Skip to document
Back
Go to original Localized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…

Acta Linguistica Lituanica 2026, vol. 94, pp. 1–13 Contents link / Turinio nuoroda ISSN 2669–218X (electronic / online)

TRENDS IN THE MORPHOLOGICAL INTEGRATION OF NOUNS OF SLAVIC ORIGIN IN K. SIRVYDAS’S PROMPTUARIUM DICTIONUM POLONICARUM, LATINARUM ET LITUANICARUM

Patterns of Morphological Integration of Slavic Loan Nouns in K. Sirvydas’s Promptuarium dictionum Polonicarum, Latinarum et Lituanicarum

ANŽELIKA SMETONIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0352-884X Research field: morphology.

https://doi.org/10.35321/all94-09

ABSTRACT This article examines the morphological integration into Lithuanian of nouns containing Slavisms used in Konstantinas Sirvydas’s 1620 dictionary Promptuarium dictionum Polonicarum, Latinarum et Lituanicarum, the relationship between word endings and gender in the Slavic languages, and the Lithuanian stems into which the Slavisms were integrated. To achieve this aim, all words with Slavic roots were extracted from the dictionary under study; hybrids were separated, and the stems and meanings of the Slavisms were determined. Equivalents of the Slavisms were sought in dictionaries of the Slavic languages from the relevant period, and comparison of the Lithuanian and Slavic data established the regularities governing the integration of Slavisms into the Lithuanian morphological system in K. Sirvydas’s 1620 dictionary. KEYWORDS: Sirvydas’s dictionary, Slavisms, morphological integration, Slavic languages.

ABSTRACT The article examines the morphological integration into the Lithuanian language of Slavic loan nouns in the dictionary Promptuarium dictionum Polonicarum, Latinarum et Lituanicarum (1620) by Konstantinas Sirvydas, as well as the relationship between the endings and gender of words in Slavic languages and the Lithuanian stems, into which Slavic loanwords were integrated. To achieve this goal, all Slavic-origin words were selected from the dictionary, hybrids were excluded, and the stems and meanings of the Slavic loanwords were identified. Equivalents of the loanwords were sought in dictionaries of Slavic languages of the relevant period, and by comparing Lithuanian and Slavic linguistic data, the patterns of the integration of Slavic loanwords into the Lithuanian morphological system in K. Sirvydas’ 1620 dictionary were established. KEYWORDS: Sirvydas’ dictionary, Slavic loanwords, morphological integration, Slavic languages.

INTRODUCTION Although the Slavisms of the Lithuanian language began to be studied as early as the 19th century, and later works devote considerable attention to the origins of Slavisms and to establishing the correspondences of loanword sounds in Lithuanian (Skardžius 1931; Būga 1958; Pokorny 1959; Fraenkel 1962; Palionis 1967; Urbutis 1992; 1993; Zinkevičius 2002; Smoczyński 2026) or to the borrowed lexis of old writings in general (Lebedys 1977; Zinkevičius 1968; 1988; Siaurukienė 1987; Sabaliauskas 1990;

Copyright © 2026 Anželika Smetonienė. Published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. // Išleido Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Šis straipsnis yra atviros prieigos, platinamas pagal „Creative Commons“ priskyrimo licencijos sąlygas, leidžiančias neribotai naudoti, platinti ir atkurti turinį bet kokioje laikmenoje, nurodant autorių ir šaltinį. Received: / Gauta: 2025–05–14. Accepted: / Priimta: 2026–06–12.

1

Čepienė 2013; Vasiliauskienė 2022), the integration into Lithuanian of nouns containing Slavisms in K. Sirvydas’s dictionary Promptuarium dictum Polonicarum, Latinarum et Lituanicarum (SPr) has still received little study. In general, there are few works devoted to the morphological integration of borrowed nouns (Valeckienė 1967; Laučiūtė 2007; Rudzinskas 2011a; 2011b; Smetonienė 2019; 2022). Božena Vojtkevič (2010) perhaps discussed the morphological integration of Slavisms most extensively. In her view, the donor language can explain why a loanword enters one stem or another; she summarizes this idea in the following schema: Slavic -C → Slavism -as (masc.); Slavic (Belarusian) -Č, (Polish) -C → Slavism -is, -ius (masc.) (Vojtkevič 2010: 248).

Compared with other Lithuanian-language writings of the 16th and 17th centuries in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, K. Sirvydas’s dictionaries contain a considerable number of “words of the spoken language of that time” (Pakalka 1997: 24), since they stand out from other writings in their subject matter and are therefore an especially valuable source for studying 17th-century Lithuanian. The aim of this article is to determine how Slavism nouns in SPr are distributed among Lithuanian stems. To this end, all words with a borrowed root were extracted from SPr and analyzed morphologically and etymologically in order to distinguish Slavisms from hybrids; the Slavism nouns were subsequently classified according to their stems, so as to determine the regularities of the integration of Slavisms into the Lithuanian morphological system as reflected in SPr. In total, 322 non-recurrent Slavism nouns were extracted from SPr. Possible equivalents of the Slavisms were sought in dictionaries of the Slavic languages from the appropriate period. Equivalents are understood as words that could potentially be regarded as the sources of the loanword on the basis of their root and meanings. For the sake of concision, only the meanings used in SPr are given alongside the words; it is indicated when they are included in LKŽᵉ.

The subject of this article is Slavisms; international words and hybrids have therefore been excluded. The principal difference between Slavisms (i.e., loanwords that came from neighboring Slavic languages) and international words is the source of the loanword: in the case of international words, the source is considered to be the language from which the word spread into the languages of the world, whereas in the case of Slavisms, it is the language from which the word was adopted directly. For example, if a German word entered Lithuanian through Polish, it is considered a Polonism, not a Germanism. Hybrids, by contrast, contain both Lithuanian and borrowed morphemes. Nominal loanwords integrated into Lithuanian are not hybrids, because their ending performs only a grammatical function (Keinys 1984: 115). Moreover, the base word is not a necessary condition for a hybrid to arise (ibid.: 114). Nevertheless, SPr also contains quite a few hybrids, most often words with a borrowed root but a native suffix, or compounds in which one element is of foreign origin. Words such as abrūšelis 163, alvenykėlis 65, karalėlius 64, karaliūnas 64, karči̇amystė 52, lojęjas 163, lȯjikas 57, mašnapjovys 161, and the like.

SPr SLAVISM STEMS

For words of foreign origin to be integrated into Lithuanian, phonetic substitution alone is insufficient. Borrowed nominals must also be incorporated into the Lithuanian declension system and assigned to one gender or another. The Slavism nouns in SPr are distributed among nine stems: ō, iō, iio, ā, iā, iu, u, ī, ē. No Slavisms with the consonantal stem, which is unproductive today, occurred in this dictionary by K. Sirvydas.

ō stem. Most of the Slavisms in SPr belong to the ō stem—134: abrazas 102 ‘picture (usually of saints)’ LKŽᵉ; abrūšas 154 ‘towel, kerchief’ LKŽᵉ; advernykas 109 ‘doorkeeper’ LKŽᵉ; akrūtas 112 ‘ship, steamboat’ LKŽᵉ; alubnykas 37 ‘dovecote’; alvenykas 65 ‘vessel used for washing one’s hands (pouring water over them)’ LKŽᵉ; anūkas 195 ‘grandchild’ LKŽᵉ; aprašnykas 54 ‘merchant’; artas 115 ‘ancient coin’ LKŽᵉ; asetras 147 ‘sturgeon’ LKŽᵉ; bajoras 168 ‘privileged landowner, usually a middle-ranking nobleman; person of privileged birth, nobleman’ LKŽᵉ; botagas 60 ‘implement for driving livestock, whip’ LKŽᵉ; chvoldas 30 ‘fold’; čebatas 167 ‘long boot’ LKŽᵉ; čeraunykas 40 ‘sorcerer’ LKŽᵉ; česnakas 18 ‘strong-smelling vegetable’ LKŽᵉ; četvergas 19 ‘Thursday’ LKŽᵉ; čiepas 178 ‘twig or shoot used to graft another plant, scion, graft’ LKŽᵉ; čiobras 16 ‘a fragrant, small-flowered plant of the mint family’ LKŽᵉ; funtas 32 ‘pound’ LKŽᵉ; furmonas 32 ‘carter, driver’

2

LKŽė; grabas 182 ‘coffin; grave’ LKŽė; grybas 40 ‘an organism, usually developing a stem and cap, a mushroom’ LKŽė; griekas 158 ‘sin’ LKŽė; gvaltas 40 ‘force, oppression’ LKŽė; herbas 32 ‘a distinctive symbol of a state, city, estate, or family, depicted on flags, coins, and seals’ LKŽė; heretikas 50 ‘a proponent of heresy, heretic’ LKŽė; hetmanas 32 ‘the supreme commander of the army in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (16th–18th c.)’ LKŽė; jermėkas 35 ‘a woman’s undergarment’ LKŽė; jubileušas 81 ‘jubilee’ LKŽė; kalpokas 59 ‘a type of felt hat’ LKŽė; kamarnykas 59 ‘the chief steward of a prince’s court; a tithe collector; any higher official’ LKŽė; kapeniėkas 60 ‘a type of outer garment’ LKŽė; kaptonas 50 ‘a winter jacket, padded coat’ LKŽė; karosas 51 ‘a bony, air-bladdered fish of the carp family (Cyprinidae), crucian carp’ LKŽė; kauras 51 ‘a mat, cover, carpet’ LKŽė; kazokas 62 ‘a lightly armed horseman’ LKŽė; kažemiekas 33 ‘a leatherworker, tanner’ LKŽė; kilepas 17 ‘an ancient weapon—a small axe and hammer on a long shaft’ LKŽė; kilupas 54 ‘a tool’; klumkas 181 ‘a bundle, burden, heap’ LKŽė; kolytynkas 50 ‘a maker or seller of old-fashioned purses’ LKŽė; koplūnas 51 ‘a castrated rooster’ LKŽė, etc.

When a loanword is adopted from the Slavic languages and incorporated into the Lithuanian system, its gender is usually retained (Voitkevič 2010: 248). The equivalents in the donor languages of most SPr Slavicisms with an ǫ stem likewise belong to the masculine gender and, moreover, have a hard ending, for example, grabas (< Old Russian гробъ 1. ‘pit; burial place, grave’; 2. ‘coffin, tomb’ (SRJA IV 137); Ruthenian гробъ 1. ‘burial vault, tomb’; 2. ‘grave mound, grave’; 3. ‘coffin’ (HSBM VII 164); Polish grob ‘a place where the dead are buried, grave, tombstone, sarcophagus, mausoleum’ (SPol VIII 119)); levas 72 (< Old Russian левъ, львъ ‘lion’ (SRJA VIII 183); Ruthenian леѵъ ‘lion’ (HSBM XVI 316); Polish lew ‘zool. Felis leo’ (SPol XII 162)); majestotas 76 (< Old Russian маестатъ ‘grandeur, majesty’ (SRJA IX 7); Ruthenian маестать ‘velni?caс, uesemagytasč; glory, praise’ (HSBM XVII 216); Polish majestat ‘dignity of authority’ (SPol XIII 34)); svietas 177 (< Old Russian свѣтъ ‘earth, universe, all countries; world, creation’ (SRJA XXIII 134); Ruthenian светъ, свѣтъ ‘the terrestrial globe; the earth with everything that exists on it’ (HSBM XXXI 113); Polish świat ‘the earth as the place inhabited by people together with everything found on it, also the universe surrounding it’ (SS IX 48)); sūdas 162 (< Old Russian судь ‘judgment, punishment’ (MSDJA III 603); Ruthenian судъ ‘court decision, judgment’ (HSBM XXXIII 51 and elsewhere), etc.

Unlike Lithuanian, the Slavic languages have retained the neuter gender to this day; therefore, when a noun of this gender is borrowed, it receives feminine ā-stem endings today, probably because of the phonetic proximity of the vowels o and a (Gird­enis 2001: 385). Nevertheless, before Leskien’s law, that is, in the 13th–14th c., Lithuanian also had a neuter gender, and only after this law took effect did the neuter-gender nouns borrowed from the Slavic languages before it, together with inherited Lithuanian words, shift to the masculine gender and enter the ǫ-stem paradigm (ibid.: 385). There are relatively many SPr nouns of this kind that belong to the ǫ stem and whose equivalents in the Slavic languages are neuter. These Slavicisms were borrowed from the East Slavic languages: blūdas 81 ‘bowl; the quantity it can hold’ LKŽė (< Old Russian блюдо ‘dish’ (SRJA I 247); Ruthenian блюдо ‘plate’ (HSBM II 74)); čerėslas 183 ‘a bundle, belt for money, purse’ LKŽė (< Old Russian чересла (plural) ‘loin’ (MSDJA III 1501); Ruthenian чересло ‘a leather belt for money and other valuables’ (HSBM XXXVI 36)); kodlyas 50 ‘a yellowish fragrant resin, usually used as incense in church rites’ LKŽė (< Old Russian кадило ‘fragrant substance, frankincense, smoking incense’ (SRJA VII 12); Ruthenian кадило ‘a fragrant substance for fumigation during worship’ (HSBM XIV 216)); krapylas 65 ‘a small broom for sprinkling, sprinkler’ LKŽė (< Ruthenian кропило ‘sprinkler’ (HSBM XVI 172)); rętnas 10 ‘a spot, mark’ LKŽė (< Old Russian пятно ‘spot’ (SRJA XXI 98); Ruthenian пятно, петно, пятмо ‘sign, mark’ (HSBM XXIX 418)); remeslas 161 ‘craft’ LKŽė (< Old Russian ремесло ‘art, skill, craft’ (SRJA XXII 143); Ruthenian ремесло ‘occupation, profession’ (HSBM XXX 69)); viedras 192 ‘bucket’ LKŽė (< Old Russian ведро ‘bucket’ (SRJA II 49); Ruthenian вядро ‘bucket’ (HSBM III 61)); vynas 194 ‘an alcoholic beverage made from grapes or the juices of various fruits’

3

LKŽe (< Old Russian вино ‘wine’ (SRJA II 182); Ruthenian вино ‘wine’ (HSBM III 281)).

SPr also contains loans from an older stratum that entered Lithuanian before reduced vowels disappeared in the Slavic languages: asilas 115 ‘a domestic animal resembling a horse’ LKŽe (< Old Russian осель, осьль ‘donkey’ (SRJA XIII 84); pulkas 15 ‘a military unit’ LKŽe (< Old Russian пълкъ, полк ‘military unit, regiment’ (SRJA XVI 220)).

Among all SPr Slavic noun loans of the ǫ stem, blekai 31 ‘entrails, intestines; food made from them’ LKŽe and č́erai ‘magic spells’ LKŽe stand out. The equivalents of the latter in the Slavic languages are plural nouns, or at least are generally used only in the plural: Old Russian чары (always plural) ‘sorcery, witchcraft’ (MSDJA III 1474), Ruthenian чары, чapu ‘magic, sorcery, witchcraft’ (HSBM XXXVI 279), Polish czar, czary ‘a supernatural phenomenon of demonic character; witchcraft, magic arts, fortune-telling’ (the dictionary notes that of 148 attestations, only 1 is singular) (SPol IV 6). LKŽe likewise presents this noun as plural. As for the Slavicism blekas, although it is indicated that the singular is used in the dictionary of Friedrich Kurschat, LKŽe refers to the more usual plural blekai. This is a loanword from Polish, in which the equivalent of the Slavicism is Polish flak ‘sausage, intestine, entrails, stomach of ruminant animals, inferior quality of meat, scrap’ (SPol VII 77); this noun has singular and plural forms in Polish, although, again, the plural is more usual. Thus, SPr loans originating from Slavic nouns that are most often used in the plural are likewise presented as plural nouns.

ā stem. 79 SPr Slavicisms are assigned to the ā stem: abyda 150 ‘wrong, grievance, insult’ LKŽe; afiera 100 ‘offering’ LKŽe; akvata 104 ‘desire, attraction’ LKŽe; alyva 113 ‘a tree of warm regions and its fruit’ LKŽe; arielka 37 ‘vodka’ LKŽe; artauga 178 ‘an old coin, a shilling’ LKŽe; būda 67 ‘a tent, shelter, hut (for a watchman, shepherd, etc.)’ LKŽe; čėra 17 ‘cup’ LKŽe; dėka 29 ‘thanks, gratitude’ LKŽe; dieška 30 ‘barrel, tub’ LKŽe; farba 31 ‘dye, color’ LKŽe; farbatka 31 ‘lace’; fijo­lka 31 ‘violet’ LKŽe; galka 33 ‘a small ball, lump’ LKŽe; gromata 73 ‘letter; writing, document’ LKŽe; juka 48 ‘a soup made from the blood of birds or animals’ LKŽe; jupa 176 ‘a long-sleeved outer garment for women (in ancient times also for men), pulled on over the head; dress’ LKŽe; kalėda 59 ‘a Christmas gift’ LKŽe; kamara 59 ‘a room in a peasant house or granary for storing various produce and objects, pantry, storeroom’ LKŽe; karčiama 51 ‘tavern’ LKŽe; karūna 11 ‘metal head ornament; symbol of monarchic power; wreath’ LKŽe; kleka 55; klėtka 55 ‘cage’ LKŽe; kolyta 50 ‘an old-fashioned purse; tobacco pouch’ LKŽe; kotauka 52 ‘hoe’; krota 63 ‘small cage’ LKŽe; kurapka 68 ‘a wild bird of the poultry family, partridge’ LKŽe; kurva 68 ‘a promiscuous woman, harlot’ LKŽe; kvarma 31 ‘a form, model, example according to which something is made’ LKŽe, etc.

Among the SPr Slavicisms of the ā stem, as among those of the ǫ stem, there are also items originating from neuter-gender nouns in the Slavic languages: futra 32 ‘fur’ LKŽe (< Ruthenian футро ‘a tanned hide of a fur-bearing animal, or several such hides sewn together’ (HSBM XXXVI 42); Polish futro ‘a dressed animal skin with hair, a fur pelt, also clothing lined with fur’ (SPol VII 159)); pekla 121 ‘hell’ LKŽe (< Old Russian пекло (SRJA XIV 186); Ruthenian пекло ‘hell’ (HSBM XXIV 66); Polish piekło ‘in equal religions: a place where the dead or their souls reside’ (SPol XXIV 57)); stadala 38 ‘an inn with shelter for horses’ LKŽe (< Old Russian стодола ‘a covered threshing floor, barn’ (SRJA XXVIII 72); Ruthenian стодола ‘an inn courtyard with a tavern’ (HSBM XXXII 399); Polish stodola ‘a building on a rural farm used to store unthreshed grain and straw’ (SS VIII 446)). These loans entered Lithuanian after Leskien’s law and therefore belong not to the ǫ stem but to the ā stem.

The SPr ā stem includes not only feminine nouns but also a few masculine nouns, most often words of common gender. The Slavicism sirata 165 ‘orphan’ LKŽe is of common gender in Lithuanian; its equivalents in the Slavic languages are likewise of common gender: Old Russian сирота ‘a child or adolescent left without one or both

4

rod it e l i ų’ (SRJA XXIV 156); Ruthenian сипота ‘orphan girl’ (HSBM XXXI 271); Polish sirota ‘a child who has lost both parents or one of them’ (SS VIII 191). The noun vaivada 95 ‘a ruler’s representative, the governor of a particular region of a country’ LKŽe is masculine, as are its equivalents in the donor languages: Old Russian воевода ‘a person representing supreme authority locally’ (SRJA II 261); Ruthenian воевода ‘head of a town and town district’ (HSBM IV 85); Polish wojewoda ‘initially a court official, a military commander acting as the ruler’s deputy, later a high-ranking land official’ (SS X 279). As can be seen, the principle is observed that the gender of nouns does not change as they pass from Slavic languages into Lithuanian. However, one SPr word does not conform to the system: čerevyka 182 ‘shoe’ LKŽe. It is attested only once in SPr; in K. Sirvydas’s later dictionary, the masculine loanword čeverykas is already found, SD 448. In the East Slavic languages from which this loanword came, the equivalents are masculine: Old Russian черевик ‘shoe, boot’ (MSDJA III 1500); Ruthenian черевик ‘shoe’ (HSBM XXXVI 343). The regular loanword should be masculine čerevykas.

The iu stem. This stem includes somewhat fewer SPr Slavic noun loanwords than the ā stem—50. These are masculine words ending in -ius or with the ending -us after the consonant j: aliejus 113 ‘vegetable fats’ LKŽe; bardišius 41 ‘an axe with a long handle (a weapon of war)’ LKŽe; brylius 51 ‘hat’ LKŽe; cielius 10 ‘target’ LKŽe; ciesorius 10 ‘monarch, emperor’ LKŽe; čebatorius 177 ‘shoemaker, cobbler’ LKŽe; čepčius 17 ‘a cap formerly worn by married women’ LKŽe; činšius 18 ‘a payment to a landowner for possession of land’ LKŽe; čyščius 18 ‘purgatory’; driaučius 60 ‘spear, spearhead’ LKŽe; drukorius 26 ‘printer, typesetter’ LKŽe; dvarčius 31 ‘small manor’ LKŽe; falsierius 30 ‘forger, swindler’; falsius 30 ‘vice, defect, forgery’ LKŽe; gojus 34 ‘a small, beautiful woodland, grove’ LKŽe; kaganijus 50 ‘pot’; katlerius 57 ‘a maker, repairer, or seller of cauldrons’ LKŽe; kavalierius 52 ‘an unmarried man; a man who courts a girl’ LKŽe; kytrius 13 ‘a sly, clever person’ LKŽe; kleštarius 55 ‘monastery’ LKŽe; kukorius 67 ‘cook’ LKŽe; kušn i erius 68 ‘furrier’ LKŽe; liktarius 177 ‘candleholder’; moliarius 76 ‘artist’; mečius 79 ‘sword, saber’ LKŽe; mincorius 81 ‘minter’ LKŽe; morčius 77 ‘March’ LKŽe; mūror ius 84 ‘bricklayer’ LKŽe; nepr i etelius 107 ‘nonfriend, enemy; scoundrel’ LKŽe; pakajus 95 ‘peace, tranquillity’ LKŽe, etc.

All nouns of this stem are masculine, and gender change generally did not occur during borrowing. The iu stem is characterized by the fact that the equivalents of its Slavicisms in Ruthenian, Old Russian, and Polish have a zero ending (e.g., pakajus 130 ‘a well-furnished room’ LKŽe (< Old Russian pokой ‘room, premises’ (SRJA XVI 164); Ruthenian покой, покою ‘room’ (SSM II 178); Polish pokoj ‘a secluded place, retreat’ (SPol XXVI 321)), or a soft consonant (e.g., karalius 64 ‘a ruler’s or monarch’s title in some countries; a person bearing that title’ LKŽe (< Old Russian король ‘king’ (SRJA VII 338); Ruthenian король ‘king, monarch’ (HSBM XVI 21)), or ž, š, č, r (e.g., retežius 70 ‘chain, shackles’ LKŽe (< Old Russian ретьязь ‘chain, necklace’ (SRJA XXII 149); Ruthenian ретьязь, ретежь ‘chain’ (HSBM XXX 82)); mečius 79 ‘sword, saber’ LKŽe (< Old Russian мечь ‘a cold weapon for cutting and stabbing’ (SRJA IX 136); Ruthenian мечь ‘sword’ (HSBM XVIII 22); Polish miecz ‘edged weapon’ (SPol XIII 404)); altorius 113 ‘altar; a particular table in a church where services are held’ LKŽe (< Old Russian алтарь, олтарь ‘sacrificial altar’ (SRJA I 31); Ruthenian алтарь, олтарь, олтарь ‘altar’ (HSBM I 103); Polish ołtarz ‘a place where sacrifices are offered to a deity’ (SPol XXI 327)). In Old Slavonic, ž, š, č, c, r were initially soft and began to harden in the fourteenth century (JAM 2005: 44); therefore, words that entered Lithuanian before their hardening became part of the iu stem.

Among the words in this group, pečius 121 ‘a stove for heating a room, cooking food, baking, and baking bread’ LKŽe stands out, because its equivalents in the East Slavic languages are feminine (Old Russian печь ‘a structure for heating a room and preparing food’ (SRJA XV 41); Ruthenian печь, печь ‘a brick structure where a fire is made to heat a room and prepare food’ (HSBM XXIV 291)), while in Polish they are masculine (Polish piec ‘a device

5

constructed of non-combustible material in which a high temperature is achieved’ (SPol XXIV 30)).

The į̄a stem. 38 loanwords have the į̄a stem: adverija 128 ‘doorframe’ LKŽe; asilyčia 115 ‘female donkey’ LKŽe; atkonýčia 181 ‘a head ornament, ribbon’ LKŽe; bažnyčia 61 ‘house of prayer (usually Catholic or Protestant)’ LKŽe; čerpyčia 50 ‘a tile for constructing a stove, stove tile’ LKŽe; delija 20 ‘an old-fashioned coat’; dronyčia 25 ‘a thin board, a thin roofing shingle, shingle’ LKŽe; dūšia 27 ‘in mythology, religion, and philosophy, the immortal immaterial principle of a human being, existing independently of the body, spirit; soul’ LKŽe; grūšia 40 ‘pear tree’ LKŽe; herezija 50 ‘a religious teaching regarded as erroneous by the dominant religion, heresy’ LKŽe; karbija 11 ‘a kind of basket with a lid for putting something into’ LKŽe; kodvlynčia 50 ‘a vessel in which incense is burned, censer’ LKŽe; koplyčia 51 ‘a small church; a separate part of a large church or another building where services may be held’ LKŽe; kuknia 67 ‘kitchen’ LKŽe; leternia 71 ‘lantern’; malmazija 76 ‘a type of wine’; melnyčia 82 ‘mill’ LKŽe; mišiа 83 ‘Mass’ LKŽe, etc.

Almost all nouns of the į̄a stem are feminine; their equivalents in the Slavic languages have the ending -a after a soft stem-final (written as -я in the East Slavic languages, Polish -ia), for example, drukarnia 26 ‘printing house’ LKŽe (< Old Russian друкарня ‘printing house’ (SRJA IV 365); Ruthenian друкарня ‘printing house’ (HSBM IX 86); Polish drukarnia ‘a place or workshop where books and printed works are produced’ (SPol VI 83)), nedėlia 93 ‘week, Sunday’ LKŽe (< Old Russian недѣля ‘Sunday’ (SRJA XI 74); Ruthenian неделя ‘Sunday’ (HSBM XX 67); Polish niedziela ‘the last, holiday day of the week’ (SPol XVI 263)), skomia 175 ‘an old-fashioned table, trestle table’ LKŽe (< Ruthenian скамья ‘bench, board’ (HSBM XXXI 293)), skrynia 60 ‘a particular wooden, lidded chest with legs, ornamented, for storing something (usually clothes or a dowry)’ LKŽe (< Ruthenian скрыня, скрыня ‘chest, trunk’ (HSBM XXXI 388); Polish skrzynia ‘a wooden box with a lid, a trunk used for storing clothing, bedding, etc.’ (SS VIII 261)), etc. Only one of these nouns is masculine—sudžia ‘judge’ LKŽe (< Old Russian судья, судия ‘one who evaluates someone or something, judges someone or something’ (SRJA XXVIII 264); Ruthenian судия, судиа, судія, судія, судья ‘judge’ (SSM II 398). In the East Slavic equivalents, the ending -я caused this noun to enter the phonetically similar į̄a stem in Lithuanian; in the Slavic languages, the equivalent of this loanword also belongs to the masculine gender. Other Slavic nouns—possible sources of the loans—with a soft stem-final likewise retained their gender and were integrated into the į̄a stem as feminine Slavicisms.

Several SPr nouns of the į̄a stem are used only in the plural: gačios 30 ‘trousers’; liesvyčios 25 ‘ladder’. The equivalents of the first of these in the Slavic languages are likewise generally used only in the plural: Ruthenian кгачи ‘trousers, breeches’ (HSBM XV 33); Polish gacie ‘the lower part of a man’s clothing, trousers’ (SPol VII 163). Nevertheless, on the basis of the donor languages, the noun liesvyčios could also be used in the singular: Old Russian лѣствица ‘ladder’ (SRJA VIII 211); Ruthenian лесвица ‘ladder’ (HSBM XVI 358).

The i stem. There are 10 borrowed nouns of this stem: čėstis 84 ‘honor, respect’ LKŽe; donis 18 ‘tribute’ LKŽe; dvarionis 28 ‘a manor worker, servant, courtier’ LKŽe; liūbasis 74 ‘love’; mostis 77 ‘a soft medicinal mass containing fat, used for treatment, ointment’ LKŽe; pečėtis 121 ‘an instrument for pressing a mark; an impression or a mark impressed with that instrument; seal’ LKŽe; pomėtis 118 ‘memory’ LKŽe; skoteris 102 ‘tablecloth’ LKŽe; smertis 170 ‘death’ LKŽe; spaviedis 172 ‘confession’ LKŽe.

Today this stem is not productive; it consists predominantly of feminine nouns, as does SPr. Masculine nouns of the i stem also occur in the present-day language (e.g., geluonis, dantis, etc.); in this case, there is one such SPr Slavicism—dvarionis. That this noun belongs to this stem can be seen from its attested forms in old writings: dvaronies BPII 476 (LKŽe). It is thought that Lithuanian first adopted the plural of the word dvarionys (cf. Old Russian дворянинъ ‘a person serving at a prince’s court’ (SRJA IV 194)), on the basis of which the singular dvarionis arose (Smoczyński 2026: 388).

6

The remaining Slavic loanwords are feminine, retaining this gender unchanged in comparison with the corresponding forms in the donor languages. The sources of all these Slavic loanwords in the Slavic languages have soft consonants at the end, for example, čėstis (< Ruthenian честь ‘честь, почет, уважение’ (MDSUM II 480); Polish cześć ‘uszanowanie, poważanie, uznanie; podziw; honor’ (SPol IV 150)), donis (< Old Russian дань ‘то, что отдано кому-л.’ (SRJA IV 170); Ruthenian дань ‘тое, што аддадзена каму-н.’ (HSBM VII 242); Polish dań ‘świadczenie w naturze lub pieniężne, danina, podatek, czynsz’ (SPol IV 490)), smertis (< Ruthenian смерть ‘смерць; спыненне існавання чалавека ці жывёліны’ (HSBM XXXI 483); Polish śmierć ‘skończenie, utrata życia, zgon, wyjątkowo pozbawienie kogoś życia’ (SS IX 24)), spaviedis (< Ruthenian споведь ‘споведь’ (HSBM XXXII 163); Polish spowiedź ‘wyznanie grzechów przed kapłanem w celu uzyskania rozgrzeszenia’ (SS VIII 359)).

ē stem. This is another not particularly productive loanword stem in SPr; it includes 6 nouns: kaniukšnė 175 ‘stable’ LKŽ; kižė 10 ‘old hut, shack, hovel’ LKŽ; maliaʋonė 76 ‘painting’ LKŽ; mincė 81 ‘coin’ LKŽ; prababė 129 ‘great-grandmother’; ragažė 77 ‘wicker basket; quantity that fits into such a basket’ LKŽ.

This small group of words is rather heterogeneous: although the equivalents of most Slavic loanwords are feminine, their endings differ. For example, the equivalents of the noun kaniukšnė (< Old Russian конюшня ‘конюшня, строение, где держат лошадей’ (SRJA VII 291); Ruthenian канюшня ‘канюшня’ (HSBM XV 291)) have the ending -ia, while those of kižė and mincė (< Old Russian хижа, хиза ‘хижина, дом’ (MSDJА III 1368); Ruthenian хижа ‘хаціна’ (HSBM XXXVI 73); Polish minca ‘moneta, pieniądz bity’ (SPol XIV 272)) have -a; thus, these Slavic loanwords could have been integrated into the ia and ā stems. The source of one noun is neuter: maliaʋonė (< Ruthenian малеванье, малевание ‘дзеянне па дзеясл. малевати’ (HSBM XVII 234); Polish malowanie ‘nazwa czynności od malować’ (SPol XIII 60)).

Other stems. The remaining stems to which the SPr Slavic loanword nouns belong are very sparsely represented. Two words belong to the į stem: kisielis 54 ‘a liquid porridge (food) made from fermented oat-flour mash or berry juice with starch’ LKŽ; kriaučias 63 ‘tailor’ LKŽ. Three nouns belong to the į stem: čemerys 14 ‘a poisonous medicinal perennial plant of the lily family, hellebore’ LKŽ; grašis 39 ‘a small coin, half a kopeck; a coin of various value at different times; coin’ LKŽ, maneliai 77 ‘sleeve ornaments’, while only one belongs to the u stem—turgus 180.

From today’s perspective, the nouns kisielias and kriaučias look unusual. Both are usually integrated into the iu stem, that is, as kisielius and kriaučius. In K. Sirvydas’s later dictionary, kisielias is omitted and only the iu-stem variant kisielius SD 103 is provided (kriaučias / kriaučius is not mentioned at all). It is unknown why the iǫ stem was selected for these nouns in SPr, since, considering the equivalents in the Slavic languages (Old Russian кусель ‘кушанье, приготовляемое из муки на воде или ягодном соке, кисель’ (SRJA VII 137); Ruthenian кусель ‘кіслая страва з мукі, кісель’ (HSBM XV 93); Polish kisiel ‘potrawa z mąki rozczynionej wodą i poddanej fermentacji’ (SPol X 330); Old Russian краѳецъ ‘портной’ (SRJA VII 402); Ruthenian кравець ‘спецыяліст па шыццю адзення’ (HSBM XVI 80); Polish krawiec ‘rzemieślnik szyjący odzież’ (SPol XI 134)), the iu and ō stems are more systematic.

The noun maneliai is presented in SPr as plural, although LKŽ also contains manelė and manelis. Data from the Slavic languages (Old Russian манелы ‘украшение, род браслета, надевавшегося поверх рукава (зарукавье, запястье)’ (SRJA IX 27); Ruthenian манеля, манела, манелле ‘брана́лет; маністы’ (HSBM XVII 93); Polish manella ‘drogocenna ozdoba noszona na ramieniu, bransoleta, naramiеnnik’ (SPol XIII 143)) show that, correctly, the noun should have been adopted as feminine manelia or manelė (because of the soft l). Thus, in this case, unlike the cases of kisielias, kriaučias, čemerys, and grašis, there was also a change of gender.

7

CONCLUSIONS

SPr contains Slavic loanword nouns belonging to the ō (abrazas, abrūzas, advernykas, akrūtas, alubnykas, etc.), iō (kisielias, kriaušias), iō (čemerys, grašis, maneliai), ā (abyda, afiera, akvata, alyva, arielka, etc.), iā (adverija, asilyčia, atkon yčia, bažnyčia, čerpyčia, etc.), iu (aliejus, altorius, bardišius, brylius, cielius, etc.), u (turgus), i (čestis, donis, dvarionis, liūbastis, mostis, etc.), and ē (kaniukšnė, kižė, maliavonė, mincė, prababė, etc.) stems. No Slavic loanwords with consonantal stems are attested in this source.

The most numerous stem is ō—it includes 41.6 percent of the SPr Slavic loanword nouns found. The ā, iu, and iā stems are also relatively numerous, comprising 24.5 percent, 15.5 percent, and 11.8 percent, respectively, of all selected words. Slavic loanwords with the i stem account for 3.1 percent, while those with the ē stem account for 1.7 percent of the Slavic loanwords examined. The remaining stems are extremely sparsely represented and constitute a very small proportion of all SPr Slavic loanword nouns found.

Taking into account the equivalents of the Slavic loanwords in the donor languages, a clear system can be seen in SPr in certain cases regarding the declension of the stem into which a particular borrowed word enters:

• if the equivalents in the Slavic languages are masculine and end in a hard consonant, the loanword is integrated into the ō stem in Lithuanian;

• neuter nouns in the Slavic languages ending in –o belong in Lithuanian either to the ō stem (older layer loanwords) or to the ā stem;

• feminine and masculine (most often common-gender) words ending in –a in the Slavic languages are integrated into the ā stem in Lithuanian;

• masculine nouns with a zero ending in the Slavic languages; masculine words with a soft consonant in the Slavic languages (most often l); masculine nouns with historically soft ž, š, č, c, r in the East Slavic languages, but already hard in Polish, are integrated into the iu stem in Lithuanian;

• nouns ending in –я in the East Slavic languages and in –ia in Polish are integrated into the iā stem in Lithuanian;

• nouns ending in the soft consonants t, n, d in the Slavic languages are integrated into the i stem in SPr.

Slavic nouns are integrated into the remaining stems in SPr in various ways, and, based on this source alone, no homogeneous system can be discerned.

As is customary, SPr Slavicisms most often have the same gender as their source in the donor languages; that is, for example, a masculine-gender word in the Slavic languages is integrated into Lithuanian as a masculine-gender loanword. There are only one or two gender changes characteristic solely of SPr (čerevyka, maneliai). SPr also observes number correspondence: loanwords derived from Slavic nouns that are most often used in the plural are likewise presented as pluralia tantum (blekai, čėrai, gačios). Several nouns (liesuvyčios, maneliai) should not be integrated as pluralia tantum.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

Būga Kazimieras 1958: Selected Writings 1, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scholarly Literature.

Čepienė Nijolė 2013: Lexical Borrowings in Konstantinas Sirvydas’ “Dictionarium trium linguarum”. – Lexicography and Lexicology 3: The Works of Konstantinas Sirvydas and His Era, ed. Z. Šimėnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 157–188.

Fraenkel Ernst 1962: Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary, Heidelberg: Winter.

Girdenis Aleksas 2001: Linguistic Works 3, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

8

HSBM I: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 1, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Navuka i technika, 1982.

HSBM II: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 2, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Navuka i technika, 1983.

HSBM III: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 3, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Navuka i technika, 1983.

HSBM IV: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 4, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Navuka i technika, 1984.

HSBM VII: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 7, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Navuka i technika, 1986.

HSBM IX: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 9, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Navuka i technika, 1989.

HSBM XIV: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 14, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Navuka i technika, 1996.

HSBM XV: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 15, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Navuka i technika, 1996.

HSBM XVI: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 16, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 1997.

HSBM XVII: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 17, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 1998.

HSBM XVIII: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 18, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 1999.

HSBM XX: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 20, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 2001.

HSBM XXIV: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 24, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 2005.

HSBM XXIX: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 29, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 2009.

HSBM XXX: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 30, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 2010.

HSBM XXXI: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 31, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 2011.

HSBM XXXII: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 32, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 2012.

HSBM XXXIII: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 33, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 2013.

HSBM XXXVI: Histaryčny slovnik belaruskaj movy [Historical Dictionary of the Belarusian Language] 36, red. A. M. Bulyka, Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka, 2016.

JAM 2005: Languages of the World. Slavic Languages, ed. by A. M. Moldovan, S. S. Skorvid, A. A. Kibrik, N. V. Rogova, E. I. Jakuškina, A. F. Žuravlev, S. M. Tolstaja, Moskva: Academia.

9

Keinys Stasys 1984: Lithuanian Language Hybrids (Concept, Types, and Normativity). – Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, 113–123.

Laučiūtė Jūratė 2007: Fate of Baltic-Origin Nominal Endings in the Slavic Languages. – Res humanitariae 2, 85–101.

Lebedys Jurgis 1977: Old Lithuanian Literature, Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKŽe: Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (1–20, 1941–2002), electronic version, editorial board: G. Naktinienė (editor-in-chief), J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė; programmers: E. Ožeraitis, V. Zinkevičius, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, updated version, 2018. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/liet­uviu–kalbos–zodynas/.

MDSUM II: Materials for a Dictionary of the Written and Literary Ukrainian Language 2, ed. E. K. Timčenko, Kyiv, New York: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2003.

MSDJA III: Materials for a Dictionary of the Old Russian Language 3, ed. I. I. Sreznevskij, Saint Petersburg: Kniga, 1912.

Pakalka Kazys 1997: Notes on Konstantinas Sirvydas’ Old Trilingual Dictionary (c. 1620). – The Old Dictionary of Konstantinas Sirvydas, prepared by K. Pakalka, 6–25.

Palionis Jonas 1967: Lithuanian Literary Language in the 16th–17th Centuries, Vilnius: Mintis.

Pokorny Julius 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches wörterbuch [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary], Bern: Francke.

Rudzinskas Darius 2011a: Some Aspects of the Morphological Integration of Slavisms in Old Lithuanian Texts. – Baltu filologija 20, 41–51.

Rudzinskas Darius 2011b: Morfologinė slavizmų integracija: giminės kategorijos aspektai [Morphological Integration of Slavic Loanwords: Aspects of the Gender Category]. – Perspectives of Baltic philology 2, 205–214.

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1990: Lexicon of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Siaurukienė Halina 1987: Loanwords in the Hymnal “Knygos nobažnystės”. – Issues in Lithuanian Linguistics 26, 145–150.

Skardžius Pranas 1931: The Slavic Loanwords in Old Lithuanian. – Tauta ir žodis 7, Kaunas: Spindulys.

Smetonienė Anželika 2019: Patterns of Morphological Integration of Slavic loan Nouns in Petkevičius’ Catechism (1598) as an Indication of their Origin and Chronology. – Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej 54, [1–30]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11649/sfps.1766.

Smetonienė Anželika 2022: Integration of Loan Nouns from the Anonymous Catechism (1605) and Daukša’s Catechism (1595) into the Morphological System of the Lithuanian Language. – Lithuanian Language 17, 25–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/LK.2022.11.

10

Smoczyński Wojciech 2026: Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language [Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language]. Available online: http://www.rroman es.org/pub/alii/Smoczyński W. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.pdf.

SPol IV: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 4, ed. S. Bąk, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków: Institute of Literary Research, 1969.

SPol VI: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 6, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Institute of Literary Research, 1972.

SPol VII: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 7, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Institute of Literary Research, 1973.

SPol VIII: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 8, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Institute of Literary Research, 1974.

SPol X: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 10, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Institute of Literary Research, 1976.

SPol XI: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 11, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Institute of Literary Research, 1978.

SPol XII: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 12, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Institute of Literary Research, 1979.

SPol XIII: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 13, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Institute of Literary Research, 1981.

SPol XIV: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 14, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Institute of Literary Research, 1982.

SPol XVI: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 16, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódź: Institute of Literary Research, 1985.

SPol XXI: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 21, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków: Institute of Literary Research, 1992.

SPol XXIV: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 24, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódź: Institute of Literary Research, 1996.

SPol XXVI: Dictionary of the 16th-Century Polish Language [Dictionary of the 16th Century Polish Language] 26, ed. M. R. Mayenowa, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódź: Institute of Literary Research, 1998.

SPr 1997: The Old Dictionary of Konstantinas Sirvydas [The Old Dictionary of Konstantinas Sirvydas], compiled by K. Pakalka, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

11

SRJA I: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the XI–XVII Centuries Russian Language] 1, g. red. S. G. Barchudarov, Moskva: Nauka, 1975.

SRJA II: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the XI–XVII Centuries Russian Language] 2, g. red. S. G. Barchudarov, Moskva: Nauka, 1975.

SRJA IV: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the XI–XVII Centuries Russian Language] 4, g. red. S. G. Barchudarov, Moskva: Nauka, 1977.

SRJA VII: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the XI–XVII Centuries Russian Language] 7, g. red. F. P. Filin, Moskva: Nauka, 1980.

SRJA VIII: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 8, ed. G. J. Romanova, Moscow: Nauka, 1981.

SRJA IX: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 9, eds. V. J. Derjagin, O. V. Malkova, Moscow: Nauka, 1982.

SRJA XI: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 11, ed. A. N. Šalamova, Moscow: Nauka, 1986.

SRJA XIII: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 13, ed. O. I. Smirnova, Moscow: Nauka, 1987.

SRJA XIV: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 14, eds. O. I. Smirnova, A. N. Šalamova, Moscow: Nauka, 1988.

SRJA XV: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the XI–XVII Centuries Russian Language] 15, g. red. G. P. Smolickaja, Moskva: Nauka, 1989.

SRJA XVI: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 16, ed. G. J. Romanova, Moscow: Nauka, 1990.

SRJA XXI: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 21, ed. G. A. Bogatova, Moscow: Nauka, 1995.

SRJA XXII: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 22, ed. A. N. Šalamova, Moscow: Nauka, 1997.

SRJA XXIII: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 23, eds. V. B. Kryško, G. J. Romanova, Moscow: Nauka, 1996.

SRJA XXIV: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 24, ed. G. J. Romanova, Moscow: Nauka, 2000.

SRJA XXVIII: Slovar russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries] 28, ed. E. I. Deržavina, Moscow: Nauka, 2008.

SS VIII: Słownik staropolski [Old Polish Dictionary] 8, ed. S. Urbańczyk, Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódź: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1980.

SS IX: Słownik staropolski [Old Polish Dictionary] 9, ed. S. Urbańczyk, Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódź: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1982.

SS X: Słownik staropolski [Old Polish Dictionary] 10, ed. S. Urbańczyk, Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódź: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1990.

SSM II: Słownyk staroukrajinskoj movy XIV–XV st. [Dictionary of the Old Ukrainian Language of the 14th–15th Centuries] 2, red. L. L. Gumecka, I. M. Kernyckyj, Kyjiv: Naukova dumka, 1978.

Urbutis Vincas 1992: Slavic Loanwords in the Old Lithuanian Language [Slavic Loanwords in the Old Lithuanian Language]. – Baltistica 27(1), 4–41.

12

Urbutis Vincas 1993: Senųjų slavizmų kilmės įvairovė [The Diversity of the Origins of Old Slavic Loanwords]. – Baltistica 28(1), 91–101.

Valeckienė Adelė 1967: Words of Other-Language Origin in the Morphological System of the Lithuanian Language. – Lithuanian Language during the Soviet Years, ed. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mintis, 108–12.

Vasilauskienė Virginija 2022: Links between Konstantinas Sirvydas’s Dictionaries and His Lexis in Punktai sakymų [Links between Konstantinas Sirvydas’s Dictionaries and His Lexis in Punktai sakymų]. – Lituanistica 68, 2(128), 135–152.

Voitkevič Božena 2010: The Morphological Integration of Slavisms in “Postilla” by Mikalojus Daukša [Morphological Integration of Slavisms in “Postilla” by Mikalojus Daukša]. – Baltistica 75(2), 243–255.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1968: Apie 1605 m. katekizmo tarmę [On the Dialect of the 1605 Catechism]. – Baltistica 4, 109–116.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1988: The Language of Old Texts [The Language of Old Texts], Vilnius: Mokslas.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 2002: Selected Writings [Selected Writings] 1, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

13

Document details