Term after Term. IV

JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

PLACE NAMES WITH THE STEM - VIETĖ

In considering whether “radimvietė”needs correction and proposing “radavietė”in place of “radvietė”, it is hardly enough to say that “compound words of the type mentioned, with the element vieta, are not numerous in the language” and that they “are essentially neologisms dating from the 19th–20th centuries” (Umbrasas 2007: 14). At the very least, accuracy requires saying that the dictionaries of Konstantinas Sirvydas already contained neologisms paleidavietė ‘house of prostitution’ and reikiavietė ‘privy’ (Pakalka 1979: Index). Kalvietė ‘prison’ appears in the dictionary of Jokūbas Brodovskis (~1692–1744) (LKŽ V 1959). Terms lydvietė, litavietė. are still being coined today.

When discussing the incorrectness of that one form, radimvietė, and its replacements, this is not the main point; nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that there are many compounds formed by another method—noun/adjective + vieta—including quite a few old ones. The dictionaries of K. Sirvydas already contain turgavietė, ugniavietė. K. Sirvydas’s own coinages mergavietė, auksavietė, geležiavietė ‘ore deposit’ (Pakalka 1979: Index) did not catch on, although, alongside the established word rūd ynas (1. ‘a swamp with reddish water, peat bog’; 2. ‘containing iron ore, iron-bearing water’; 3. ‘ore-bearing land’), K. Milkus’s dictionary records the sense 4. ‘ore deposit, mine’. In modern times, a Sirvydas-style form rū dvietė was coined, LEnc VI 1937 568 (LKŽ XI 1978); only DŽ 1993 has rū dvietė, see rūd ynas 1. geol. ‘ore deposit’ (DŽ 1954 and 1972 give rū dvietė geol. ‘place where ore occurs; ore field’, while rūd ynas means 1. ‘ore deposit, ore mine’). From colloquial language, the old forms (with the ending unchanged) dvarvietė and kėl vieta are worth noting; newer forms include kel iavietė / kėl vietė, daržavietė, gubavietė and statvietė, kaimavietė, kiemavietė, kluon(a)vietė, kaupavietė, kérvietė ‘a place covered with brushwood’, kūgiavietė, miškavietė, namavietė and trobavietė, butvietė ‘place where a dwelling once stood; homestead site’ (: butas 3. ‘homestead, dwelling, living’, though 1. ‘residential house, cottage, hut’), sodybvietė and sodvietė, žagvietė. Written sources (and dictionaries) offer many more: aklavietė, alkvietė, bebravietė BM and RT 281, darbovietė S. Daukantas / darbavietė in the dictionaries of P. Ruigys and F. Kuršaitis /

160 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. IV

darbovietė, dyk(a)vietė, dvarovietė, gaisravietė, gimtavietė, kapavietė, karūvietė ‘battlefield’ in F. Nesselmann’s dictionary and S. Daukantas; kurortavietė GKr 1988 36 6; laužavietė, lizdavietė, mokslavietė ‘school’; nakuyvietė, naudovietė L. Ivinskis; pelkiavietė, poilsiavietė, ponvietė, slaptavietė, startavietė, statybvietė, stirtavietė, stovyklavietė, šventvietė in F. Kuršaitis’s dictionary / šventavietė J. Šlapelis; vandenvietė, vasarvietė, verslavietė, žaibavietė, žygvietė. It should not be forgotten that there were also quite unsuccessful forms, for example senrašvietė A 1883 80, kalnavietė and slesnavietė (“Even if you drain the lowlands, and water the highlands”), by Vaižgantas. It should be remembered that there are many (and recurring) similar village names as well: Būdvietė, Būdvietės (also Būdvietis, Būdviečiai and Būdviečiai, Būdąviečiai); Arlõvietė, Čerioškavietė, Diliãvietė, Gražiãvietė, Gùčiavietė, Kluonãvietė, Linksmãvietė, Liẽgavaitė, Pirktãvietė, Ramõvietė, Saliniavietė, Šilvietė, Šmylavietė, Šūkiavietė, Zumbrickãvietė; Žãrdavieta; also Bilvietis, Masikuvietiškis, Põcvietis, Rãdvietis, Šãkuvietis, Ūosvietis; Bãzviečiai, Daukšviečiai, Didviečiai, Dvãrviečiai / Dvarviečiai, Gėrviečiai, Júostaviečiai, Kiškėlviečiai, Kúokeaviečiai, Lénkviečiai, Mėtirkeviečiai, Mìlviečiai, Mìsviečiai, Nõrkviečiai, Pũzraviečiai, Sãrviečiai, Skeŕsviečiai, Svirnaviečiai, Šiauďviečiai, Tatõrviečiai, Žárdoviečiai; Dangviečiai.

Radimvietė and augimvietė are incorrectly formed; in the sense under discussion, so too is kirtimvietė. In another sense, however, kirtimvietė ‘place of a former felling’ could, at least as a potential coinage, be an antonym of miškavietės ‘place where a forest grew, site of a former forest’ (LKŽ VIII 1970). Terminology cannot do without compounds of complex structure, for example: šlapimtakis, šilumvežis, geležinkelis, kritulmatis, sodybvietė, statybvietė, vainiklapis, žiedynkotis, žiedynlapis, žiedynpumpuris, žiedynsostis, žiedynstiebis... In this respect terminology resembles the toponymic corpus: it too includes (and cannot avoid) even more complex formations, especially in their accentuation, for example: Ąžuolpamušė and Lašmėnpamušis, Aržūolupis, Dambāvaragio piliakalnis, Didžprūdėliai, Kerkùtviečiai, Ketūrnaujiena, Kunigókālnis, Mėldikviršiai, Paantvardỹs, Pabūdupiai, Pabūdviečiai, Pajúodupė, Pāłazdijis and Pāpalazdijai, Pāpiliakalnis, Pasandravõys, Pašilūpiai, Pavilkūjys, Pykuõliakalnis, Plinkāgalis, Salapėraugis, Tiltėliamiškio kalnas,...

What matters most is that words formed by both distinct methods—noun/adjective + vieta (something that existed or exists) and verb + vieta (usually something that exists)—belong to common semantic microsystems: rūdvietė and kasvietė, gręžvietė, kirtavietė; lizdavietė and tuokvietė; poilsiavietė, kurort(a)vietė and gydvietė. Assigning some of them to one or the other method of formation is quite difficult. So this needs to be discussed while there is still time.

Terminologija | 2007 | 14 161

The best example was Vincas Urbutis’s article On kirtavietė and kirtimvietė (KK III 1962: 45–50)—a response to Antanas Lyberis’s short article Is the word kirtavietė well formed? (KK I 1961: 35–36). The question of derivation and the form of the derivative—kirtavietė—was resolved by Urbutis exemplary well. But one matter remained unresolved, and this continued for a long time. The meaning of the word kirtavietė was clearly stated by the opponent—Russian забой (Lyberis 1961: 35). Interestingly, kasvietė, gręžvietė are already mentioned there, although kasvietė appears neither in LKŽ V 1959 nor in DŽ 1954 or 1972 (it appears only in DŽ 1993); gręžvietė appears neither in LKŽ III 1956 nor in DŽ 1993, although gręžvietė had already been mentioned earlier by A. Lyberis himself (Lyberis and Ulvydas 1958: 71, 102), and it is found in terminological dictionaries: забой – kirtavietė (in mines), gręžvietė (in a borehole), забой скважины – 1. gręžvietė, gręžinio dugnas (geol.), 2. gręžinio dugnas (geol.), забой штрека – štreko kirtavietė (mining) G and FGTŽ 1956, забой – kirtavietė, cf. забойщик – rūdos kirtėjas PolŽ 1959, забой – 1. mining: kirtavietė, 2. geology: gręžvietė, забой скважины – gręžvietė PolŽ 1984. But it is proposed that kirtavietė be replaced not only by kirtvietė, but also, “preferably, by kirtimvietė” (Lyberis 1961: 35). Urbutis replies: “<...> the word kirtavietė <...> can certainly continue to be used as a term with a specialized meaning (for example, as a substitute for Russian забой). It is, of course, of little use in ordinary speech. Instead of kirtaviečių valymas (in a forest), the more natural expression is kirtimų valymas” (Urbutis 1962: 49). We are surprised to find that even DŽ 1954 gives kirtavietė with a see-reference to kirtimas (sense 2), “an area of forest being felled or already felled,” whereas LKŽ V 1959 has it without a cross-reference: kirtavietė “an area of forest being felled; a clearing”: Clearing felled areas is one of the most important forestry tasks (Soviet-era writings), although kirtimas sense 6, “an area of felled forest, a clearing,” is found both in spoken usage and in written sources. It would seem that, before kirtavietė emerged as a mining term (perhaps alongside kasvietė and gręžvietė), foresters took the spoken-language word kirtimas—for reasons unknown, perhaps of their own devising or on someone’s advice—and replaced it with the neologism kirtavietė, intended for something else. Urbutis’s 1962 recommendation was either disregarded or, more likely, never heard, perhaps even by linguists themselves: DŽ 1972 still defines kirtavietė only as “a stretch of forest designated for felling; an area of forest being felled,” while kirtimas sense 2 is “an area of felled forest, a clearing.” The justified rejection of the needlessly introduced kirtimvietės (забой!) (kirtimvietė see kirtavietė in DŽ 1972) probably contributed to this as well. Only DŽ 1993 gives kirtavietė two meanings: 1. “a stretch of forest designated for felling; an area of forest being felled,” 2. “a place where rock is being cut”: anglių kirtavietė (coal face). This is probably a transitional, compromise approach to presenting the entry. Usage supports this dictionary treatment of the senses: 1. There are felled areas everywhere, with stumps sticking up Vd 2007 32 54. 2. <...> miners, <...>, forced to descend into the working faces Vd 2007 47 44.

162

Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. IV

None of the derivational linguists—Pranas Skardžius, Vincas Urbutis, or Saulius Ambrazas—has discussed whether nouns naming the result of an action, such as kirtimas, -ai, have any significant, distinctive temporal submeaning: the result may lie in the future, be occurring now, or have already come about. This is also borne out by lexical meanings, for example: audimas 2. “the quantity of cloth woven in a single run”: There will be one weaving from that yarn Geistarai, 3. “cloth, fabric”: How many metres of cloth have you put in? Upýna. Spin yourself a little yarn, weave yourself a little cloth—you’ll sew it up and wear it J. Jablonskis; maišymas 4. “dough for bread, bread mixed and left to rise”: There’ll be flour for mixing, but let’s not forget Geistarai; 2. pūdymas, pūdymas 1. “arable land left unsown to lie fallow”: They don’t leave land fallow now, they just sow, sow Juodáičiai (Jurbarkas District). Although it is often more customary to speak of these results in the past tense, for example, I picked the picking, I wove the weaving Kartėna, this can, after all, also be something yet to be done, already named (and now also planned or projected). The formation may also contribute to the implication—it derives from the past frequentative tense, although “in earlier times derivatives with the suffix -imas were formed from present-tense verb stems” (Ambrazas 1993: 24). Incidentally, some such derivatives have not the slightest semantic connection with time—kinkymas, -ai, grendymas, -ai, pasakymas, -ai. It should be noted that past tense is often needlessly used in definitions instead of the present. Naming something does not normally involve a tense distinction—what matters is not whether it is present or past, but its purpose—cf. malimas 2. “grain to be ground or already ground.” If pylimas meant only “already poured,” what would “still to be poured” be?!

Foresters latched onto a word they had overheard and created an unnecessary distinction—kirtavietė (incidentally, the first element comes from the past tense, kirt-o) and kirtimas: felling takes place in a kirtavietė, whether of the forest as a whole or of individual trees—but what is a kirtimė? This distinction is not grounded in spoken usage; it is largely an exercise in imposing logic on language. If a distinction is to be made, “an area of felled forest” would be more precisely and clearly expressed not by kirtimas but by the spoken-language term iškarta, “an area felled in a forest; a clearing, a felling,” recorded in Šimkái čiai, Telšiai, Užventis, Žemaitė, and A. Juška’s dictionary (LKŽ IV 1957); less suitable would be miškavietė, recorded in Gegrėnai and Dūsetos (LKŽ VIII 1970)—that may suggest miškas as a forest tract. The system in LTE V 1979 is thoroughly confused: kirtavietė is defined as 1. “the surface bounding the end of a mine working, formed by a rock-breaking tool <…>,” and 2. “a forest area designated for felling or already felled”; it also gives ↗ biržė sense 1, “a forest area designated for felling, <…>” in LTE II 1977, while kirtimas is absent, because kirtavietė means “<…>, or an area of felled forest.” In VLE X 2006, “the surface bounding the end of a mine working, <…>” is sense 3 of kirtavietė, while sense 1 is “an area of forest that has been felled and not replanted, or has not yet regrown naturally <…>” (the author is forester Antanas Juodvalkis), and sense 2 is “forest being felled

Terminologija | 2007 | 14 163

area,” and ↗ biržė 3. “A forest area allocated for main and intermediate fellings, <...>” (author) VLE III 2003, but there is no felling.

Briefly, foresters who picked up kirtavietę half a century ago keep wavering over what it means: either an area “designated for felling or felled,” or simply an area that is “felled” or “being felled.” Without a serious forestry terminology dictionary, nothing can be done here.

Augavietė was recorded in LKŽ I₂ 1968, while DŽ 1993 standardized augimvietė, see augavietė—“a place where a plant grows naturally.” Radvietė was recorded much later, in AplApsŽ 2000. Seven years later, it was proposed, by analogy with augavietė – radavietė (Umbrasas 2007: 14). Is that analogy necessary? After all, we have a good precedent in Urbutis’s rejection of the analogous form kasvietę and grėžvietę—kirtvietė: he judged it “equally good” (Urbutis 1962: 48), but recommended kirtavietę—“already in use for more than fifteen years” (Urbutis, ibid.). What matters more is that we not run out of willingness, resolve, and time to correct what truly needs correcting. And there are various analogies, pulling in opposite directions too; in this case, radvila: radvilà, radviliukas, archaic, dialectal “foundling”—see pamestinukas DŽ 1954 (DŽ 1972: neither archaic nor dialectal; DŽ 1993: see rastinukas).

A. Umbrasas passed over the term for a bird’s nesting site without evaluating it in any way (the formal excuse being that it is absent from dictionaries). It is similar to, but different from, a place of discovery, a growing site; – to nest, nests, nested is a mixed-type verb, so nesting would yield the cumbersome nesting-site, and compounds with a verbal element of this (mixed) type are not characteristic, though possible (there is a lying-down place, “bed,” and even a settlement—from a secondary verb). The term for a bird’s nesting site would be possible only with the participial first element nested, -a, but none of this kind are known. A possible formation bee-nesting place would perhaps be ambiguous—perhaps first understood as brood (of bees) + place (in a hive). Thus one should settle on the form pérvietė (it would also reinforce a place of discovery).

Lizdavietė, “a place for a nest,” used by Vaižgantas and the ornithologist Tadas Ivanauskas, was lexicographically recorded in LKŽ VII 1966, but appears in DŽ only in DŽ 1993. It is not easy to determine which word-formation pattern žiemavietė follows: LEnc IV 1936: 1383, T. Ivanauskas (LKŽ XX 2002), and ži emovietė in DŽ 1972. Standardization is also incomplete—DŽ 1993 seems to prefer ži emovietė, since it is defined as “a place for wintering,” whereas žiemavietė is given only with the synonym “ži emovietė.” The derivational antonym vasarvietė, “a place for summering,” in DŽ 1993 is likewise not entirely clear in its formation—the first component could also derive from vasar-oti. Formally, Žiemovietė would come from žiema + vieta, žiema-vietė—from žiem-oti + vieta, but that is not necessarily so: the linking vowel –a– could analogously also come from žiemos. Once again, it would be best to look to which form has priority in usage and recommend žiemavietė (T. Ivanauskas).

164 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. IV

Nerštavietė „žuvų neršimo vieta“ DŽ 1954, 1972 ir 1993, LKŽ VIII 1970 formaliai irgi galėtų būti abiejų darybos būdų, nors veikiausiai yra iš nerštas + vieta. Žūklavietė „žūklės vieta“ DŽ 1993, LKŽ XX 2002 sudaryta aiškiai – iš žūklė + vieta. Plintant aiškios motyvacijos darinių madai gal kam dingojasi viena žvejyba galėsiant verstis. Bet medž-ioklei į porą kaip tik geriau tinka žū-klė (:žūti ryt. „žvejoti, žuvauti“ DŽ 1993), o žūklavietę keisti žvejybos vieta neracionalu.

Similar formations keep appearing, but they are not always successful. For instance, the writer Pulgis Andriušis used the word [of flies] miegovietė Mt 1992 2 36. Perhaps miegavietė would be more correct, but darbovietė, with the linking vowel –o–, has also become established. maudimvietė LP 1985 86 2 should certainly be corrected, but the correction should certainly not be maudymvietė, but maudavietė.

It should be recalled that the meanings of a compound and its corresponding phrase may differ, e.g.: darbovietė, “place of work or service (as an institution),” and darbo vieta, “a specially equipped place intended for working”; gyvenvietė is inaccurately defined in DŽ₃ as “a place of residence”: that is precisely gyvenamoji vieta, “a place where a person lives,” whereas gyvenvietės, gyvenamosios vietovės are “places where people live and work”—cities, towns, and villages (VLE VI 2004).

N E S U T A P D I N T A S, O P L O K Š Č I A S I S S T O G A S

The question of whether sutapdintas stogas is a good term would be almost unnecessary—what good is it if it is unclear? It is not only unclear but also strange. Yet closer examination shows that other possible candidates were rejected, though not without necessity and not entirely without reason. Of course, they really must be brought back into consideration, since the option chosen was the worst of them (and by no means everyone’s choice).

It is explained that this is a roof flush with the ceiling. But the term’s inaccuracy immediately becomes apparent: a pitched roof (or part of one) can also be flush with the ceiling. Another flaw is that the term itself does not make clear what it is flush with. And there is nothing else flush in construction, although, for example, the ceiling of one floor may coincide with the floor above.

The term “sutapdintas stogas” is used both in scholarly construction literature and especially in periodicals (a very recent example: specializes in covering flat and pitched roofs Vd 2007 31 20). But remarkably, it appears not only in neither DŽ 1993, LKŽ XIII 1984 and XV 1991, RLKŽ II 1983 and IV 1985, LRKŽ 1988, but also in neither PolŽ 1959 and 1984 nor StatŽ 2002.

And terminology dictionaries offer all sorts of variants. For instance, PolŽ 1959 gives плоская крыша – lėkštas stogas, while PolŽ 1984 gives both плоская and плоскоскатная крыша—

Terminologija | 2007 | 14

1 6 5

shallow roof (opposite: скамая крыша – pitched roof), although плоское перекрытие – flat ceiling/floor slab, whereas StatŽ 2002 gives this as flat roof – flat [deck] roof, terrace – Flachdach – toiture-terrase – toit plat [en terrasse] – плоская крыша, and steep roof – steep roof – steiles Dach – toit abrupt – крутая крыша.

Mixed usage also occurs in the literature, for example: If a building has no attic, the functions of the ceiling and roof are performed by a single structure called a combined roof covering CivilP 1969 7. Depending on the degree of slope, roofs can be divided into steeply pitched (with a slope greater than 10⁰), shallowly pitched (4–10⁰), and flat (0–4⁰) (ibid., 98). The structure of flat roofs consists of a reinforced-concrete ceiling, a vapor barrier, thermal insulation, a waterproofing layer, and flooring, which also serves as the roof covering (ibid., 119).

Already in DŽ 1972, stogas 1 is shallow, steep, flat (and likewise in DŽ 1993). All are different, but are they all clear? The question will seem pointless to many, but the answer will be surprising.

What is truly surprising is the definition of the word lėkštas—1. “flat, shallow” (although the examples do not indicate flatness: a shallow bowl (cf. plate—1. “a shallow bowl”), a shallow roof, shallow shores of an island (not steep, gently sloping) DŽ 1954; 1. “flat, level”: shallow soil—the water does not run off, 2. “not steep, sloping”: a shallow roof, shallow shores of an island, 3. “shallow”: a shallow bowl DŽ 1972 and 1993 (cf. plate—1. “a round vessel with sloping sides” DŽ 1972, 1. “a round eating vessel with sloping sides” DŽ 1993, although both DŽ 1972 and DŽ 1993 also have: a deep plate for soup, a shallow one for meat¹. Deep plates probably have steeper sides.

Already in DŽ 1954, flat, 1. “level, not convex, flattened,” is illustrated

¹ DŽ 1954 does not have the word half-plate, while DŽ 1972 and 1993 give a false meaning for half-plate—1. “a small plate” (2. “half a plateful”)—when in fact, as usage clearly shows, it is a little plate, “a small plate on which to set a glass, cup, etc.”: a tea-service saucer DŽ 1972, 1. “a small plate” DŽ 1993 (whereas 2. “half the quantity” is half a plateful). Half-bowl is similarly defined in many sources as 1. “a small bowl” DŽ 1954, 1972, and 1993; 1. “a small, smaller bowl” LKŽ X 1976. Smaller vessels are generally named not with compounds containing the element half-, but with diminutive suffix derivatives—a small barrel, a little bucket, a little pot, a little tin, a little bottle / small bottle, a little glass / small glass, a little plate / small plate, a little bowl (likewise a little bag, a little basket, a wicker basket / small wicker basket, a little box). The only exception is the more recent half-bottle, but here the meaning comes from quantity (cf. half-liter (“a bottle with a capacity of half a liter”), as with half a measure, half a sack). The term of the Chamber of Agriculture, half-bowl, used in place of the archaic palmisks (Polish półmisek) GK 1934 5–8 86 (variant palunksas 1. “bowl,” 2. “tray” LKŽ IX 1973; LKŽ IX does not record palumickas, Pilviškiai), should actually be half-plate—after all, it is defined as 2. “a somewhat deeper oblong plate,” since it is a vessel made of the material (ceramic) and in the style customary for plates, but is not “half a plate”; rather, it is “half-plate” (cf. semi-trailer). It is worth noting that g(l)oodo primarily means 1. large, 2. plate, and only 3. bowl, PrekŽ 1996. Two similar vessels are bowl, 1. “a round, deep vessel; <...>” DŽ 1993; 1. “a wide, deep, round vessel for soup, washing oneself, laundry, etc., <...>” LKŽ II 1969; and plate, 1. “a round eating vessel with sloping sides” DŽ 1993; 1. “a round vessel with shallow sides, used for eating” LKŽ VII 1966 (definitions

166

Jonas Klimavičius │ Terminas prie termino. IV

paired with flat roof, DŽ 1972 defines it more precisely as “having a straight and level surface, level horizontally,” while DŽ 1993 defines it less well as “having a straight and level surface.” DŽ 1972 and 1993 also include flat-roofed (house). The meaning of flat in standard language is also unequivocally shown by its derivatives—terms such as slab, small slab, flat cake, plane in geometry and geography, plateau (although its surface may be somewhat undulating), flat press, flat-nose pliers, flat-surfaced (grave) in archaeology (with a flat surface), as well as technical adjectives flat-bottomed (ship, boat), flat-topped (hills), flat-seeded (vetches), flat-eared (barley).

However, LKŽ X 1976 gives flat 4. “shallow”: flache Schüssel – a shallow bowl, in P. Ruigys’s dictionary (verified de visu) (plokščias and plokštus are not recorded with this meaning). Of course, this usage is not from present-day standard language—today a flat bowl would be contradictio in adiecto.

Another clue is found in LKŽ VII 1966: lėkštas 1. “flat, level, even” in Kvėdarna, Kartena, Skirsnemunė, and Prussian writings; likewise 1. “flat” in Sintautai (ZanŽ II 2004), with the variant lėkšnas, see lėkštas 1: a shallow roof J. Jablonskis (although lėkšnus, see lėkštas 3: a shallow plate is also J. Jablonskis). But lėkštas 2. “sloping, inclined, not steep” (the distribution of this meaning is inadequately indicated), 3. “with sloping sides, shallow, not deep”: flache Schüssel – a shallow bowl (while tiefe Schüssel – a deep bowl) F. Kurschat’s dictionary (verified de visu) // “shallow”: a shallow place in Vilkaviškis, and also 3. “shallow, not deep” in Lukšiai (ZanŽ II 2004). K. Milkus’s dictionary gives both senses: bliūdas lėkštas, plokštus – a shallow bowl (verified de visu).

Flat can have only the basic meaning “level horizontally” in standard language. But the attested variations in dialects in the meanings of both flat and shallow differ not essentially,

(the definitions are not yet entirely precise) but rather in material (though not invariably); moreover, the bowl’s function is broader. The existence of two terms is historically conditioned. Both, in their roots, are now motivated by characteristics of the vessel’s shape (bowl: deep, plate: shallow) and are associated with food and eating. Bowl (Kvėdarna, Gargždai; variant dubenìs in Skriaudžiai), LKŽ II₂ 1969, on Kazimieras Būga’s proposal (Sabaliauskas 1990: 293) and probably through Jonas Jablonskis’s efforts, replaced the Slavicism bliūdas, already recorded in P. Ruigys’s dictionary (bliūdelė already occurs in J. Bretkūnas’s Bible), LKŽ I₂ 1968; Russian блюдо is a common Slavic borrowing from Gothic biuþs (genitive biudis) “bowl” < biudan “to offer” (Фасмер I 1986). Russian миска is also a diminutive form of the word мица; Polish misa, miska, miseczka is a common Slavic borrowing, probably via Gothic mēs from Vulgar Latin mēsa < Latin mensa “table; meal, dish” (Фасмер II 1986; Brückner 1974). The Slavic form mucka was also modeled on and borrowed from Latin discus (< Greek discos) “disc” (also used for serving food; in shape, a precursor to the plate/bowl)—via Germanic languages (Middle Dutch disc, Old High German tisc → Modern German Tisch)—into Slavic: Polish deska, Russian доска, Ukrainian дошка (Фасмер I 1986; Brückner 1974). Plate (Šatės, Pandėlys, Skirsnemunė), LKŽ VII 1966 (perhaps Fraenkel 1955–1965 was wrong to consider it a neologism), was again most likely introduced by Jablonskis in place of torielkos, already used in J. Bretkūnas’s Bible (there are also variants), LKŽ XVI 1995. This word was borrowed from Slavic—Russian миска < Polish talerz < Czech talíř; the Slavic forms come from Germanic (Middle High German talier), which in turn comes from Italian tagliere < tagliare “to cut” < Latin taliare “to cut” (Фасмер IV 1987; Brückner 1974).

Terminologija | 2007 | 14 167

perhaps, does not allow them to be regarded as synonyms in the standard language. It must be said here that we still do not have a synonym dictionary of the standard language—SinŽ 1980 is a dictionary of synonyms of the Lithuanian language as a whole (although, in general, if synchrony and especially syntopy are disregarded, compiling synonym series is arbitrary rather than based on genuine synonymy data). This is a distorted picture: flat 1. (roof)—shallow-pitched (roof), while 2. → shallow, but shallow primarily means not deep, not concave (dish), and only lastly shallow-pitched. AntŽ 2003⁴ gives steep—shallow-pitched, gentle, sloping, sloping—as “which is hardly raised at all, low”: The banks of this stream are very steep, while those of the other are gentle Višakio Rūdà; whereas flat—pointed means “which projects outward” (?!). There are plenty of instances of unsettled meaning, for example: shallow-pitched—1. плоский: a shallow-pitched bowl—плоское блюдо (although flat also means 1. плоский), and only 2. (not steep) пологий, отлогий in LRKŽ 1988; пологий is primarily sloping, downhill, gentle, descending, sloping, slanting, sloping, and only then shallow-pitched, marked dial. (and then also sloping dial.) in RLKŽ III 1984. It seems that each author defines and orders meanings and assigns the label dial. according to their own dialect... And among the synonyms for the dominant descending (gradually, not steeply declining), SinŽ 1980 lists gentle (mountain), sloping (roof), sloping, sloping (bank), downhill, slanting, downhill, sloping dial., sloping dial. (roof, mountain), and sloping dial., sloping dial. (soil), sloping dial. (ceiling), sloping dial.. There is no shallow-pitched at all: apparently, according to the author’s dialect, shallow-pitched means “flat”... But this is wrong. StatŽ 2002 has inclined floor – inclined floor – einsteigender Fußboden – plancher oblique – наклонный пол.

Perhaps because the cross-dialectal collision between the meanings of the adjectives flat and shallow-pitched could not be overcome—since it had not yet been eliminated in normative lexicography either—the artificial conflated roof emerged as a compromise. Perhaps this is why MokŽ 2000 has no word shallow-pitched alongside shallow-pitched roofs.

The compromise solution must be eliminated. The meanings of the words flat and shallow-pitched must be codified and established without delay. Such a collision in the meanings of the word shallow-pitched cannot persist in the standard language—flat—1. lēzens; plakans: flat roof – lēzens jumts, flat chest – plakans krūtis, whereas shallow-pitched—1. plakans, 2. lēzens LieLaŽ 1964; shallow-pitched—1. flat; plane, 2. (not steep) gently-sloping LAKŽ 1991.

The idea that shallow-pitched could be motivatedly understood as “flat” might be supported to some extent by etymology, but not entirely—the original motivation would surely have been only “lying down”—although the Latvian cognate lēzns, lēzens means “flach” (Būga II 1959: 421), while eastern Lithuanian Highland dialect ložėti, -ėja (ložti), -ėjo means “to be broken down, laid flat” (from another area

168 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. IV

ložinti “to bend slightly” in P. Ruigys’ dictionary (70), K. Milkus’ dictionary (92)), ²ložė “a place where crops have lain flat, crops laid flat,” 2. “a broken, bent sheaf,” lažoti “to lie down, fall over (of crops)” (išležti, -lenža, -ležo “to be laid flat after wilting,” Kuršėnai), lažekai and lažonai “crops laid flat”; ¹palažas “that which has fallen over, lain down, or been laid down” (Fraenkel 1955–1965, checked against LKŽ VII 1966 and IX 1973—there, lažoti, lažekai, lažonai and ¹palažas are treated as foreign, Slavic words, but this is not true; moreover, ¹palažas should not be distinguished from ²palažas “offering” by M. Mažvydas, Wolfenbüttel Postil < * “that which is put down—laid (on the altar)” (probably a paronym of different origin); lėkšnas “soft, tender” Pagiriai:? lekšti, lėška (lenška), lėško “to become soft, limp” Užventis, although also lėkšti, lėkšta, lėško (see lekšti) Kupiškis (LKŽ VII 1966)). Thus shallow-pitched *“lying down, having lain down, lying” could readily have developed into both “flat” and “sloping” (cf. lėkis “rafter” Fraenkel 1955–1965).

For the present-day semantics of the word shallow-pitched, its relations with the members of the microsystem are most important. The decisive point is that Russian плоский, German flach, English flat, French plat correspond to Lithuanian flat. Thus the whole microsystem would appear as follows:

The conflated term simply does not fit into it.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Compounds with a second nominal element denoting a place and a first nominal, adjectival, or verbal element are fairly numerous among colloquial words and neologisms (often terms) dating from the first Lithuanian dictionary (before 1620). Although the former denote either former or present places, the latter—those with a verbal element—refer only to existing places; some from both word-formation patterns belong to common semantic microsystems, where analogies and interactions occur. The second type of formation is more difficult and less clear; here one encounters

Terminologija | 2007 | 14 169

fluctuations of the linking vowel, some of which are displaced by irregular formations made by subject specialists, with a first constituent drawn from nominal abstracts in –imas. At times, standardizers also stumble here, while subject specialists—the main users of these terms—look quite weak. The history of kirtavietės is especially long and convoluted, and therefore instructive.

2. The fairly widely used, though unapproved, term sutapdintas stogas (‘combined roof’; first approved as lėkštas or lėkštasis, now plokščiasis stogas, ‘flat roof’) seems to have arisen as a compromise—because the semantic conflict between the adjectives plokščias and lėkštas could not be overcome at a time when it had not yet been (entirely) eliminated in normative lexicography (the conflict is reflected in the change in the standard form of the term). Where plokščias is Russian плоский, German flach, English flat, and French plat, then lėkštas cannot mean “flat,” but only “sloping”—Russian наклонный, пологий, German geneigt, abschüssig, English sloping, French oblique.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

A: Auszra (newspaper).

Ambrazas S. 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai, Vilnius.

AntŽ 2003: Ermantytė I. Antonimų žodynas, Vilnius.

AplApsŽ 2000: Aplinkos apsaugos terminų žodynas, Vilnius.

BM ir RT 2000: Toporov V. Baltų mitologijos ir ritualo tyrimai. Vert. E. Jakulis, Vilnius.

Brückner A. 1974: Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Warszawa.

Būga K. II 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius.

CivilP 1969: Krasenskis V., Fedorovskis L. Civiliniai, pramoniniai ir žemės ūkio pastatai. I d. Civiliniai pastatai. Vert. R. Pranaitienė, Vilnius.

DŽ 1954: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius.

DŽ 1972: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius.

DŽ 1993: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius.

Fraenkel E. 1955–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg–Göttingen.

G ir FGTŽ 1956: Gudelis V. Geologijos ir fizinės geografijos terminų žodynas, Vilnius.

GK 1934: Gimtoji kalba.

GKr: Gimtasis kraštas (weekly newspaper).

KK I 1961: Kalbos kultūra 1.

KK III 1962: Kalbos kultūra 3.

LAKŽ 1991: Piesarskas B., Svecevičius B. Lietuvių–anglų kalbų žodynas, Vilnius.

LEnc IV 1936: Lietuviškoji enciklopedija 4, Kaunas.

LEnc VI 1937: Lietuviškoji enciklopedija 6, Kaunas.

Lyberis A. 1961: Ar gerai sudarytas žodis kirtavietė. – Kalbos kultūra 1, 35–36.

Lyberis A. ir Ulvydas K. 1958: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos leksikos praturtėjimas tarybinės santvarkos metais. – Literatūra ir kalba 3, 31–110.

LieLaŽ 1964: Bojāte A., Subatnieks V. Lietuviešu–latviešu vārdnīca, Rīga.

LKŽ I₂ 1968: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius.

LKŽ II₂ 1969: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 2, Vilnius.

LKŽ III 1956: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3, Vilnius.

LKŽ IV 1957: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 4, Vilnius.

LKŽ V 1959: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 5, Vilnius.

LKŽ VII 1966: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 7, Vilnius.

LKŽ VIII 1970: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 8, Vilnius.

170 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. IV

LKŽ IX 1973: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 9, Vilnius.

LKŽ X 1976: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 10, Vilnius.

LKŽ XI 1978: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 11, Vilnius.

LKŽ XIII 1984: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 13, Vilnius.

LKŽ XV 1991: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 15, Vilnius.

LKŽ XVI 1995: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 16, Vilnius.

LKŽ XX 2002: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 20, Vilnius.

LP: Lietuvos pionierius (newspaper).

LRKŽ 1988: Lyberis A. Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas, Vilnius.

LTE II 1977: Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 2, Vilnius.

LTE V 1979: Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 5, Vilnius.

MokŽ 2000: Norkaitienė M., Šepetytė R., Šimėnaitė Z. Mokomasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius.

Mt: Metai (journal).

Pakalka K. 1979: Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius.

PolŽ 1959: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų politechninis žodynas. Red. kol. p-kas A. Novodvorskis, Vilnius.

PolŽ 1984: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų politechnikos žodynas. Sudarė G. Daugėla, spec. red. J. Stanaitis, Vilnius.

PrekŽ 1996: Pričinauskas J. Rusų–lietuvių kalbų prekių žodynas, Vilnius.

RLKŽ II 1983: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 2. Sudarė Ch. Lemchenas, Vilnius.

RLKŽ III 1984: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 3. Sudarė J. Kardelytė, J. Macaitis, A. Mankevčiėnė, Vilnius.

RLKŽ IV 1985: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 4. Sudarė J. Kardelytė, Ch. Lemchenas, J. Macaitis, A. Mankevičienė, Vilnius.

Sabaliauskas A. 1990: Lietuvių kalbos leksika, Vilnius.

SinŽ 1980: Lyberis A. Sinonimų žodynas, Vilnius.

StatŽ 2002: Statybos terminų žodynas. Moksl. red. A. Kudzys, Vilnius.

Umbrasas A. 2007: Ar taisytina radimvietė? – Gimtoji kalba 6, 14.

Urbutis V. 1962: Dar dėl kirtavietės ir kirtimvietės. – Kalbos kultūra 3, 45–50.

Vd: Veidas (journal).

VLE III 2003: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 3, Vilnius.

VLE VI 2004: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 6, Vilnius.

VLE X 2006: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 10, Vilnius.

ŽanŽ II 2004: Zanavykų šnektos žodynas. Red. V. Sakalauskienė (vyriaus. red.), K. Vosyly tė, Vilnius.

Фасмер М. I 1986: Этимологический словарь русского языка 1, Москва.

Фасмер М. II 1986: Этимологический словарь русского языка 2, Москва.

Фасмер М. IV 1987: Этимологический словарь русского языка 4, Москва.

Received 2007-09-10

Jonas Klimavičius Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 E. paštas: [email protected]

Terminologija | 2007 | 14 171