LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, III

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

COLLECTION OF DIALECT MATERIAL FOR THE ATLAS OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

E. GRINAVECKIENĖ

In our republic, the study of Lithuanian dialects and the collection of dialect material for the Lithuanian Language Atlas under preparation have been carried out on a large scale every year since 1951. For this purpose, the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR prepared and published in 1951 the “Programme for Collecting Material for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language”¹. In 1954, the “Instructions for Collecting Material for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language”² were also prepared and published, providing specific methodological guidance on how to elicit a given dialect feature from dialect speakers, how to record it, how to organize the collected material, and so on. To ensure that the work of collecting dialect material was carried out in a more planned and systematic manner, the entire territory of the Lithuanian SSR was divided into more than 700 inhabited localities, situated approximately 10–12 km apart. The dialect of each such locality is being studied. There are now somewhat more localities to be investigated, since expeditions and individual research have shown that, in view of the historical development of the language and its dialects, the number of localities must be increased in places where dialect boundaries run and where features of several different dialects intersect. It should also be said that dialect material for the Lithuanian Language Atlas under preparation was and continues to be collected from isolated Lithuanian villages in the western districts of the Byelorussian SSR (Grodno, Rodūnia, Jūrotiškės, Varanavas, Astravas, Zietela, Vydžiai, and Breslauja).

From the very first days of the work (1951), staff of the Language History and Dialectology Section of the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute, lecturers and students of the Lithuanian departments of Vilnius State V. Kapsukas University and the Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute took part in collecting dialect material. More recently, the staff and students of the Lithuanian department of Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute have also become actively involved in this work, as have some Lithuanian-language teachers in the republic.

At the outset of dialectological data collection, attention was first focused on those Lithuanian dialects that formed the basis of the Lithuanian literary language: the southwestern Highlander dialects (Kapsai and Zanavykai) and other dialects of southern Lithuania. During the first three years of data collection (1951–1953), one might say,

¹See Programme for Collecting Material for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute, Vilnius, 1951, 2nd ed., 1956.

²See Instructions for Collecting Material for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute, Vilnius, 1954, 2nd ed., 1957.

191

the entire area of the dialects of southern Lithuania had been investigated (including part of the Central Highlander and Dzūkian dialects). From 1954, the eastern Highlander dialects began to be studied; from 1957, the Central Highlander dialects were investigated, and in 1958 work reached the study of the most difficult Lithuanian dialects—the Samogitian dialects. It should be noted that in 1959 alone, dialect material for the Lithuanian Language Atlas was collected from 85 inhabited localities. To date, the dialects of more than 500 localities have been investigated. The collection of dialect material is expected to be completed around 1963.

The clearest indication of how the collection of Lithuanian dialect material is carried out is provided by the material collected in 1959. Here we will analyze it in general terms.

In 1959, dialectologists from the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute organized three research expeditions, with a total of 20 participants, and investigated the dialects of 40 inhabited localities. (The annual plan called for the investigation of 30 localities.)

The first expedition visited the isolated Lithuanian-speaking enclaves of western Byelorussia, in the Jūrótiškės (now Iwye), Varanāvas, Ródūnia, and Gārdinas districts. The dialects of seven inhabited localities were investigated during this expedition. It yielded much valuable dialect material that had hitherto been little known or heard; data were also collected that make it possible to extend the area and boundaries of dialect features found in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR. Many new words and forms reflecting the local character, many vivid fixed expressions and old phraseological units, and a substantial body of folklore—especially laments and incantations—were recorded; about 500 local place names from this region were collected, along with other valuable material. (Several pieces of folklore recorded in this region are presented at the end of the article as dialect examples; see pp. 199–204.)

For example, dialect data collected in the vicinity of Kargaudai (Rodūnia district; researched by V. Vitkauskas), Ramaškonys (Varanavas district; researched by J. Šukys), and Azierkai (Grodno district; researched by A. Vidugiris) show that the Lithuanian diphthongs ie and uo are monophthongized here, becoming y and ū, e.g.: dynā³ (day), nỹkas (nothing), kūdėlis (spindle), šlūtėlė (whisk), gydōt (to sing), spytỹs (swarm), klūnas (barn).

³Dialect examples in the article are written using Lithuanian orthography where their pronunciation coincides with standard Lithuanian, while features that differ from the pronunciation of standard Lithuanian sounds are marked. For example, in examples from the isolated Lithuanian-speaking enclaves of the Byelorussian SSR, the sounds ė, ə, and ь occur. They are pronounced after hard consonants (which is why the hardness of l is not marked in this case) and correspond to the following standard Lithuanian sounds: e–ė (no-rejo~norėjo); ə–ę (regėj ~ regėjo), ь — i, j, y (stīrbis ~ sūris, žīda ~ žydi, rūtas ~ rytas; pirkėlė ~ pirkėlė). In examples from Samogitian dialects, the broadened sounds ę and ǫ occur. They are pronounced instead of the short standard Lithuanian vowels i and u and the diphthongs formed with them (kệš ~ kiša, bōva ~ būvo), and also at the end of a word instead of unstressed standard Lithuanian e, ė, io, e (sākę ~ sakė, lāukę ~ laukė, brōlę ~ brolio). The vowels ę and ǫ are always short. Examples from Central Lithuanian dialects use vowels e and o that differ from standard Lithuanian and occur at the end of an unstressed word in place of the diphthongs ai and au (vaikę ~ vaikai, sākę ~ sakau). At the end of an unstressed word in these dialects, the vowel ę is pronounced in place of the standard Lithuanian diphthongs iai and ei and the vowel ę (kviečę ~ kviečiai, sākę ~ sakei, kâtę ~ katę). The vowel ǫ is pronounced at the end of a dialect word in place of standard Lithuanian ą (vaikǫ ~ vaiką). Instead of short standard Lithuanian a in a closed word-final syllable, a somewhat reduced vowel with a u-like coloring, ə, is pronounced here (vaikəs ~ vaikas). Differences from standard Lithuanian in the palatalization of individual consonants or consonant clusters are always marked. The sounds are not transposed into standard Lithuanian.

The length of a stressed sound is generally indicated by the corresponding pitch-accent marks: vowels with acute, circumflex, and broken accents are always long, while those with the mid accent are half-long. In addition, the mid-accent mark is placed over long vowels when pitch accents are not distinguished. In such cases, sound length is indicated using the conventional standard Lithuanian length marks (a macron or a nasal mark). Long unstressed sounds are marked in exactly the same way. The half-length of an unstressed sound is indicated by a dot placed low beside the sound. When a word has several stresses, the primary one is the first,

192

The material from the Pelesa (Rodūnia district; researched by D. Gargასaitė) and Azierkai sites attests to an interesting change in these dialects: the consonants t, d become g, k before the vowels e, ė, e.g.: vángenio (water), kėvas (father), kekės (will flow), sūgege (burned down).

The material from the area under study shows that in the singular locative and third-person singular past tense forms, the standard-language vowels e, ė, o are dropped at the end of a word before j or v, e.g.: ažvacioj (behind), gerklėj (in the throat), ažnorėj (wanted), atėj (came), atpjov (cut off), spiov (spat), insispirdzinėj (resisted). This phenomenon is most often observed when j or v precedes a syllable containing long vowels or diphthongs.

In the Lazūnai area (Jūrotiškiai district; researched by E. Grinaveckienė), such nominative singular forms of consonant-stem nouns as mūoj (mother), žmuoj (person) have been recorded, as have old forms of pronominal adjectives and also interesting forms of pronominal nouns, such as jaunamėjam mūžkobs žaidžia (at the young man, the accordion is being played), ažėn tu radunūpjamp susiedėliump (come in to the true neighbors), martėlėsis andarėkas (the young wife’s skirt), žmogauškasai darbas (a person’s work), arganistasai (organist), and so on. Two variant instrumental singular forms of personal and reflexive pronouns are found: maimĩ ir maimĩm (with me), taimi ir taimĩ (with you), saimi ir saimĩm (with oneself). The use of old postpositional locatives and the variety of their forms have been attested: kláusk tãmp kitàmp žmogėp (ask that other person), tibp (at your place), vaikėp (at the child’s place; the child’s), peliūmp (at the mice), durump (by the doors), manĩp (by me); vartuosai (in the gates), apivaraitešbi (with the bands, with the cords), jājūosbi (in the threshing floors), dviðjocbi momosbi (of two mothers, to two mothers), and so on. A form with grammatical gender is used in place of the standard-language būdavo: būlo, ėnas ateima manāp momāp (it used to be, he comes to my mother). Remnants of ancient final-syllable stress occur in verbs: stos (will be, will appear), stojós (became), stojomės (we stood up), vijós (pursued), radós (appeared). In Lazūnai, as well as at some other sites studied (Kargaudai, Pelesa), an indeclinable, fossilized past-tense form of active participles is used, e.g.: berniūkas susnebivę (the young man is exhausted), mergutaitė ažmigį (the girl has fallen asleep), anà numirį (she is dead), vaikas apsisžūcinį (the child has scalded themself), šuvà predį (the dog has come up), aš atėj (I have come), brigadierius apsįrdį (the brigadier is angry), and so on. Could this form, which at first glance now seems to be a plural nominative, actually be an old neuter form generalized for both genders and both numbers, no longer found in other Lithuanian dialects? In these dialects, the plural instrumental is apparently expressed by an old dual form, e.g. in Lazūnai, Kargaudai, and Pelesa, with the ending -mi: akìmi (with eyes), durìmi (with doors), nósimi (with noses, nostrils), lápėmi (with foxes), rankòmi (with hands); in Bieliūnai (near Nočia, Rodūnia district; researched by A. Jonaitytė), with the ending -ma: žmonìma (with people), šunìma (with dogs), rankòma (with hands); in Ramaškonys, with the ending -mu: avimù (with sheep), piemenimù (with shepherds), šunimù (with dogs).

Present-tense active participles are rare here. In some cases (at the Lazūnai site), a half-participle performs their function, e.g.: pamàtė žmogų sėdėdamų (saw a person sitting), daũg eidamų žmonių (many people walking), rado arklį ėsdamų (found a horse eating), pamėčiau valgydamų (I left someone eating), regėjau anų sėdamų (I saw him sowing), and so on.

These dialects also contain many adverbs that differ from those of the literary language—

13. Kalbotyros klausimai, III

193

e.g.: tadùkai (then), šėjaũkai (here), tėjaũkai (there), dabàrkai (now), dàrkai (now), ingi kẽtverelìa (into four parts), and so forth.

Most verbs with the suffix -(d)inėti in these dialects, unlike in the standard language, generally do not express repeated action, e.g.: (Lazūnai) išėidzinėja senas žilas dziedas (an old gray-haired man is going out), ãnas jau davydzinėja manę (he is already overtaking me), atnešùžinèk dàrkai savus grašùs (bring your money now); (Pelesa) išdarindzinėja ravèlį dėl sàmąnų (is making a furrow for the moss); (Ramaškonys) jau pritemdzinėja (it is already getting dark), and so forth.

Around Lazūnai, the old preposition pie is found. Here it is used with the accusative instead of the standard-language preposition prie with the genitive, e.g.: anà stõu pie kraštų (she is standing by the edge), mēs gyvenam pie medžių (we live by the forest). The preposition pie is also used here to mean “about,” e.g.: pie maną nepamirš (don’t forget about me), ką sakė pie obelas (what did they say about the apple trees). To indicate direction after verbs of motion (eiti, grįžti, siųsti…), unlike in the standard language, the old genitive without a preposition is always used here, e.g.: eik manęs (come to me), ãnas negrįžo jòs (he did not return to her), nuvėj bernùkas dẽdės (the boy went to his uncle), àciuntė jaunikį dukterìes (they sent the groom to the daughter), and so on.

The dialects studied also have many lexical differences from the standard language, including many old Lithuanian words and vivid idiomatic expressions, most of which are not found in other Lithuanian dialects, e.g.: (Lazūnai) mèdžas (forest), mèdžiaga (tree), lãpė, laputáitė (squirrel), sprùndagalvis, stumbagalvis (sculpin), làkštas (leaf of a tree), plùksna (onion greens), grùšcis (mashed potatoes), kùsnis (a little bit), krìmisc (to gnaw), nuplùk (to float away), vienàra (all the same), sekmė (tale), priimtùvės (gifts), nusmainyce (to exchange), apsikėpce (to get drenched), degùs, deguncì (hot), insivìlgynce (to get wet), skraidýce (to run around), rìžke (to take, to lead), kienas darbas (whose work), vienas vienõp neùturbja (one does not speak to the other), ant pirmojo slbnìksčio pasakiau (I said it first of all), and so on; (Kargaudai) sekėc (to be able: jùms dár sekėjo pamiegoc), pìktauc (to be angry: piktauja vaikas, kàd žindos nieko nèra), rėkia, kaip inskeltas (cries wildly, loudly), pjovacis (stabbing pain, pricking, twinge), apsegtùvas (clothes), plõnas, kàp mušõžamis; (Ramaškonys) dudėnt (to speak), tarpùpėdžis (side shed of a threshing barn), draugė (family), pàisy (to look: pàisau per lãngų), raudõns (red-crested), grýnas (naked), kràmtyt (to sting: dilgynė kràmtos); (Pelesa) žmogùs (man: anyta žmogaus mokrà), kodė (tub), kėltuva (horned cow), dievàitis (month and moon: kiek aždarbujì ant dievaičio; ažu dievaičio mire), nastràž (winter rye, mouth: nastrai mažì, šaukštas didzidžìlis), žingelis (flail strap), žolynas (flower), stacinys (haycock, stack), straublỹs (rainbow), pliuskúoja, kaip botàgas per vàndeni (talks nonsense), neva-rýta nuvėj, neaprašyta testa parein, sùkti nosį (to be angry), and so on.

The dialect material collected during the first dialectological expedition has been scientifically synthesized, and one or two studies based on it have been prepared for publication.

The second dialectological expedition took place in the southwestern Samogitian districts of Priekulė, Šilutė, Pagėgiai, and Klaipėda. The dialects of nine settlements were studied there. During the research, a considerable amount of new and valuable dialect material was found. For example, near Plikiai in Klaipėda district (researched by D. Gargasaite), an interesting vocalic phenomenon was found: in all cases, the diphthong ai at the end of a word changes into the diphthong uo (see D. Gargasaïtė’s article “Word-final... of the Plikiai dialect” in this publication).

194

diphthong -ai”). During the expedition, interest in this phenomenon extended further. An attempt was made to identify the boundaries of its distribution more fully. Preliminary data established the following distribution triangle for this phenomenon: Plikiai — Kalotė — Dovilai. V. Fenclau, who studied the place names of this region and sought to describe the most general characteristics of its dialects, also established the distribution boundaries of individual features, which in many cases were not confirmed by current dialect data⁴. Thus, this expedition also refined the boundary, established by V. Fenclau, between the Žemaitian Priekulė dialect area and the Klaipėda and Šilutė dialect areas. The Priekulė dialect area also includes part of the dialect territory that V. Fenclau assigned to the Šilutė and Klaipėda dialects. The stress and spelling of place names were also verified.

For example, V. Fenclau places the stress on the ending of the Priekulė-area place names Grūmbliai, Kānwonai, Derėkliai, Drēverna, Prōtnēšai, Kūkorai and regards them as words with ending stress, whereas our records show stress on the stem, and today they are pronounced: Grūmblē, Kānwōna, Dērėklē or Dēcklē, Drēverna, Prōtnēšē, Kūkorā, and so on. We found that the place name Drežiai belongs to the fourth accentual paradigm (in the dative and accusative cases, stress falls at the end of the word): Drežē, Drežiams, Drežius, whereas V. Fenclau, in our view, incorrectly assigns it to the second accentual paradigm (stress falls on the stem in the dative and on the ending in the accusative), and so forth.

The expedition newly established that the vowel e, both alone and in combinations with l, m, n, r, when preceding a soft consonant, is raised in the Priekulė dialect (studied by E. Grinaveckienė) and is pronounced approximately like the ė of the standard language, e.g.: kēršys (will avenge), pēmpe (a hoopoe), gērž (good), dēve (gave), nēšt (to carry), žērpē (to spin), but: kēršts (vengeance), pēnkts (fifth), gērs (good), dēvus (having given), nēs, vērpām (we spin), etc. The raising or lowering of the vowel e, depending on the following consonant, is characteristic of many Lithuanian dialects, as well as of the Latvian language of our northern neighbors. The attestation of this fact in the Priekulė dialect considerably enriches the already interesting picture of the phenomenon’s distribution.

Alongside this, throughout the entire area studied, the dual of nouns, pronouns, and verbs was found to be living and widely used, e.g.: anodō pačiūdō tur išimaitį (those two have to provide for themselves), abōdo lȳgu bōva (the two were equal), dvi danti nū dākta išmušē (two teeth next to each other were knocked out), dvi mergiki abidi venōki (two girls, both alike), du sūnu žōvorusu (two sons who had drowned), mōdo pačiūdo nabōvova susiōščiusiu (the two of us had not been acquainted), ar nesusipȳksetau jōdo (will the two of you not quarrel), su dōm vežēmom (with two wagons), and so on. As we know, the dual is uncharacteristic of other Lithuanian dialects and of the standard language itself, and is disappearing or has disappeared altogether.

The presence of two reflexive particles in prefixed verb forms was also attested here, e.g.: rēk nūsilēstis (one must descend), nenusitēpkis (do not get dirty), isilāptis (to climb in), izilākos (it holds up), izisūkos (it got out of), and so on. According to the data currently available, verbs with two reflexive particles are no longer found more widely almost anywhere, except among the Žemaitians.

In Šilutė District, around Rusnė and Šyškrantė (studied by L. Surgailaitė), the change of the old word-final diphthong en (which in the standard language has now become e) into the diphthong ei in participles was attested for the first time, e.g.: būvēi (having been), pardāvēi (having sold), priējēi (having arrived),

⁴ See W. Fenzlau, Die deutschen Formen der Litauischen Orts- und Personennamen des Memelgebiets“, 12, Halle, 1936.

195

šókėi (having danced), etc. This new linguistic fact is interesting because, until now, the only change known from dialects was that of the old an, en (standard language ą, ę) into ai, ei when stressed and bearing an acute accent, for example, spręsti (to solve), kąsnis (a bite). However, data from current research clearly show that even the old unstressed word-final en (emphasis mine — E.G.) may turn into the diphthong ei. It is also interesting that the material collected from this region includes examples in which the old circumflex en (standard language ẽ) has also changed into ei. Around Priekulė, for example, people say lėšas (lentil, a kind of pea: dãuk lėšu bõva į rūgiùs), skėišė (sink!), and so on. This fact will help explain the origins of certain words and their forms in our language.

Unlike in some other Lithuanian dialects and in the standard language, the definite adjectives in these dialects are formed in two ways, e.g.: lėsąsis⁵ and lėsąis (the thin one), jāunāsis and jāunāis (the young one), mažāsis and mažāis (the small one), gērāsis and gērāis (the good one). It is possible that the first forms (gērāsis...) were formed on the model of the standard language, and the second (gērāis..., less common in the dialect) on the model of Latvian. However, this opinion seems to be contradicted by the formation of forms such as gerāsis... on the model of the standard language: in these dialects the suffix a, even when it does not bear primary stress, is pronounced long (being long, it receives secondary, retracted stress), whereas in the standard language it is stressed and pronounced short. The vowel a in this form is pronounced long in all other Žemaitian dialects as well, and the origin of its length has so far remained unclear and unresolved. It is possible that the use of two types of definite forms in the area we studied will shed more light and help explain more fully and accurately the variations in the formation of definite forms across all Žemaitian dialects.

Around Priekulė, several other adjectives with interesting formations were also recorded, e.g.: apatējis — the lower edge is worn, it needs dyeing; kraštējis — the edge of the basket is full of honey; pačiūjis — I drank a pint of milk just for myself; vidurējis — the middle beam is warped; viršutējis — the upper strip; viršūjysis — the upper teeth fell out, and so on.

As the examples show, these adjectives express a distinguishing characteristic of an object. In meaning, therefore, they are close to definite adjectives⁶ or adjectives with the suffix -inis⁷. There is an opinion that such adjectives may have arisen from a noun’s inflected forms and the pronoun jis, ji⁸.

The research area also showed the complete shift of ia- and i-stem verbs into the a-stem class, e.g.: audām (we weave), kenčiu (I suffer), mylām (we love), pēṛ (washes), šērat (you feed), gēram (we drink), and so on.

Among the more interesting cases of word formation, the suffix -ininkas is worth mentioning; it occurs very frequently in these dialects. It denotes people with a regular occupation and characterizes people according to their origin and place of residence, or their occupation, e.g.: lāukinīaks (farmer, collective-farm worker), kōpinīaks (fisherman, dune dweller), žvējininīks (fisherman), žēminīaks (farmer), kūrminīaks (someone who used to catch moles), lētūvinīaks (a Klaipėda resident), vēntinīaks (a resident of Ventė), kēmīninīks (a villager—

⁵ The suffix a has secondary, retracted stress because it is pronounced long here.

⁶ Cf. A. Valeckienė, Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių vartojimas, see Literatūra ir kalba, 2, 175, Vilnius, 1957.

⁷ Cf. Ibid., 260.

⁸See Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių istorijos bruožai, 11–12, Vilnius, 1957.

196

resident), butėlininks (a person who has a small house), susirinkimininks (a person performing a priest’s duties), išimtinininks (a grandfather who lived on an allowance), and so on.

It is also interesting to mention that around Priekulė and Grobštai, to refer to wives by their husbands’ names, a definite feminine noun form derived from the husband’s name is used, e.g.: Kristupoji (Kristupas’s wife), Anskioji (Anskis’s wife), Martynoji (Martynas’s wife), Mikioji (Mikis’s wife), Jūrioji (Jurgis’s wife), Endrikioji (Andriejus’s wife), Krizioji (Krizas’s wife), etc.

Among the syntactic features, the use of the accusative with negation is worth noting, e.g.: nebeat rāda tän väika (did not find that child), žiaurōma nerōdžiau kareivis būdāms (I showed no cruelty while serving as a soldier), šoferi dā nemačiau (I have not seen the driver yet), juk mes arklēna nevalgōm (after all, we do not eat horse meat), aš nenorėjau tēvi trukdyti (I did not want to disturb you), and so on; the preposition and prefix py are used instead of standard Lithuanian prie, e.g.: py tvōrōs (by the fence), py väika (by the child), py manęs (by me), pygalvėlis (small pillow), pýgals (overnight stay), pýbutis (lodging).

Šios ekspedicijos metu buvo surinkta daugiau kaip 200 vietovardžių. Tai labai svarbu, turint galvoje tą faktą, kad šio krašto vietų pavadinimai iki šiol iš viso nebuvo sistemingai renkami. Pasitaikė taip pat užrašyti apie 20 senų liaudies dainų su melodijomis. (Melodijas užrašė Priekulės kultūros namų darbuotojas A. Jovaiša.)

The third dialectological expedition of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature was focused primarily on the dialects of northern and central Lithuanian SSR—in the districts of Panevėžys, Pakruojis, Šeduva, Ramygala, and Kėdainiai. In addition, the native dialects, or those close to them, of individual expedition participants were also studied. During the expedition, the dialects of 24 inhabited localities were studied, including 16 native dialects.

It should be mentioned that, in addition to dialectologists from the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, two lecturers from the republic’s institutions of higher education and five teachers from the republic participated in this expedition.

During the expedition, a wealth of material was collected that clarifies the distribution of the pantininkai and pontininkai dialects. The dialect material collected in this region shows that today Smilgiai and the area around Klovainiai also belong to the pantininkai. In addition, based on the differing pronunciation of standard Lithuanian circumflex diphthongs am, an (in some places they change to om, on: pakrōmtė (chewed), kõmps (corner), elsewhere to um, un: ruṅk(a) (hand), kūmps (corner)), the pantininkai subdialect itself has been newly divided into two dialects. In the pantininkai subdialect around Surviliškis, Truskava, Ramygala, and Ėriškės, it was also established that unaccented circumflex diphthongs am, an remain intact: brangùmas, pūsamėžis, whereas accented ones change to um, un: unksĭvas (early), atkumpĭs (a corner, a remote spot), and so on. During the expedition, much new material was collected on accent retraction, the shortening of endings, and various fluctuations in the vocalism of the dialects under study, among other things; more than 600 place names, a substantial number of words for the dictionary, and folklore were collected.

Gimtųjų tarmių aprašuose, esančiuose už tiriamojo ploto ribos, ekspedicijos metu surinkta daug vertingos, kartografavimui svarbios ir naujos tarminės medžiagos. Sakysim, Kalnalio tarmės (Salantų raj., tyrė mokyt. P. Kniūkšta) apraše yra ne tik iškeltos tam kraštui būdingos kalbos ypatybės, bet ir mėgintos

197

the boundaries of the distribution of certain features characteristic only of this dialect were established; more than 300 place names were collected; and it was newly noted that in the unstressed ending of present-tense active participles, dialectal ą corresponds to standard Lithuanian (lk) a, e.g.: rašos (rašas), žėnos (žinas), whereas in the stressed position it is the diphthong ou, e.g.: kėrtous (kertas), bėgous (bėgas); in the syntax section, an interesting and unusual phenomenon is highlighted—the use of the prepositions ant, iš, lig, be, nuo, prie, po, už, dėl šalia with the dative case instead of the genitive, e.g.: ba kūosė (without porridge), es rūoba (out of the room), etc. The same phenomenon has also been observed in the Donininkai Samogitian area between Grobštai, Dovilai, and Kalotė.

The republic's higher education institutions have also collected much new and valuable dialect material.

Dialectologists from Vilnius State V. Kapsukas University investigated the occupational dialects of Western and Central Aukštaitians (the Ariogala, Kėdainiai, and Šeduva districts). Eighteen students and their supervisor (lecturer J. Kardelytė) took part in the expedition. The dialect of eight settlements was investigated. Material from the investigated sites refines the boundary between the Western and Central Aukštaitian dialects and the isogloss of hardening of the consonant l; it highlights cases of shortening of unstressed long vowels and lengthening of stressed short vowels, variations in the pronunciation of the diphthongs ie and uo, and the widening of vowels i, u, e depending on their position in the word; it attempts to establish the rules governing the shortening of endings; provides considerable material on retraction of stress; and refines the distribution isogloss of the dative singular ending u in first-declension nouns: vaikū (vaikui), ārkliu (arkliui), and so on.

In 1959, dialectologists from the Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute investigated the dialects of the Kelmė district. A total of 27 students and two supervisors (senior lecturers J. Aleksandravičius and V. Grinaveckis) took part in the expedition. The dialects of 11 settlements were investigated. The collected material contains an abundance of important and valuable linguistic facts for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language. The sites of Adomaičiai (studied by B. Rokaitė, A. Iksalaitė and A. Stunžėnaitė), Kubiliai (studied by R. Baltrušaitytė and Z. Dzemionaitė), Kražiai (studied by G. Narauskaitė, D. Jonikaitė and G. Čičelytė), Kušleikiai (studied by Ž. Urbonavičiūtė, E. Tamošaitytė and J. Kelioytė), Tytuvėnėliai (studied by A. Žigytė, S. Kurmanskis, G. Stielėnytė), and Salopelkiai (studied by H. Blažytė and Z. Kantminaitė) provide much new material on stress retraction in all cases from a short ending onto each preceding syllable, whether long or short. This linguistic phenomenon—which shows that, alongside general stress retraction (where stress is retracted from a circumflex or short word-final syllable to an initial syllable in all cases) and conditional stress retraction (where stress is retracted from a short ending only onto a long preceding syllable), there is also a third type of stress retraction—had already been observed in earlier studies⁹, but its distribution boundaries had not been determined precisely. The dialect material presented from Kušleikiai, Tytuvėnėliai, and Kubiliai extends the area in which the ending -ai is used in third-person singular present-tense verbs of the a-stem conjugation (he ėina, gaũna, nėša ~ he goes, gets, carries, and so on), as well as the distribution area of the instrumental plural ending -iums in feminine nouns and pronouns: lāpiums (with foxes), vargšūms (with poor women), kačiūms (with cats). In addition, this expedition established for the first time that in the accusative case of singular monosyllabic words, the ending ga-

⁹ Cf. V. Grinaveckis. Shortening of Endings in Lithuanian Dialects. See VVPI Research Papers, Lithuanian Language and Literature, 8, 103—104, Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute, Vilnius, 1959.

198

in the ending, the diphthong au is pronounced here in place of standard Lithuanian (lk) ą (its first component has a slight o coloring), e.g.: kàu (ką), tàu (tą), jàu (ja), etc.

In 1959, the Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute investigated the dialects of 21 settlements. The work was supervised by senior lecturer M. Kuosienė. The material from the investigated sites consists exclusively of descriptions of the researchers’ native dialects. This particularly enhances the value of the collected material, since a native dialect, with which a person has been familiar since early childhood, can be described most accurately. The fact that a considerable portion of these descriptions comes from Samogitian dialects and from the area of the Lithuanian SSR belonging to the zone of general stress retraction should also be noted as a positive aspect of the work. The system of these dialects is difficult and complex, so the transcribers encountered considerable difficulties, especially in marking stress and intonation. For instance, descriptions of the Gedkančiai (Kelmė district, studied by N. Ribinskytė) and Švėkšna (Šilutė district, studied by A. Raukytė) dialects provide a substantial body of concrete and reliable material on stress retraction from a short ending onto every preceding syllable, whereas descriptions of the Pryšmančiai (studied by J. Lukauskas), Užventis (studied by M. Sabutytė), Šaukotas (studied by I. Pranevičiūtė), Gimbogala (studied by M. Švėgždaitė), Gilvyčiai (studied by D. Šidlauskaitė), and Gruzdžiai (studied by Z. Ruškytė ir R. Andrijaitytė) dialects shed light on the patterns and variations of general stress retraction in these dialects. In many of the investigated sites, besides an adequate representation of the dialect system, new dialect material was also brought to light, making it possible to extend the distribution area of particular dialect features, determine their distribution intensity, and so on. For example, the description of the Švėkšna dialect confirms with numerous examples an interesting phonetic phenomenon previously noted and described in the linguistic literature¹⁰: dialectal e (corresponding to standard Lithuanian e and ė) changes to a when it occurs before a hard consonant: màtà (metai), pamalàti (pameluoti), ràtà (reta), sáns (senas), svàkàtą (sveikata), šìmat (šimet), ràk (reikia). Dialect material from Aukštašlynys (studied by S. Dobilait y tė) and Laužai (studied by I. Paulauskaitė), both sites in the Raseiniai district, shows that in these localities feminine nouns and pronouns use masculine endings in the locative plural, e.g.: dilgėliuose (in nettles), akiuose (in eyes), gėlduose (in flowerbeds), širdžiuose (in hearts), marčiuose (among daughters-in-law).

Many valuable dialect features have also been highlighted in other dialect descriptions.

At present, the investigated area of South Lithuanian dialects is beginning to be mapped: individual dialect features are recorded on maps, and their distribution areas and boundaries are indicated. Separate maps will show the nodes where dialect features converge and intersect, their variation, their centers of origin, and so on. The dialect features represented on the maps will provide a clear picture of the formation and development of the Lithuanian language (lk), shed light on the historical relationships between Lithuanian and its dialects, and contribute considerably to explaining Lithuanian’s connections with related languages, and so on.

TEXTS

About the church

Once a mother sent her son to church. She said, “Go to church,” and he went. He did not go to church, but to the mill; there he walked around, looked about to see how the mill was working, and came home. His mother asked him: “So, what did you see at church?” He said:

¹⁰See Vl. Grinaveckis, Šiaurės vakarų dunininkų tarmių fonetinės ypatybės ir jų raida, filologijos mokslų kandidato laipsnio disertacijos autoreferatas, 8, Vilnius, 1956.

199

“I saw Lord Jesus and the holy Lord, and the holy Lady sits and keeps saying: Itlium pitlium, itlium pitlium.” Then the mother says: “You fool, where were you? It seems you didn’t go to church but to the mill.”

Told by Plakina Juzefa, 52 years old, from Bebrėnai village, Lazūnai district.

About the egg dish

A woman made an egg dish from one egg on Sunday and went to church without eating. She left the egg dish at home for dinner, and at church she could not stop thinking about it—that nobody would eat it without her, how much there would be left when she got home from church. And she recited her prayers after crossing herself, while in her head she kept thinking that someone was saying all the same that her egg dish was already being eaten. So, when someone thinks something bad in their head, they say that devils are whispering to you; then you need to stick up a pin, and the devils will leave you alone. So she stuck a pin behind her back in church, but there were no devils there—where would devils be in church? The woman was kneeling behind the pew. She looked and thought to herself: “Perhaps that woman has gone mad: she’s sticking pins in church.” But it was indeed because of the egg dish: while their mother was at church, the little children gathered to play, and they played like this: there was a bridegroom, a boy dressed up as the groom, and a girl as the bride. Well, the bride and groom had to be treated. So the boy from the house where the egg dish was put it out and ate it. Their mother came back from church and saw that the egg dish had been eaten. And the mother beat her boy.

Told by Plakina Juzefa from Bebrėnai village, Lazūnai district.

Children’s Tale

I was walking along a path through the trees (forest), and I found a wolf frightened; it was lying there, its jaws full of flies. I thought, ‘There’s the frightened one.’ I say, ‘We need to take a look and see whether the other side is swollen too.’ I let my claws (fingernails) down and began to turn him onto his other side. When he got up, when he jumped, he threw me by the stumps and frightened me terribly, and I myself got scared; he bounded across the little river and disappeared, and my sides hurt for two weeks.

Told by Avižičius Juozas, 49, from Pasaliai village, Daunoriai district.

Adventure Tale

I heard that, up in the sky, I was thinking of catching a mosquito, and I thought it was a cow. I caught both the mosquito and the cow and carried them up into the sky to trade. I came to an oak tree and climbed into it; it was impossible to climb up into the sky, three metres high. What should I do? I took a piece of a pole, prodded, and climbed out. They gave me more calves there and gave me cows; I went to that oak—but its top had fallen off. What should I do? There was no way to climb down to the ground. I slaughtered those cows, slaughtered the calves, cut straps from their hides, sewed them together, and let myself down to the ground on those straps. It was impossible to let me down the fifty metres to the ground. A storm came, tossing me about: now the winds were carrying me to Moscow, now to Petersburg, and I was swinging on the strap.

200

The wind tossed me and tossed me until I finally broke free. When I broke free, I plunged into a pond, up to my neck in mud, and sat in the mud, with nowhere to go. A duck came, made a nest on my head, and laid eggs, while I sat in the mud. A dog came and ate those eggs, and when I grabbed it by the tail, it pulled me out, and that’s how I arrived in Vilnius.

Told by Avižičius Juozas

Tale

There was a poor man who lived poorly. He set out along the road and kept going. He met an old man, a very old man. “Where are you going?” he asked. “I’m going, grandfather, to look for the way to make people’s lives better. And where are you going?” “Come with me; we’ll go together to heal people.” So they both set off and went wherever people were grieving; he healed them, and they walked around like that all the time. At last he had gathered himself a whole bundle of money. The old man came and said, “Well, let’s rest here. Go with the little lamb; we’ll slaughter it, roast it over the fire, and eat.” The old man lay down to sleep, while the other slaughtered the lamb, took out its kidneys, roasted its skin over the fire, and ate it. The old man woke up and said, “You took out my kidneys; I’ll roast them and eat them.” “Grandfather, there are no kidneys in the black lamb.” “How can there be none? Every lamb has them.” He did not admit that he had eaten them; he lied to the old man. So they ate the lamb, and the old man left the man there, saying, “I’ll go home, and you won’t heal anyone without me.” And he did leave him. Wherever he went, the lord’s daughter had fallen ill. The poor man came there to heal her. “Oh,” he said, “I’ll heal her.” He watched how the old man healed people, so he tried to heal her too. But the old man did not heal by medicine; God gave him the power to heal. The man went to heal her and began cutting the girl with a knife; he cut and cut, but could not put her back together. His hands grew bloody, and he himself was covered in blood, and he did nothing—he did not heal her. They were already taking the lord to the gallows; they were about to hang him. Just then the old man arrived. “You rascal, what have you done! I told you not to heal anyone, but you went off without me to heal, and now they’re going to hang you. So, are there kidneys in the black lamb?” “Grandfather, there aren’t.” “Now they’re hanging you; your death is certain, and there’s no escape.” “Well, such is the trouble; there’s nothing left, nothing at all.” And the old man went to heal the lord’s daughter whom the man had cut. The old man put the girl back together, gathered the pieces the man had cut, stuck one into one ear and another into the other ear—the girl came back to life and stood up well again. “Well, now,” he said to the lord, “let this poor fellow go; it’s all right, I healed her for him.” And the lord let him go. The old man said to him, “Well, lad, don’t go healing anyone without me, or they’ll hang you; your time will come soon enough, all the way to death.” The old man set off to divide the money. He makes one pile, makes another pile, and then makes a third pile. “Grandfather, what are you doing? Three piles—you’re making one too many; the two of us healed them, and there was no third person.” “Look, lad: this pile is yours, this one is mine, and that third pile is for the one who ate the lamb’s kidneys.” The man laughed: “Grandfather, I ate them.” “Where did you say you ate them? Your death was already upon you, but you didn’t confess; when you saw death coming, then you confessed what you had done with the kidneys. Go on, go on, don’t fret.” “Grandfather, on my honor, I ate them.” “You rascal! There you have it—death was yours, but you didn’t confess; when you saw death coming, you confessed. Death is more precious than life.” The old man gathered all the piles, put them into a bundle, and gave it to him. “There, live, and don’t go healing so many people.” The lads don’t walk with God—they walk with nobody.

Told by Avižičius Juozas

201

About bees

It was like this: the devil deceived the stork (tricked it). The stork was a helper to the bees, and the devil had those worms that eat cattle and horses. The devil knew that the stork carried honey, and the devil wanted honey, so he began to bargain: let’s exchange, you give me bees, and I’ll give you worms. Then the stork began: perhaps you’ll deceive me, perhaps they’ll be no good if we exchange. The devil agreed, and it had to be said when they would exchange, in case the stork’s worms turned out to be no good: they didn’t know, perhaps those worms would be better than the bees. Then the devil said: you’ll exchange when all the leaves have fallen from the trees. The stork knew that they would fall in autumn, but then the devil thought of the pine and the spruce, whose leaves never fall. Then the stork came to the devil in autumn, when the leaves had already fallen. Then the devil began bargaining: are you blind, look around, have they fallen? The stork looked to see what was there, and the bees stayed with the devil. And the devil gave them to people and said: where there are bees, thunder will never strike.

Told by Spiečys, 58 years old, from Dervagiai village, Daunoriai district.

Lament for a deceased mother

Oh, my dear mother, why did you leave me? Now I am an orphan, while other people’s children have mothers. Who will comb my hair, braid it, rinse my little shirts, do the little chores, and tend to me—who will keep me from getting cold, and tuck me into bed? Oh, my dear mother, you made a little chest for me; it is dark inside, no light was made there. Oh, my dear mother, what sort of little chest have you made for me, how cheerless it is. Oh, my dear mother, you lie so quietly, you do not answer us, you do not say a word to us, you do not stir our hands; you cannot speak. Oh, my dear mother, come quietly and wake me gently; come to the window, call your little children, so they do not fall asleep, so they get up to do their little tasks, because they might fall asleep, because they might not learn, without their own mother, without their own dear one. Aunts by marriage are not mothers; they do not take care of us. Things are so hard, so bad: there is no one to call us, no one to tend to us, no one to prepare food for us, to feed us, without our own mother, without our own dear one. Write a little note, give it to a little bird, so it will bring it, so it will call her, so I may speak to her, so I may recognize my mother’s little words. Oh, my dear mother, I will not see you there anymore, I will not look there anymore; oh, my dear mother, when will you take me to you?

Lamented by Audzevičiūtė Vikčia, 72 years old, from Uosiagirai village, Daunoriai district.

Lament for a deceased daughter

Oh, my daughter, my dear one, my little berry, my little bird, I will not see you again; there will be no more of your little footsteps, no more of your little words, no one will take my place, and there will be no more of your little chores. Why did you die so young, why did you fade so soon, like grass in autumn, like a little flower in the garden? Why did you leave me, why did you leave your old mother? You went down to the earth so young. Why did you take offense—was it at us old ones, or was it so hard for you to be here? Who will look after me in my old age…

202

… who will cover me (bury me) with a little shroud? I thought that you, my daughter, would one day look after me in my old age, but I have come to lay you, my young one, in the earth. Your little house will be without windows, gloomy and sorrowful: I shall neither hear your words nor see your little footprints—I shall neither hear nor listen to you; you will send me no letter, nor will I read your cards; you will not come to me or say a word about what your life is like beneath that little mound, my daughter.

Lamented Avižičienė Paulina, 48 years old, from Dervagiai village, Daunoriai rural district.

Lament for a deceased husband

My dear husband, my most handsome one, my beloved, why did you die, why did you leave me? People will go ploughing their fields, but I will have no one to plough mine; my little plot will remain untilled. Our little son, the farmer’s young child, has no one to teach and guide him; he will not remember his dear father and will not know his father. Other people’s children will go haymaking with their fathers, while he will stand like a little stump; the children will bully him, and there will be no one to speak up for him. It is hard for me to be left alone; what shall I do now, where shall I go, where shall I turn? Why did you leave me alone, why didn’t you take me with you? You did not forget me; you said, “Take me with you, so that I, poor thing, would not have to suffer!” Other young wives will go with their husbands, but I must go alone. Oh, my dear husband, green grass will grow on your little grave; summer will come, the cuckoo will call, the birds will chirp, and all the little bugs and beetles will come to life, while you alone will lie beneath the earth. May God grant you heaven, so that it may be better for you to go up to heaven.

Lamented Spiecienė Ona, 60 years old, from Dervagiai village, Daunoriai rural district.

Lullaby

Hush now, hush now, little black cat, don’t wake my child! I’ll take some leather from those hides and sew a little coat for my child. Curl up, curl up, little spotted cat, don’t wake my child! I’ll take some leather from those hides and sew fur trousers for my child. Curl up, curl up, little white cat, don’t wake my child! I’ll take some leather from those hides and sew a little shirt for my child.

Sang Audzevičiūtė Vikcia, 72 years old, from Uosiagiris village, Daunoriai rural district.

Lullaby

Sleep, sleep, I rock you, my pretty little daughter, my dear little one; I rock you, I lull you, I sing you a little song so that you may fall asleep.

Sung by Audzevičiūtė Vikcia

203

Shepherds’ Song

Don’t rain, don’t rain, little rain; your child will get chilled, chilled: sitting beneath the bushes, having a crust of bread, cutting it into pieces, sharing a little piece with each.

Sung by: Kavalčiuk Paulina, 49 years old; Tulko Juzefa, 60 years old; Stankevič Vladislava, 45 years old; Žaldak Olesia, 56 years old; Tulko Ana, 53 years old; Žaldak Olimpija, 48 years old; and Plakina Juzefa, 52 years old. All are from the village of Bebrėnai, Lazūnai district.

Prayer to the Moon

1) Young little moon, king of the sky, may it be well with you, and may we be well.

Recorded in the village of Šeškai, Daunoriai district, from Škarbeliosioji Vikčia, about 65 years old.

2) Young moon, king of the sky, may you have a crown, and may I have health and a long life.

Recorded from Audzevičiūtė Vikčia

Song

The hare danced along the streets, and the girls along the side streets (parlor): the hare wanted to spy on what the girls were doing.

And the girls spin yarn, spin yarn, and carry it to market, while the lads sing, while the lads sing.

Sung by Audzevičiūtė Vikčia

Riddles

1) It walks along the walls with a red coat (Prussians).

2) Five sons live with their mother, and one name for them all (hands).

3) A barn full of sheep, and only one baron bleats (a church and a priest).

4) A barrel with no bottom and no hoops, and with nothing else, yet full of wine (a fart—an egg).

5) Built without hands or an axe, a house (a bird's nest).

6) A tail from the head, and a tail from the tail (a horse).

7) A poppy seed pierces a collar (a flea bites a person).

8) All the trees are alike, but one branch is long (a milking stool).

9) Smoke rises at the foot of the tree (an apple).

10) Mother is smooth (flat), father is a humpback (humped), children are little pokers (a threshing floor, a barn, flails).

204

COLLECTION OF DIALECT MATERIAL FOR THE LINGUISTIC ATLAS OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

Э. И. ГРИНАВЕЦКЕНЕ

Abstract

The article points to an important area of Lithuanian linguistics—the study of Lithuanian dialects and the collection of dialect material for the Lithuanian Linguistic Atlas. This work has been carried out in our republic since 1951. The Departments of the Lithuanian language at the republic’s higher education institutions and the Language History and Dialectology Section of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR (which serves as the leading and coordinating center for this work) are actively involved. To date, dialect material has been collected from more than 500 localities in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR, as well as from some isolated Lithuanian enclaves located in western Belarus. In the future, the dialects of the remaining 200 localities included in the grid of our Dialectological Atlas remain to be investigated, and the collection of data for the Atlas of Lithuanian Dialects will be completed. The recording and study of dialect material have become especially intensive in recent years. In 1959 alone, dialect material was collected from 85 localities.

The article surveys the progress of dialect research, reveals the scholarly value of the collected dialect material, points to linguistic phenomena preserved in the dialects that are important for Lithuanian dialectology, and emphasizes the great significance of the forthcoming Linguistic Atlas of the Lithuanian Language.