are not specified or differentiated in greater detail. For example, map no. 231 shows the distribution of various names for a sheepfold. One of the most widely used names is аўчарнік, which, however, denotes not quite the same object in different parts of Belarus: it refers both to a sheep pen in a shared barn, an annex to the barn intended for sheep, and a separate sheep barn (on a collective farm). The map does not show the differentiation in meaning of the word аўчарнік and its other synonyms, nor the geographical distribution of these meanings. Admittedly, such shortcomings also arose for certain objective reasons—chiefly because the linguistic or ethnographic data recorded by the Atlas’s collectors were insufficient or not entirely accurate.

It seems regrettable that the Atlas maps do not show the geographical distribution of such appealing or relatively widely used synonyms as істомка, барання alongside стомка, варыўня “little pantry, storeroom” (240); сіверна, се́верна alongside холодна, сцюдзёна, зімна “cold” (321), and so on.

Syntactic constructions are not presented entirely consistently: all the words in some constructions are marked for stress (208, 209, 212, 213, 216, 217, 219), but not in others (206, 207, 214, 215, 218).

The titles of some Atlas maps are too terse, and as a result the map’s content is not always clear to the reader from the title. This is especially true when the title word has several meanings; cf. the ambiguous title of map no. 229, “Назвы гары”: the map shows the distribution of names for an attic (loft), but the Belarusian word гара means not only “attic” but also “mountain” (the latter meaning is listed first in the dictionary). It would have been appropriate to give the Latin terms as well for titles referring to plants.

Among the supplementary maps in the Atlas, we miss a geographical (relief) map of the Byelorussian SSR, which might help readers better understand the emergence and distribution of the isoglosses of individual dialect features.

K. Morkūnas ir A. Vidugiris

¹² Cf., for example, Атлас русских народных говоров центральных областей к востоку от Москвы, под редакцией Р. И. Аванесова, Москва, 1957; Й. О. Дзензелівський, Лінгвістичний атлас українських народних говорів Закарпатської області УРСР (Лексика), 1, Ужгород, 1958.

¹³ Belarusian linguists, drawing on the Atlas material, have already published some works offering generalizations; cf. the significant collective work “Нарысы па беларускай дыялекталогіі” (Мінск, 1964, 416 р.), individual articles in “Вопросы диалектологии восточно-славянских языков” (Москва, 1964), “Беларуская мова”. Даследаванні па лексікalogіі (Мінск, 1965), and elsewhere.

234