Du rumunų kalbininko darbai baltoslavikos klausimais

‘gypsum’ (plg. lie. sud-6klis ’gypsum pustyklé’), lie. saudi-oil ,sandy $lamutis — Helichrysum arenarium’ (Varėna) and, maybe, shit „such a mushroom, similar to į rudmése” (Šimkaičiai). Physiographical term sūd-uva ‘klampyné’ is the same verb in other su Lithuanian terms of this kind: siet-uva "deep river place", rag-uva „water-carried ditch ar deeply carved out road place“, kil-iava "river threshold- ", kriok-uva "stream, waterfall". Both the Baltic toponyms and the general lexicon would indicate a probable Baltic origin. *sū-d-, meaning probably "water-filled, wet, viscous", and probably indistinguishable from ide. *sour-s**; plg. lie. salty, ssl. syrs "naB, feucht", sen. Shame. sulrr "sour, sharp, beiBend". The Baltic co-roots sū-ir sū-ryra only have different root determinatives. It shows and lies. sū-d-yti, which is derived from the root sūiterative determinative su -d-. Thus, Sūduva is a land of marshes, swamps and swamps. This meaning of the name corresponds to the physiographical characteristics of the region between the Mazurian Lakes and the Nemunas River, where the centre of the Suduvius ethnic area was located. M. Rudnickis’ work contains even more interpretatioir ns that are contradicted by Baltistic data, such as the question of the Balts’ old Slavisms, the chronology of some migrations, the prehistoric territory of the Balts, but this requires a much broader article. Here we were concerned to clarify only the matters related to the onomastics of the Baltic languages, and to show how imprudent it is to draw general conclusions based on random language data, which are not necessarily accurate. A. Vraciu, The Problem of the Balto-Slavic Linguistic Community, “Romanoslavica”, IV, Bucharest, 1960, p. 87—106. 2. A. Vraciu, The current state of research in the field of linguistic relations between the balto-slavic and germanic languages, “Romanoslavica”, VI, Bucharest, 1962, pp. 41—47. In the philological journal of the People’s Republic of Romania, Romanoslavica, two articles by the Romanian linguist Ariton Vraciu on the genesis of Baltic languages attract attention. The problems discussed in the articles are extremely relevant. Since the emergence of comparative-historical linguistics, the origin of the Baltic languages, the place of other languages has been discussed. languages and relations with other languages. languages questions. The language is closely related to the Baltic and Slavic languages. These problems still exist today. Determined efforts to solve these problems, particularly the relations between Baltic and Slavic languages, are being made at present in connection with the international congresses of Slavists organized ®| Alois Walde, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, II, Berlin und. The topicality of these problems is also shown by the articles in question. In the first article, A. Vračiu addresses the question of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages. Initially, the author sets out and discusses various speakers' views on this issue. A. Vračiu indicates that the majority of linguists of the 19th and 20th centuries —A. A. Šleicheris, A. Potebnia, F. Fortunatovas, V. Poržezinskis, A. Šachmatov, A. Pogodinas, A. Ulja- "novas, V. Bogorodickis, J. Karlovičius, J. Rozvadovskis, O. Hujeris, T. LerSplavinskis, J. Otrembskis, J. Safarevičius, O. Semerenis, VI. Georgijevas, J. Kurilovičius, A. Vajanas, P. Aruma, M. Loimanas, V. Kiparskis and others. In addition, A. Vračiu discusses A. Meja’s concept that the Baltic and Slavic languages B. inherited from the Id. some common Leipzig, 1927, p. 513. 325 developmental trends, developed in parallel. This explains the great similarity of these languages. A. Vračiu assigns to this theory the views of A. Zeno, V. Matthews, V. Mažiulis and others. The author of the article considers J. Endzelynas, S. Bernšteinas, B. Gornungas, T. Ler-Splavinskis, archaeologists and anthropologists V. Hensel, J. Čekanovskis, K. Mošinskis as representatives of the convergence theory. According to this theory, the Baltic and Slavic languages originated from different ide. dialects and converged only later. The Romanian linguist believes that the correct concept is that the Baltic and Slavic languages belong to the same ide. dialectal area. These concepts are followed, as stated by A. Vračiu, linguists J. Otrembskis, VI. Georgiev, V. Ivanov, V. Toporov and the archaeologist P. Tretyakov. * The grouping of individual linguist concepts on the question of relations between Baltic and Slavic languages in A. Vračiu article raises some doubts. It seems that in his practical research V. Mažiulis tends to follow the principles of linguistic differentiation and integration raised by J. Endzelynas. * It would be appropriate to distinguish the views of V. Ivanov and V. Toporov, on the one hand, and J. Otrembski and VI. Georgiev, from the other. "O'Brien: 'I've changed my mind'". theguardian.com. Georgiev is not satisfied with the derivation of the Baltic and Slavic languages from one ide. dialect and time Baltic and Slavic languages .originating from linguistic unity, which in turn diverged from ide. prokalbės. * Attributed to J. Otrembski and V1. Georgiev- 's views on the concept of the origin of Baltic and Slavic languages from ide. unified dialectal area, means! It should be said that these articles are not the only works of this kind by A. Vračiu. He has been interested in Baltic languages for a long time; This is shown by his articles: Problema vechilor relafii lingvistice balto-slave in discutia celui de—al IV-lea congres international al slavistilor, „Studii gi cercetdri stiintifice”, IX, 1-2, 1958, p. 151-164; De la indo —europednd la baltoslavai —inovitii morfologige,,,Analele stiintifice ale Universita tii „Al. J. Cuza" din Jasi", V, 1959, p. 115-123; General characteristics of the Baltic languages, „Studii si cercetdri stiintifice“ X, 1-2, 1959, p. 109-138. 2 Zr. the Lithuanian version of his presentation at the IV-th Slavistic Congress „Notes on the question of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages“, „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, vol. 2, 1959, p. 15. 8 See Slavia Occidentalis, vol. 18, 1939-1947, p. 448. 1 51, C. Orpem6ckruf, Chasano-- Gajirufickoe 3bik0B06e ejnuncTBO, «Bonpochi A3bIKo3HaHHA>, 1954, Ne 6, p. 43, B. I eoprunes, HecjnenoBanus no cpaBHHTeAbHO-HCTOpH- "ecKOMY A135iKO3HAHHIO, Mocksa, 1958, p. 220. 326 sutapatinti su A. Mayes, who repeatedly stated ide. the identities iš of the dialects from which the ir Baltic Slavic languages originated." ; V. Ivanovas ir V. Toporov concluded that the distinct phonological ir morphological patterns of the Baltic ir Slavs coincided with the ir Slavic model, and that the Slavic model is the result of Baltic substitution, the Slavic t. y. languages being relatively younger. To support the concept that the Baltic Slavic ir languages belong to a unified ide. dialectal area, A. Vraciu refers to the ir innovations of the Baltic iš Slavic languages ir in phonetics, grammar lexicon. The treatment of some phenomena here is also questionable. 1. Speaking of ide. A, ¢ reflexes in Slavic languages, A. Vračiu repeats, rejecting the traditional interpretatJ. ion, Otrembski's statement that in Slavic languages, such as ir Baltic, id. 4, dvirto a ir only after 0”. This J. The Otrembski statement was justifiably criticized." It would have been easier to ir understand if A. Vračiu, in order to find a new argument for the Balto-Slavic protolanguage, had claimed that id. d, d in the proto-Baltic, as in the Slavic, gave o only after ir a. Serious arguments to support J the existence of the Baltic proto-language in recent years have been raised E. Nieminenas ir J. "Kazakhstan". 2. Ide., sonant-lir, /, m, n ke reflexa, be Balto-Slair vic languages, seem to have pelazgi (ur [ru], ul [lu], un, um [on, om] or and, il, in, im)" Thracian languages ir (ur, ul, un, um)". 3. to form suffix -rfor plural nouns, without white (four) Slavic ir (s. sl. četvoro), has ir Tocharian language (Swerar , ketveri”)'2, 4. The innovation of the Baltic and Slavic languages is considered the communicative -ti (nešti and Kecru). This fact loses its probative value, since the same ending is found in the Tocharian language (cf. toch. A kdrs-na-- tsi, toch. B karsa-tsi "to know", where —{isi from the older —ti) '*. 5 A. Meillet, Les dialectes indo-européens, Paris, 1922, p. 40-48. 6 B. B. HB8Banos u B. H. Tonopos, K nocranoske Bonpoca 0 npeBueliumx ofHoweEHhaX GanTHŪCKHX H CJABAHCKHX A3bIKOB, Mocksa, 1958, p. 39. Tha. C. OrpemGekui, CaassHo- -Gaatuiickoe s35iK0OBO0e egnHHCTBO, BS, 1954, Ne 5, p. 28. 1888: The criticism of Otrembski's ide. d, J see C. B. Bepumre- #n, Baaro-caaBAHCKASI S3bIKOBAA COOOnLIHOCTb, «<CnaaBanckas Ounojnornas, I, 1958, pp. 51-52; C. B. bepunmreiin Ouepk cpasBuurejibuoli TpaMMaTHKH CAABAHCKHX S3bIKOB, Mocksa, 1961, pp. 145-146. * E, Nieminen, Uber einige Eigenschaften der baltischen Sprache, die sich in den ältesten baltischen Lehnwörtern der baltischen Finnischen Sprachen widerspiegelt (Special report from the proceedings of the Finnish Academy of Sciences, 1956, Helsinki, 1957), p. 199-200; UH. Kasaayckac, K passutuio o6mebanTuiickoii cHCTeMM | raachnix, BL, 1962, No 4, pp. 23-24. 10 B. FTeoprneBs, HecrenoBawns no CpaBHHTEJIbHO-HCTODpHUEeCKOMY S135IKO3HAHHDO, Mocksa, 1958, p. 92. "B Feoprues, op. cit. p. 136. 1? E Fraenkel, Grammar of Tocharian and Baltic languages, Archivum Philologicum, t. 3, 1932, p. 12—13. 18 B. Kpayse, Toxapckuit sank, «Toxapckue ssmiki (c60pHux crareit)- », Mocksa, 1959, p. 69, 77. 327 5. The use of ir negative verbs by the pronoun of po Baltic Slavic languages (plg. Dvarinifikas did not give the villagers pasture nė Zifigsnio (Zemaitė) ir JI ne 3naa gpyroū xusnu (M. Gorky), predicative instrumental (plg. He was my savior ir OH 6biA nucarenem) is likely to be ne tų language innovations, o elements of the Finno-Ugric substrate. 6. Į A. The list of the common vocabulary ir of the Baltic Slavic languages presented by Vračiu ir tų got language a) borrowings: Slavic hand is probably considered iš a loan of the Baltic languages"- *, as such Baltic words, į entering the Slavic languages, are presented by the author: Russian geroTb, KoBW, KpeCA0, NAKAS, SKTApb (from lit. degutas, lat. debts; let. bucket, lat. cup; let. chair, lat. chair, pr. creslan; let. Puffs, lat. pile; let. gifitūras, pr. gentars)'*. In Slavic languages, the word ranka is isolated, whereas in Baltic languages it is easily etymologicalized, cf. let. ranka, lat. smoke, pr. ranco, rancko ir verb rifikti, refika; for the change of vowels refika: rafiką plg. to raise a : mountain, to help, : to move. : b) Lat. knife, lit. rye (which A. It is a shortened form of the old Lithuanian term, lat. narag, lat. klanit are generally considered to be Slavic words'*. 7. Lithuanian ir breasts Russian rpygs (plg. sen. left. grzedzi) does not allow to link phonetic mismatch. Russian rpyg» sietinas su gr. Beévdog Pride", lot. grown "groB, exalted, significant", o song. breast is inseparable from load, blood, load. Romanian linguist used one Soviet ne Lithuanian linguist (V. Mažiulis, Z. Zinkevičius, A. Valeckienė) works with a ir fairly large amount of Baltic, especially Lithuanian, language material. Only instead of kūusas villagers he (89), my breast (102), should write (102), spelled (102), bucket, (103) villagers, he, my, breast. ir Having a - priori recognized the genetic unity of the Baltic Slavic languages, in the second article ir A. Vračiu talks about the place of the "Balto-Slavic" languages in other ide. among languages. A. I return, following VI. In other words, the Slavic languages ir are the descendaniš ts of the Baltic Slavic languages. languages, the closest are Germanic. For this purpose, seven Balto-Slavic-Germanic isoglosses (plural su -m-, feminine genitive participle amusement, daryba, etc.) „1000“ ir These isoglosses perhaps ir allow the Baltic, Slavic, Germanic (and Tocharian) languages to be considered ide. group of dialects, but su ne On a smaller basis, we can talk ir about the Germanic and Italic dialect group. However, these isoglosses should not be associated with the plural noun-adjective endings of no second gender *-ū, because it has ją indy-iranény ir language (plg. skr. yugd. However, on the other hand, we must not forget that the ir Baltic Germanic languages are linked by isoglosses, seemingly foreign to the Slavic languages. Iš jų between can be pami+ nted the following: It Plg. C. B. Bepuwredn, Ouepk CPABHHTEALHOR rpaMMaTHKH CAABAHCKHX S3blkos, Mocksa, 1961, p. 92. 15 Other Baltic Slavic words are presented by A. Sabaliauskas, New etymological dictionary of the Russian language, "Lithuanian linguistics issues", t. 4, 1961, p. 319 tt. BK Mūlenbacha Latvian language dictionary. Editing, adding, continuing J. Endzelins, Riga, I-IV, in Baltic 1923—1932. 328 1) It's going. 4, d Germanic ir languages turned plg., got. a, ahtdu "eight", lit. eight: lot. octa; sen. vok. height. Ahsa, let. axis: lot. axis, skr. axsa-h'""; 2) numbering: got. ainlif: lie. Eleven, got. bajops ‘above’: lit. 2nd, got. Beautiful, you. English. form, no. scissors. form:'® lit. first (Slavic languages have another suffix here, cf. sen. sl. prbvb); 3) pronouns plural 1 person got. white ( 2 (lit. wind (< *ve-duuo), 2 person sen. Shame. it: liet. Judu'? ; 4) frequent coincidences in word formation, cf. sen. isl. bran ,,Rand, Kante, Braue": song. briauna (sen. sl. brb-v-s), got. fairns wvorjahrig": song. pérnai (forming -n-) kt. ; ? ir 5) rich vocabulary community to name natural phenomena (construction liet. snow dribbles, lat. It's going to be snowy. isl. drifr snaer), for body parts (lit. thigh: sen. isl. blue “soft, tender, fearful”, vid. vok. Jam. blot “bloB, naked, arm”; let. pest, kinka: sen. English. hoh (<*hank) "Heel, knee neck", sen.isl. Huey Ferse), for kinship relationships (lit. svdinis: sen vok. height. swein "Servant, ir Shepherd") kt.2! These Balto-Germanic isoglosses should not be ignored by researchers. They show that we can even speak of an epoch of the Baltic-Germanic language ir community- ** ide. within the northern dialect group, which existed even before the abilitation of palatalization of gutural consonants. The most ir extensive parallels between the Slavic and Germanic languages are probably much later. On the other hand, there is reason to talk about the Slavic languages’ closeness to the Indo-Iranian languages.23 Junginių us, is, ks, virtimas uš, iš, kš, rs (š>sl. rš ch) is a common phenomenon of Slavic ir Indo-Iranian languages, it clearly ir shows the close connections that existed between the languages. tų The partial reflection of this phenomenon in the Baltic (š po k, r) languages speaks of the autonomy of the to Baltic languages in the course of lawful operation. Of course, parallels between ir Baltic and Indo-Iranian languages cannot be ruled out, but they are probably the result of later contacts. A. The appearance of Vraciu’s articles in a Romanian philological journal shows how important the Baltic languages are for language science and ir how important it is to solve the problems su related to them. One such iš problem is the ir genealogy of the ir Baltic Slavic languages. Correctly solve this problem 73. Npokow, Cpasunrenbuas. rpaMMaTHKA TepMAHCKHX s3biKoB, Mocksa, 1954, p. 98. 3 IMpokow, op. cit. p. 315, 319. 19 3, MNMpokomw, op. cit., p. 311. ® E. Fraenkel, Lithuanian etymological dictionary, Heidelberg-Gottingen, tt. 1955 "I E. Fraenkel, op. cit. Plg. H. C. Uemonanos, K sonpocy o repmano-GaaTHACKHX A3LIKOBWX CBA38X, <Bonpocs repmanckoro s3biKO3HaHHS> (Martepuanm Bropoli * Kayunofi CecCHMM NO BONPOCAM TrepPMAHCKOro s3biKosHauwusi), Mocksa—Jlenunrpan, 1961, D. 75 tt. ® H C. Yemonawuos, Op. cit., p. 74. * Slavo-Indo-Iranian isogloses zr. T. Burrow, The Sanskrit Language, London, UK 1955, p. 18—23. 22. Questions of Speech VI. 329