LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI. III

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

MORE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE RAMAŠKONYS DIALECT¹

J. ŠUKYS

Ramaškónys is the most Lithuanian-speaking village in a small Lithuanian-speaking enclave located in the territory of the Byelorussian SSR and occupying the eastern part of the Varanavas (Balatnõs²) district. There are also more Lithuanian-speaking villages in the western part of Varanavas district (around Nevėžiai) and especially in the Ródūnia district. The Lithuanian SSR border lies about 8 km north of Ramaškónys; to the east, the village borders the Dievėniškės area. In the Ramaškónys enclave itself, Lithuanian-speaking and Lithuanian-understanding people can be found in a dozen or so villages across an area approximately 12–15 km long (from north to south) and 6–8 km wide (from west to east). Most live in the villages of Ramaškónys, Tūsamoniai, Dainava, Stanišiai, Bieliūnai, and Biliai. According to local residents, some 50 years ago Lithuanian was predominant here (“Grandpa, the old man, couldn’t say half a word in Belarusian”). But nowadays Lithuanian is no longer used daily even in these villages. Few families speak Lithuanian at home, although almost all local residents of these villages over 30 years of age know or at least understand Lithuanian. At present, Lithuanian can no longer serve as a fully functioning means of communication in the enclave described here, because interpersonal ties have grown much stronger, mixed marriages have become more frequent, the doors of schools have opened wide to young people, and the press and radio have become widely available; all of this strengthens the influence of the Belarusian language. Polish has gained greater prevalence only in church villages and former manors, while the former Lithuanian-speaking villages of Varanavas district generally speak Belarusian today.

The dialect of the Ramaškónys area began to be studied more thoroughly only during the Soviet period, specifically from 1952 onward. That year, a dialectological expedition organized by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature visited several villages in the enclave under study, including Ramaškónys, recorded dialect texts, and answered some of the questions in the “Program for Collecting Materials for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language.” Additional material was collected by a reconnaissance dialectological expedition organized by the same institute in 1957. The study of the dialect was completed during the 1959 dialectological expedition. The article will draw on material collected by this expedition, mostly recorded by the author from speakers of the Ramaškónys village dialect. The material collected by earlier expeditions does not differ from that of the 1959 expedition.

¹ The author presented a paper on the phonetic and morphological features of the Ramaškónys dialect at the 1959 dialectological conference.

² Local Lithuanian-speaking residents most often use Balatnã instead of the official name Varanavas.

12. Kalbotyros klausimai, III

177

Using the contrastive method, the article will describe the more characteristic phonetic, morphological, syntactic, and lexical features of this endangered dialect, without delving into their historical development or their distribution in other Lithuanian dialects.

Phonetics

Vocalism. One of the first vocalic phenomena of the Ramaškónys dialect to catch the eye is the monophthongization of the diphthongs ie, uo into i˙, u˙. Whether these diphthongs are stressed or unstressed, with falling or rising accent, in the stem or at the end of a word, and whether the word is native or borrowed makes no difference: in the speech of younger dialect speakers they are generally reduced to monophthongs, e.g.: p˙i˙nas, svi˙tas, ki˙mi, klu˙nas, ju˙kas, kurdėlis. Dialect speakers over 50–60 years of age, although indistinctly, often pronounce the second element of the diphthong as well; it would have to be transcribed in a manner similar to that used in P. Arumaa’s texts from the Zietela area³, e.g.: Savclėnė (surname), n˙ėkas, dž˙ievilis, džio-na, pi˙emuo, uo˙gauč. The oldest speaker of the Ramaškónys village dialect, nearly a hundred years old and originally from the neighboring village of Dainava, does not monophthongize the diphthongs ie, uo at all, e.g.: paucieni˙ “omelet,” džievvas, kiemi, svečiosna, dióonos, kuodėlis. Thus, with a few minor exceptions, the pronunciation of the diphthongs ie, uo is noticeably dependent on the age of dialect speakers and is variable (sometimes the same speaker pronounces the same word differently). All this indicates that this phonetic phenomenon is relatively recent. The change of the diphthongs ie, uo into i˙, u˙ or i˙e, uo also occurs in other southern Lithuanian enclaves located in the territory of the Byelorussian SSR: especially frequently in the Zietela dialect⁴, sporadically and irregularly in the Lazūnai dialect⁵, and in unstressed position in Lithuanian villages in the neighboring Rodūnia district, e.g., Pelesa and Kargaudai.

The other diphthongs do not differ from the standard language; only the pronunciation of the falling-accented and unstressed diphthong au is noteworthy: its first element is heavily assimilated to the second and is pronounced with a distinct o coloring, e.g.: làũkas, dàũk, gàncũ, audėjà, raspi˙làu.

Turning to mixed diphthongs, we should first consider am, an, em, en, on the basis of whose pronunciation the Dzūkians are divided into western and eastern groups. A. Salys, presumably for lack of sufficient material, drew the boundary between the western and eastern Dzūkians on his map⁶ via Trakai and Eišiškės in the direction of Lida, assigning the entire present-day Varanavas district, including Ramaškónys, to the eastern Dzūkians. J. Senkus and V. Grinaveckis noted this inaccuracy and revised the boundary in 1952⁷. In fact, the principal feature of the eastern Dzūkians—puntininkavimas—is absent from the speech of even the oldest dialect speakers from Ramaškónys all the way to Biliai. The diphthongs am, an, em, en are preserved intact everywhere, e.g.: sámcis, páncis, kàmpas, rañkos, kampẽlis, rankà, lantà, pẽmpė, g˙venč, peñktas, peñk. Apparently, the boundary separating the western Dzūkians from the eastern ones ran between Ramaškónys and Dieveniškės, since in Dieveniškės, as

³ See P. Arumaa, Lithuanian Dialect Texts from the Wilna Region, 41–53, Dorpat, 1930.

⁴ See P. Arumaa, cited work, ibid.

⁵ See J. Senkus, Some Features of the Lazūnai Dialect. — Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, series A, 185, Vilnius, 1958.

⁶ See the map appended to Archivum Philologicum, 4, Kaunas, 1933.

⁷ See J. Senkus and V. Grinaveckis, Some Questions of Dialectology in School. — “Soviet School,” 9, 16, 1952.

178

as shown by the dialectological material collected by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, am, an, em, en are already being replaced by um, un, im, in.

The fate of the old an, en, which standard Lithuanian reflects as ą, ę, is different. In the Ramaškonys dialect, as throughout Dzūkija, they correspond in this case to u˙; i˙, e.g.: kù˙snis, šù˙la, žù˙sės, mẽrgu, tì˙sc, kárvi˙, šì˙ ~ sen, tì˙ ~ ten. From the old word-final *á˙n, *é˙n endings, which developed into un, an, the consonant n disappeared, and short u, i appeared in the dialect, e.g.: su mergù, su paklotáiti “little sheet,” pūodì, tvàrti, kaũ.

In mixed diphthongs with a falling accent, the first element is lengthened, e.g.: il, im, in, ir, ul, um, un, ur Vi˙lñus, sod˙nč, bū˙lù; indá˙rė.

The vowels of the Ramaškonys dialect differ little from those of standard Lithuanian. The dialect’s e, especially when stressed, is very open, e.g.: mãtai, ri˙talis, pẽmpė. The dialect is characterized by the pronunciation of the diphthong ⟨ai⟩ as ⟨ei⟩: they say kāp, tēp, visāp, kitāp, šēp, tēp, itep. The vowels ė, o are occasionally pronounced almost like the diphthongs ie, uo, particularly by younger speakers of the dialect, e.g.: niẽra, tiẽvas, diẽd˙nė, nemiõku, muotkà.

Irregularities and phenomena difficult to explain occur in the dialect’s word-final vocalism. In unstressed word-final position, alongside ė (which is sometimes half-long or resembles ie), short e is also frequent, e.g.: mõke, vẽrpste, dãre. In the singular accusative ending, which, as is known, is always unstressed, a short vowel also occurs alongside the long one, e.g.: ùžsu, kùški. At the end of a stressed word, younger dialect speakers, more strongly influenced by Slavic languages, lengthen short vowels, e.g.: tùrù, galù˙, miegmì˙, dartì˙, while in this position they pronounce the vowel a as a peculiar short ė, e.g.: Dainavė, rankė, narė “cave.”⁸

Of the vowel combinations, syncope is most characteristic of the right-bank dialect. Particularly characteristic is syncope of the vowel in the reflexive particle, e.g.: ažùzdegė < ažùsdegė, nuzbùdo, pašbōrė, ȧpsėmė “undertook,” pašėmė “took for oneself.” Syncope also altered the form of the prefixes apɨ-, ati-, e.g.: abárstė < apbárstė < apibárstė; aduotáu < aduotáu < atiduotáu; adārė “opened,” atrù˙ko “broke off.” Syncope also occurs outside prefixes, e.g.: prièmė, šùrni̇n, but, on the other hand, it is absent where it has already occurred in most Lithuanian dialects, e.g.: vãlinas “devil,” ãntaras “second.”

Consonantism. Of the consonantal features of the Ramaškonys dialect, dzūkavimas is the most characteristic.

Standard Lithuanian affricates č, dž, which developed from tj, dj, are consistently pronounced c, dz, e.g.: svẽco, gaidžãu, aũdža, sveči˙, gaidžù˙, kùrcas, negirdžù. There is, however, a regular exception here: if all other cases or persons in the paradigm lack c, dz, then in the case or person that has č, dž in the literary language, instead of the expected c, dz one finds t, d, e.g.: kaĩtù, raidù˙, rankù˙, gì˙rdau, šuntáu (cf. katė, katės, katei, katį, katį, katėj, katės…, gì˙rdau, gì˙rdei…). This leveling is thought to have occurred by analogy⁹.

Standard Lithuanian consonants t, d before i, y, į, ie are pronounced c, dž, and the clusters tv, dv are pronounced cv, džv, e.g.: kãcinas, nakcìs, atvažuodzinėjo, kvì˙cìna “chicken meat,” džìevàs, šaudži-klė, buteláici (sing. acc.), bù˙c, cvìnkė, dzèvìlika. However, this pattern is not strictly consistent. One also hears didelis, didelo, sod˙nč, apkvaitinšu “I’ll stun, daze,” pardu˙dinėc, nekrikšči˙ta, as well as very weak dzūkavimas, e.g.: d(ž)t-

⁸ In cases where the dialect’s phonetics are mixed and irregular, examples are given throughout the article exactly as recorded, without any emendations.

⁹ See Lietuvių kalbos tarmės, Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas, 124, Kaunas, 1948.

179

delis, atvažiuod (≈) inėc. Sometimes the same dialect speaker pronounces the same word differently, although, in general, c and dz clearly predominate. However, t and d always remain unchanged before i arising from the old word-final *-ėⁿ and in more recent loanwords, e.g.: su kari, su kaladį, tvārti, piōdi, išinkavōta, tikēc.

The clusters šť (žd) before i, y, į, ie have, through assimilation, turned into šč (ždž), e.g.: suvėdšč, ru’kščis, višč’na “poultry meat.”

Another characteristic feature of the Ramaškoniai dialect is the hardening of consonants. The consonant l is always hardened before e, ei, en, ė. After hardened l, e, ei, en become a, ai, an, e.g.: lādas, lāka, pālamus, lāisk, lānda “slips,” sūlankos “fold them,” lāngva, lantēla; while the vowel e becomes the vowel ɛ, e.g.: ci’lēc, lēke, rasplēše, ski’lē, pęlē. However, at the end of an unstressed word, where Standard Lithuanian has ė, the dialect has not only ɛ after l, e.g.: kāūle, akāles but also a, e.g.: kāūla, sāūla, impī’la. Apparently, from an early period, both ė and e were used alongside one another at the end of unstressed words in the dialect described here, instead of Standard Lithuanian ė, since the sequence la can arise only from le. From the old word-final *-ėⁿ, b’ arose after hardened l, e.g.: kum’ēlb; sāūlb’, whereas from old *-ėⁿ, bl developed, e.g.: su kumelbl, su sāūlbl.

Among the other consonants that are hardened more often, though irregularly, r is noteworthy: it is sometimes hardened before e, e.g.: rātas “sieve,” rači, ragį, rāka, sometimes before e, e.g.: turēsu, inturējęi “I kept, endured,” and even sometimes before ė, e.g.: parb’nko “stole, took away,” varbsti, grāūsc “to thunder.” Sporadic hardening of š, ž, m, d also occurs occasionally, e.g.: nešōjas, nuvāžu, nežbūno, menesō, pecadēn kšte. Younger dialect speakers seem more inclined to harden consonants. Loans from Belarusian are most often borrowed with hardening, e.g.: pažbīc (Belarusian пазбычь), gaspadinė (Belarusian гаспадыня).

It is noteworthy that dialect speakers do not avoid pronouncing the consonants f, h, ch, which are not characteristic of Lithuanian, e.g.: fābrikas, fundamentas, bu(h)āteras, hī’mnas, cholērija, chōras, chlōpčas “young man,” nechōj “let it be.” This is undoubtedly due to Slavic-language influence. Local residents joke that a few decades ago the elderly did not know how to pronounce these consonants and, even when speaking Belarusian, said kata instead of хата “house.”

The dialect is characterized by the addition of the consonant v before word-initial uo (u*), e.g.: vū’gos, vū’sis, vūodas, pavū’sci’k, vuodega, and of the consonant j before word-initial ė, i, ie, e.g.: jēsc, jēda, jīma, nejilgā, jieva.

Consonants, especially t and s, are sometimes inserted, e.g.: strāba “sips,” strū’ptęra, roīškčais, auštrēla (in a song), apī’nastris, daṅktis, pecadēn kšte.

Stress. The stress of some noun suffixes in the dialect differs from that in Standard Lithuanian. The dialectal suffix -ējā is used for naming agents, instead of Standard Lithuanian -ėja, e.g.: audējā, pjovējā (in the area studied, women do most of the harvesting). For naming fields, -ienā is used instead of Standard Lithuanian -ėna, e.g.: rugienā, kvī’č’nā, avižī’nā. Likewise, for naming meat, -ienā is used instead of -ėna, e.g.: kāūlienā, višč’nā, žū’sienā.

The stress of the future tense and conditional mood verbs differs from that in Standard Lithuanian. In the singular future tense, all primary verbs with circumflex or short roots have generalized suffixal stress, e.g.: aiš, miršū, nešū, aiši, mirši, prilaksi (cf. acute-stem forms bū’su, adū’si). In the conditional mood, suffixal stress is generalized even for primary verbs with acute roots, e.g.: bu’tāu, bu’tāi, bū’ti, bu’rum, bu’uti, bū’t. Only in the plural-

180

meniai veiksmažodžiai tariamojoje nuosakoje kirčiuojami priešagoje ar šaknyje, pvz.: nemėltau, darbūtai, sod’ntum (dg. I a.). Veiksmažodžiai sėdos, stojos, rados visose formose kirčiuojami galūnėje. Apžvelgus svarbesnes tarmės fonetines ypatybes, galima padaryti išvadą, kad Ramaškonių tarmės fonetinė sistema kai kuriais atvejais ne visai dėsninga, pvz., nenuoseklus ie, uo > i, u, nenuosekliai t, d prieš i, y, į, ie > c, dz, nekirčiuotame žodžio gale ė || e ir t.t. Kai kurių svyravimų priežastis, tur būt, yra gyventojų dvikalbiškumas. Pagal pagrindines ypatybes — džūkovimą ir pantininkavimą — Ramaškonių tarmė priklauso vakariniams dzūkams.

Morphology

In morphology, only a few of the more important parts of speech will be reviewed—those that differ more from standard Lithuanian in the Ramaškoniai dialect.

Noun. The plural dative and instrumental cases often have the dual-number endings known in Lithuanian dialects, e.g.: vīram, kāūlom, su bitēm, su rankom. However, in the dialect described, the i-stem and consonant-stem nouns have the ending -mu in these cases, e.g.: akimū, dukterimū, šunimū; su akimū, su dukterimū, su šūnimū.

The dialect described has two locative cases: the interior static (inessive) and the interior directional (illative). The exterior static (adessive) and exterior directional (allative) are no longer used today; for example, instead of the allative form rudenóp, the illative form parudenin. is used. Perhaps only in expressions such as žemės tai nebūvo mumim, the pronoun mumim could be a remnant of the old adessive, where the postpositional particle -p(i) has been lost.

The plural inessive ending is noteworthy: after s it has a rather than the vowel e, e.g.: rūguosa, ki’muosa “in the villages”, Ramaškoni’sa, mėtųsa, Navasi’du’sa, Pārabiškėsa. The dialect described generally does not harden s before e, so it is hardly possible to explain this ending as a phonetic change.¹⁰

In the singular, the illative has the already shortened postposition -n, e.g.: darbań, mėdzan, Li’don, rankon, ūpeń, šulniń; in the plural it has -na, e.g.: krikščī’nosna, svečiosna, Ramaškoni’sna.

As in other Lithuanian dialects, stem mixing is evident in the dialect described. Some case forms of the weaker stems (i, u, and consonant stems) have already borrowed their endings from stronger stems. For instance, the singular instrumental of i-stem nouns has shifted to the io-stem pattern, e.g.: su akū, nōsu, usnū, ugniū, šī’r dzu; the plural nominative of the u (iu) stem has shifted to the a (ja) stem, e.g.: li’tai, turgai, sū’nai, pi’tai “afternoons”, spi’čai “bee swarms”; the singular genitive of the consonant stem has shifted to the ia stem, e.g.: vandėno, akmėno, pi’meno, tašmėno, while the plural nominative of the consonant stem has shifted to the a stem, e.g.: pi’menai, tašmenai, rudenai. However, weaker nominal stems have also retained old endings in some cases. The feminine gender of the consonant stem has proved especially resistant: its singular genitive in the dialect is dukterės, seserės, and its plural nominative is dūkterēs, sēseres. Those i-stem nouns that … have the old consonant-stem plural nominative ending,

¹⁰ See A. Laigonaitė, Vietininkai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje, Filologijos mokslų kandidato disertacija, 15—16, Vilnius, 1955, Vilniaus Valstybinis V. Kapsuko vardo universitetas, rankraščių skyrius.

181

as the hardness of the consonant before the ending in their plural genitive shows, they were in fact formerly consonant stems, e.g.: dãnės, šù-ses, ãžves, pìšes (cf. the historically genuine i-stems, whose plural nominative in the dialect is ãvì-s, ãkì-s, etc.).

Among noun-forming features, noteworthy are the suffix -ysta, which is not characteristic of the literary language (standard Lithuanian -ystė, -ãtvė), e.g.: senì-stà ‘old age’, jáunì-stà ‘youth’, drãugì-stà ‘friendship’, as well as some very popular dialectal diminutive suffixes, such as: -aitė, e.g.: karvaitė, galvaitė ‘a little head’, kojaitės, bulbaitė; -ulis, e.g.: žmogùlis, lietùlis, ponùlis, Bronùlis; -ūtis, e.g.: langùtis, lapùtis ‘a little leaf’, kampùtis, Ludvikùtis.

Pronoun. Instead of the standard Lithuanian personal pronouns jis, ji ‘he, she’, the forms anàs, anà are used. In the plural, however, mès, jù-s are more common (dative mùmim, jùmim, and instrumental — mumìm, jumìm). Instead of the standard Lithuanian demonstrative pronouns šitas, šita, šitoks ‘this, such’, ìtas, itòj, itokìs are used.

Inflected possessive pronouns are widely used in the dialect, e.g.: oh, my dear old woman, my little one has finished me off ‘finished me off’; mine came back only rarely, his came often. Uninflected possessive pronouns are also used alongside them, usually in shortened forms, e.g.: my mother hired herself out to work for a girl; his father and my mother were relatives ‘kin’; our house is getting married.

The feminine forms of demonstrative pronouns have a determinate form, generally uncharacteristic of the dialect¹¹, e.g.: you have work to do in that house; she walks there in Balatnòn.

Verb. Present-tense verbs retain traces of some athematic (consonant-stem) verbs, but the personal endings of these verbs have already been borrowed from vowel-stem verbs, e.g.: mì-gmi, miegmì, miegmà; palìẽkma.

Since the present-tense form with the stem-final consonant n is very common in the dialect, e.g.: bù-na, pjãuma, grì-bàuna, vaikščàuna (from vaikščauč), lãndžàuna (from lãndžàuč), this stem-final consonant has most likely penetrated the contaminated consonant-verb forms mentioned above and, in the speech of most dialect speakers—especially younger ones—has already displaced the formant -m that had become a suffix, e.g.: lì-kna, palì-knì, mĩ-gna, mì-gni, mi-gni. On the other hand, the present tense of the old athematic verb būti ‘to be’, preserved in many dialects, is new in the dialect described here and is usually invariable, e.g.: oh, what kind of person are you?

In the past simple, the verbs kìšė, knìšė, šùvė belong to the ė-stem class.

The past frequentative tense is almost never used.

The future tense differs from standard Lithuanian only in its accentuation (see “Phonetics, accentuation”).

The personal endings of the subjunctive are the same as in most Dzūkian dialects, e.g.: bu˙tau, bu˙tái, bu˙t, bu˙tùm, bu˙tù˙t, bu˙t. The singular and plural third-person forms are usually used in a short form, e.g.: if only to find out, then also to come.

The imperative has only one type—only with the formant -k, e.g.: don’t lament, let’s go.

The permissive mood is formed with the Belarusian-origin particle nechòj, e.g.: let it perish, let it give, let it build, let it recover.

Other morphological features of verb tenses are associated with clear phonetic changes in endings, especially the loss of short vowels. In all tenses

¹¹The dialect’s adjective determinate form is found only in the place name Igda, although all other place names of a similar type are non-determinate, e.g.: Jilgūla ~ Ilgūlė, Platūla ~ Platėlė, Šaurūkai, D(a)idžūlis kalnas.

182

In the first- and second-person plural, the e is most often dropped, e.g.: pjāunam, išėdem, galė j ot, although sometimes, especially among older speakers, this e is still retained, e.g.: dudāname “we talk,” būvome, nemókate. In the third-person singular of the past simple, alongside full endings, shortened ones are used more frequently, e.g.: nemokėj < “he did not know,” nuvėj, paskavój, dāu < dāv < “he gave,” nuvaždau. In some cases, the word-final vowel is dropped in the third-person singular present tense of i-stem verbs as well, e.g.: stóu < “stands,” sėdz. The infinitive ending is always short, e.g.: pjāuc, rāsč, ažujūdinc.

Turning to verb formation in the dialect, we should first consider the intensive iterative (repeated-effort) verbs that are highly characteristic of it. They are generally formed from telic verbs, most often prefixed¹², by adding the suffixes -dinėti or -dyti, e.g.: pradėjom mėdu· perdėdinėc; anā pas Vaišiū· ataido. In the dialect under description, these intensive iterative verbs usually express repetition of an action, although in certain cases they may not do so. Verbs in the generalized present tense, which express a persistent characteristic of the agent, have an iterative meaning, e.g.: anā ažusimdo “she keeps hinting” zababōnais visókāis; jū·s Zošā atimdo “she keeps taking” pienu· (accuses [her] of tasting it); ir ti·nai turgai susiringdo “they gather”; vērpste, kū· ākmeni· pakeldzinėja “keeps lifting.” However, when denoting an action taking place at the present moment, verbs of this type usually lack an iterative meaning, e.g.: jāu pritemdzinėja “it is getting dark”; kažū· kōl nerazgindzinėja “it doesn’t seem to be dawning” — nūgi mušasi; li·tūs susiringdo “the rain is gathering,” jāu ataido “is coming” gālas; they also lack an iterative meaning when describing a certain persistent state, e.g.: aš jām dēdē priseidāu “I am leaving.” Those intensive iterative verbs that do express repetition of an action, when used in the past simple, successfully serve in the dialect as substitutes for the past frequentative tense, e.g.: balatniškis kunigas atvažiuodinėja “the priest from Balatna used to come” svečuosna; vūogas parduodzinėjāu ir prabudzinėjāu “I used to sell grapes and stay awake.” The true past frequentative tense was heard only once, in the sentence ti·nai vėlinai pristodinėja, ti·nai žmonės bjōdavo vakarais aic. Apparently, the past frequentative occurs only with verbs that, like bjōti, are imperfective and from which speakers tend not to form intensive iterative verbs.

Among other features of verb formation, the prefixes of verbs draw attention. Some verbal prefixes in the dialect, as well as their usage, differ considerably from standard Lithuanian.

ažū- (až). This prefix corresponds to standard Lithuanian už-, e.g.: nūneša and ažūrakina; kūrgi ažudarbuosi? kāminas ažūndegė. Sometimes it can denote the beginning of an action, e.g.: aš kēp ažūverkāu “I started crying”; aš ažūsirgāu “I fell ill”; and it can also sometimes denote the end of an action, e.g.: ažūsātās “will get completely worn out” kadū jus; kad suveit ašaros, ažū svī·ru ažuplāu “I would wash it away.” Before vowels or voiced consonants, the prefix ažū- is not used, but rather až-, e.g.: ažėdė, ažlīndo.

da-. It is difficult to specify the meaning of this dialect prefix; most often it is the result of Slavic-language influence, e.g.: jēglo dādeda “adds”; diktē nedapāise “did not look after”; darōdi·kit “show [it],” kūr druskos pirkc; šēp tēp dabū·su “I’ll get by somehow”; duonos ku·snēlo dabū·c “to get” a crust of bread is hard; kadū aš dasklauščiau “how could I get there”; kū· aš ne tēp pasakān, tau ani·s dasmano “if I hadn’t said it that way, you wouldn’t have understood.”

¹² In the dialect, only two examples of unprefixed verbs of this type were recorded: žū·ses aido “goes” pirmin; kas per žmogus razdinėjas “appears and disappears.”

183

pa-. This prefix most often marks the end of an action, similarly to standard Lithuanian su-, nu-, e.g.: parbėko “stole” čàs baronkàs; paėdė “ate up”; ratùs palaužė “broke”; pàmirė “died” tùoj kruvàuku kvarabù “bloody disease”; sparnùs pakapoja “cut off the wings”; pùodų pamušė “smashed the pots”; vaikùs paauklėjau “raised the children” ti'nai.

raz-. This prefix comes from Slavic, and its usage in the dialect is the same as in the Slavic languages (it most often corresponds to the Lithuanian prefix iš-), e.g.: razàūšo “dawned” (cf. Russian рассвело); kūpetù raìka razlaìsc “to let out, spread out,” kàd iżdžùt; káušiniùs raspì·lau “I poured out” kàp bū·bas; pažabàrs kadù i razàis “will part”; mẽs i razbėgom “we ran off in all directions”; dabàr razlì·ta “spilled out, soaked” balà. Sometimes these are simply calques, e.g.: I stood for a while, listened—but I didn’t nerazrinkáu “make sense of anything” (cf. Russian не разобрался); anà vĩsa rasakinėjo “was telling” (cf. Russian рассказывала).

Having reviewed the more important morphological features of the dialect, we can say that the influence of Slavic languages is more strongly felt in the formation of the parts of speech, whereas inflection is fairly resistant to that influence.

Syntax

Several more interesting cases of the dialect’s use of grammatical cases may be mentioned.

The nominative with the infinitive is widely used in the dialect, e.g.: raìka aĩc pamėdėn „pamiškėn“ rugùż pjáuc; aĩc tvàrtas ažurakìnc; raìka dù mẽtai padarbùc; dar raìka dù lakštaĩ „laiškai“ nùšù·sc.

The dative is used with some prepositions, e.g.: sėdž prìk pẽči; nė prìk tėvi bù·nam, alẽ prìk patėvi; ažùsėme ik dignì; pa vi'nai gãne It is noteworthy that in these prepositional constructions, masculine nouns in the dialect most often have the unusual ending -i, corresponding to the old dative ending of an athematic stem.

The instrumental of quality is always expressed with the preposition su, e.g.: žuvaitė su nedidùkėm akim, while the instrumental of means is most often used without a preposition, e.g.: ò, kokàis rãtais važùoja.

In Ramaškonys, as among all western Dzūkians, the use of the inessive (the locative of interior location) and the illative (the locative of motion into) is confused: the illative is sometimes used where the inessive should be used, e.g.: anàs kamaròn „kamaroj“ ažù katùko „dėžės“ ažìlidos; rankovėsna „rankovėse“ raženė; or, conversely, the inessive is used where the illative should be used, e.g.: atlai­dùrsa „į atlaidus“ vaikščàuna. However, this confusion is not very characteristic of the Ramaškonys speakers. They are probably influenced by the close proximity of the eastern Dzūkians, who never confuse the use of the inessive and illative.

The Ramaškonys dialect has preserved old prepositions, whose use in particular cases is also quite interesting.

ažù (ãž). It is used instead of standard Lithuanian už, e.g.: ažù kū· pirksi? pasamùdė ažù mérgu; až vĩeno nuvė́j — nedabùvo „nepagyveno“, až kito negalėj bù·c.

in. This is a very popular preposition in the dialect, used most often instead of standard Lithuanian ant, e.g.: vìšta in kaùšinu·sėdž; mã arklas in laùko galì; laùk in laùko, in vàlos, taĩ bùs gerà. The dialect construction in with the genitive is also used in cases where standard Lithuanian would use a case without a preposition, most often the instrumental, e.g.: vė́rpa in karavàto „karavatu, rateliu“; pėrvertė in gudù „gudais“; aẽi tavì vi·rėsne in devìni·tu· mẽtu „devyniais metais“; in bù·bu· „bulvėms“ trìs šimtais dàdavėm.

184

Sometimes in is also used with other meanings, for example: in “because of”: druskos kokis buvo vargas; svītas palismonu atvede in “to”: manį; in “into”: manį paįso.

įngi (cf. dialectal in, in old writings ing, ingi). It is used instead of standard Lithuanian į, for example: įngi dėdi padabną “similar”; plāčkes storos, plāčos, įngi silkės panāšos; įngi darbų įngi vīsa anā nuzdāvus. Sometimes įngi is also used with the meaning of the preposition pas, for example: našlės įngi našlb’ vaikščavo. The preposition įngi was probably preserved in the dialect so that it would not coincide with the preposition in, meaning “on.”

nuog (nūg.), nūg (cf. nuogi, nuog, nug in old writings). It is used instead of standard Lithuanian nuo, for example: čā tolāu nuog mūs lietuviškai kalbanco žmogaus nėrā; mažė man nug dūl-kur’ dūchu “smell” vāro; nuk tēvo likāi mažas; anas paskavoj nuk jūs.

prieg (prīg), prig (cf. prieg, prieg, prig in old writings). It is used instead of standard Lithuanian prie, for example: priek šāu neturū; prīk tēvi āre jautais; dār kāp prīk sveikātai, tai gerāi.

Some of the more characteristic words that connect subordinate clauses should be mentioned.

In many Lithuanian dialects, attributive subordinate clauses are joined by the relative pronoun kuris, which is no longer used, for example: beržas, kuris paskēlbos viršūn, žvirškas, o kuris žemīn — moteriškas: kāsos paslaidī. In short attributive subordinate clauses, however, especially those defining an object's purpose, the accusative of the relative pronoun kas is most often used, for example: žebā, kū šoka “a frog that jumps”; šākes, kū pūodus kāla; veči-kle, kū vėto grūdus; kū duris ažuspirdenėja, tai žāperka “a burbot.” The accusative of the relative pronoun kas is sometimes also used to join subject and object subordinate clauses, for example: tai nepraudė, kū džiāvas irā; pasākė, kū nepernēs; skaitė, kū pinigų dāuk. The conjunction kāp “as” is often used to join temporal adverbial subordinate clauses, for example: kāp cīk saulā paska vōjo, tai ir šalcāi jau. In addition, kāp “as” is also used to join causal adverbial subordinate clauses, for example: kāp mūs sūsu itie pieskāi, tai žolė nedūga.

The neuter gender of past passive participles and pronouns is very widely used in the dialect, for example: ažupjauta ravėlis ir dirželi pririšta; karbijos “baskets” iš šāudų nupinta; būvo namai kūrvais statīta; vīsa nuvėję liepsnā; vīsa rāka pīrkė; aš nežināu, kas itai būs iš to šalco.

The syntax of the Ramaškoniai dialect also shows a strong influence from Slavic languages.

First of all, this influence is apparent in the words that connect subordinate clauses. The Slavic conjunction kòc (kōt) is often used to join concessive adverbial subordinate clauses, for example: kòc nemōkita, alė tū manį dār neapšukūosi “you won't deceive me.” In conditional adverbial subordinate clauses, alongside kad, the Slavic conjunction ježėli is also used, for example: kām pristōc, ježėli tū nedūmoji mērgu jīmė? To form an interrogative sentence, alongside gal, the Slavic particle mōj is also sometimes used, for example: mōj mā telīčāiti vāro?

In purpose adverbial subordinate clauses, younger speakers more often use the infinitive instead of the subjunctive, as in Slavic languages, for example: dūbi kāsa, kāt instūmė, nuāpīc “to drown.”

Instead of aš turiu, tu turi… (“I have, you have…”), Slavic constructions pas mane yra, pas tave yra… (“there is at my place, there is at your place…”) are more often used, for example: pas man karvēla būvo “I had a dove,” tai in dienos irs viedrīs pieno dāv; Zošā, a nerā pas tavį kvakūkės ažšos (a visitor, having turned off the road, asks).

The use of cases in the dialect is affected by Slavic languages to a considerably lesser extent.

185

Lexicon

The lexicon of the Ramaškoniai dialect contains interesting old Lithuanian words, but also many Slavicisms—considerably more than in the dialects of Lithuanians living in the Lithuanian SSR, for example: jaunėsnis chłopcas nāto už tarli'vas “a younger lad, very talkative”; bōba aina būvo tokā klapatīva, kriklīva “overly solicitous, loud”; vesēlas čėsas, alē ne žēdinam “a pleasant time, but not for everyone.” This abundance of Slavicisms is entirely understandable: the immediate and continual influence of Slavic languages (Belarusian and Polish) first leaves its mark on the dialect’s lexicon. Even today one can observe the word kovà ousting the word pušis in the dialect, the word kmarā replacing the word debes's, and the word padābnas replacing the word panašus, and so on. In these synonym pairs, the younger dialect speakers most often choose the Slavic word.

Old Lithuanian words that differ from standard Lithuanian (Ik) are often associated with the names of foods, implements, and the like. For example, potato porridge is called gru·dzils here, a sweet drink made from rye flour is saldzinis, and the same drink, only fermented, is rugini's; poles tied together with a rope and used to lift something are called kābinės, and so on. Ordinary Lithuanian words also often have a meaning in the dialect different from that in standard Lithuanian (Ik). For example, when asked where a wolf lives, the answer is medī (mēdzas — forest), whereas when asked where a squirrel lives, the answer is mādžagoj (mēdžaga — tree; cf. cik vinā mādžaga āuga in lāuko).

Among the characteristic nouns of the dialect, the following may be mentioned: draugė — family, e.g.: sunkū prabū·c, kāp didela draugē; kiēmas — village, e.g.: mū's kiēmas mažas; klūpsc'is — knee, e.g.: kelinēs pali klūpsc'i apru·džiji “browned”; krósnis — a pile of stones, e.g.: terpūkelej krósnis; kvakūkė — a duckling, e.g.: kvakūikē kvākši; lāškas — a letter, a sheet, e.g.: nī·ko nerāšo: ani vī·no lāškto negavāu; lopinīkas — a kerchief, e.g.: raīka lopinukū apsirišē; rezgē — a basket; pēdžos — the interior posts of a threshing barn; pradzinī·kas — a herdsman, e.g.: kāp āš ganāu, sēnas tokis būvo pradzinī·kas; skarā — laundry (cf. the standard Lithuanian compound skar-malas — the edge of a shawl, “laundry,” a washcloth), e.g.: skarās išvelejau; terpūpē-dzīs — the space between one “pēdžia” and the next along the side.

The dialect even has fine Lithuanian words for expressing abstract concepts: beduonē — a shortage of bread, e.g.: nebūvo aršāu “it couldn’t be worse,” kāp beduonī; ki·sc; buicis — life, e.g.: ītai buicis žmogāus jaunos dalā — good fortune, e.g.: vis ītai žmogāus nedalā; krapštulī·s — a small, painstaking task, e.g.: daži nā dāžnōn irā kokis krapštulī·s.

There are also one or two more interesting adjectives: grīnas — naked, bare, e.g.: ažu grīno ažānco insideda ir nešiojas tū· uōdžinu “a snake”; mi·nkštas — fine, e.g.: druskā bū·na rupī ir minkštā; savadarbis — homemade, made by oneself, e.g.: ā pas jūs savadarbī miltū audžā? širdžī·tas — angry, e.g.: alē gi ir širdžī·tas: ani ažujūdinē nemōžna; žilas — gray, e.g.: alē koki žili debesē aina — gal lītūs būs.

Dialect verbs and words derived from them are quite numerous: apsisēkc — to get dressed, e.g.: ir pavālgī·c, ir apsisēkc, ir apsāuc raīka; ažuveikc — to earn, e.g.: kī· ažuveika berniukai, mūmim gand; brīnkc — to sleep late, e.g.: kī· tū brinksci tēp ilgai? dairī·tis — to look after, e.g.: dabar nera kám manī dairī·tis; dukterēs neadvotāu tolī: kadū abdairī·si “you’ll see, you’ll visit”; tolī adāvus? māžu priseis

186

apžodairìc “to meet, get together” with my daughter? dudenc — to speak, e.g.: she speaks partly Polish, partly Lithuanian; gùrinc — to hit, beat, e.g.: I bruised my elbow; insidarì:c — to get dirty, stained, e.g.: look at that silly woman: she has already got herself badly stained; kárć — to hang, e.g.: she hung a piece of bacon over the fire and roasted it; lùpć — to tear at, e.g.: a hawk settled on the chickens, tore at them, and ruined its shot at them; the chickens plucked the oats; paginéc — to finish, e.g.: for each bird, as soon as the young had “hatched,” the singing ended; páisić — to look, e.g.: that old woman is watching to see what you’ll take; parbùnkė — to take away, steal, e.g.: she stole everything; privìrsc — to fall in, e.g.: wormy apples fell in; skraidì:c — to run around, e.g.: when she was running around with both the cows and the sheep; žìbinc — to shine, e.g.: he’s old now, hears nothing, and his eyes don’t shine.

A few more interesting adverbs and adverbial particles should also be mentioned, for example: bemàž — almost, daugės(t) — more, nedàugi — a little, nekadù — once, nu:nài — now, pirmùlàusa — first of all.

Interesting idioms also occur, for example: òt, tai kì:mo šliota “a woman who pointlessly runs around the village spreading gossip”; káp iškastas Bronùlis “very much like Bronulė—like two peas in a pod”; ne galvóji dainùoc, káp vargèlis paspìrė “hardship has taken its toll.”

In general, the dialect’s basic vocabulary almost entirely coincides with the basic vocabulary of standard Lithuanian. As the examples show, Ramaškoniai dialect forms are most often words also known in the literary language, but with meanings that are more or less different.

Having reviewed the more important features of the Ramaškoniai dialect, we may conclude that it is a continuation of the Western Dzūkian dialect, since its characteristic features largely coincide clearly with those of the Western Dzūkian dialect spoken in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR. This dialect does not have as many archaic features as the Lazūnai¹³ and Zietela¹⁴ islands, which are farthest from the Lithuanian SSR.

CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE RAMAŠKONYS DIALECT

И. Л. ШУКИС

Abstract

The Ramaškonys dialect, which belongs to the Dzūkian dialects, is a Lithuanian “island” located in the Byelorussian SSR, in the eastern part of Voronovo District. Speakers who have a good command of Lithuanian can be found in more than ten villages. At present, the language used daily in these villages is most often no longer Lithuanian but Belarusian. In the areas of former estates and in larger villages, Polish predominates.

¹³ Plg. J. Senkus, Kai kurie Lazūnų tarmės ypatumai. — Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, A, 1, 185, Vilnius, 1958.

¹⁴ Plg. P. Arumaa, Litauische mundartliche Texte aus der Wilnaer Gegend, 41—53 ir 68—75, Dorpat, 1930.

187

This article examines the most characteristic phonetic, morphological, syntactic, and lexical features of this dialect.

In its pronunciation of the diphthongal combinations am, an, em, en, the Ramaškonys dialect belongs to the western Dzūkians, who do not alter these combinations, for example, páncis, kañpras, rémpe, penkì. However, like all Dzūkians, it changes ą, ę>u, i, for example, mẽrgu·<mẽrga, tìsc>tẽsti.

Also noteworthy is the monophthongization of the diphthongs ie, uo, for example, mi·gas, klú·nas, pi·rmū·. This phenomenon is presumably quite recent. The oldest speakers of the dialect still pronounce klú·nas, pi·rmū· and even klúonas, pietuõ.

In unstressed word-final position, è and e are used in parallel, for example, lùpė, móke, kãùle<kiaùle, sáula<sáule.

In consonantism, speakers of this dialect, like all other Dzūkians, though somewhat inconsistently, have affricates in place of d, t, dv, tv (before i, i, y, ie): >dz, c, dzv, cv, for example, pakcìs, dziẽvas, dzvì·lika; and, further, the shift č, dž> to c, dz, for example, svãčko, áudza.

In morphology, nouns characteristically show the transition of certain cases from weak stems (ending in i, u or a consonant) to strong stems (ending in a, o), for example, su akù, akmenai, ākmefio. However, some old weak-stem case forms are found in this dialect, for example, nominative plural sãseres, genitive singular seserès, and dative and instrumental plural akimù, seserimù.

The diminutive suffixes most commonly used are -áitė, -ìtis, -ùlis, for example, karvaitė, kampliùcis, žmõgulis.

Intensive iterative verbs with the suffixes -dinėti, -dyti, which are usually formed from perfective verbs with prefixes and may denote either repeated or non-repeated action, are highly characteristic of the dialect described; for example, vúogas parduodzinėjau ir prabu·dzinėjau; niekur neiseidáu aš; li·tus susirĩgdo. The single-past form of these verbs often replaces the past frequentative form, for example, kùnigas atvažiuodinė́jo “atvažiuodavo” svečuosna.

Remnants of athematic verbs occur, with endings borrowed from thematic verbs, for example, miegmi||mi·gni, palìekma||palì·kna.

Among verbal prefixes that differ from those of the standard language, ažu- (až-) should be mentioned, e.g., ažujùdinč “užjudinti”, ažlìndo “užlindo”, as well as prefixes of Slavic origin: da-, e.g., dãdeda “prideda”, and raz-, e.g., razaũšo “išaušo”. In this dialect, the prefix ра- most often denotes the end of an action, e.g., ratùs palaužė “sulaužė”.

Some prepositions have remained in the described dialect to the present day as they were in written monuments of the 16th–17th centuries, e.g.: priẽg||prig (priek sáu netui); nuõg||nùg (nuk tévo likàù mãžas); ìngi (ìngi dẽdi· padabna).

188

In syntax, this dialect, like all Western Dzūkian dialects, is distinguished by inconsistency in the use of the inessive and illative, e.g.: rankóvēsna „rankovese“ razneše; atlaidusā „i atlaidus“ vāikščāuna. The neuter gender of some participles and pronouns often occurs in sentences, e.g.: tvōros strackais tvārta; visa nuvāč liepsnā. The prepositions priēg|| prig and ик are used with the dative case, e.g.: sēdz prīk pāči; āzusēmē ik dūgni.

In the vocabulary, besides numerous Slavicisms that arose from the everyday, direct influence of Slavic languages, some interesting dialect words are also found, e.g.: kiēmas „kaimas”, drāugē „šeimyna” mādzas „miškas”, mādžaga „medis”, lopiniukas „skarelė”, pāisi˙c „žiūrėti”, dudēnč „kalbėti”, etc.

The Ramaškoniai dialect is a remnant of the peripheral dialects of the Western Dzūkians, and the characteristic features of this dialect, for the most part, coincide with those of the Western Dzūkians living in the Lithuanian SSR.