Dalia Kiseliūnaitė. Kuršių nerijos kuršininkų kalba: I dalis. Fonetika ir fonologija

PĒTERIS VANAGS University of Latvia, Stockholm University ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-0718-364X Research areas: the history of the Baltic languages, the history of the Latvian standard language, language policy. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all88-15 Dalia Kiseliūnaitė THE LANGUAGE OF THE CURONIANS OF THE CURONIAN SPIT: PART I. PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2022, 219 pp. DOI doi.org/10.35321/e-pub.41.kursininku-kalba-I-dalis ISBN 978-609-411-320-8 (general), ISBN 978-609-411-321-5 (Part I) The language of the Curonians is a certain Baltic idiom that was spoken on the Curonian Spit and in adjacent territories perhaps from the fifteenth–sixteenth century until the second half of the twentieth century. It was the language of migrants from Latvian Courland and their descendants, influenced by neighboring languages (German and Lithuanian) and eventually lost because of changed historical and political circumstances. It has been documented since the nineteenth century, but researchers of recent times also managed to record the speech of its last native speakers. In recent decades, the greatest attention to this variety of the Baltic languages has been devoted by Dalia Kiseliūnaitė, a professor at Klaipėda University, both by collecting abundant material and by publishing many articles on the subject. The monograph under review is a summary of her research and a further exploration of this issue. The monograph consists of an Introduction, two main chapters, and Conclusions. It is supplemented by appendices—fragments of language recordings that are quoted and discussed in the book. The first part of the book, “The Origins, History, Status, Sociolinguistic Profile, Documentation, and Research of the Curonian Language” (pp. 15–74), is a broad general introduction to the subject. Drawing on extensive scholarly and theoretical literature on all the issues under consideration, the author discusses the origins of the language, the history of the Curonian Spit, changes in the population, the settlement in the region of fishermen speaking Curonian (Latvian), historical events that caused new waves of immigration and other Recenzijos / Reviews 303 PĒTERIS VANAGS social processes. D. Kiseliūnaitė examines extensively the issue of the status of the Curonian language—how best to characterize the idiom. In the author’s view, the terms gele k to, sociolekto bei etnolekto would be most suitable. All the conjectures are supported by serious considerations, but this does not preclude defining the idiom as a separate Baltic language, albeit one of more recent origin. The chapter then discusses the bilingualism that existed on the Spit for several centuries, as well as the issue of the prestige of the Curonian language. The subsection on the documentation and study of the Curonian language is also highly valuable. It brings together abundant material with references to sources. The works of Adalberto Bezzenbergerio, Jurio Plakio (Jurio Plāķio), Richardo Pietscho, Wolfgango P. Schmido, Friedhelmo Hinzės, and other researchers are mentioned. Also mentioned are those researchers and language enthusiasts (Janis Kuškis (Jānis Kuškis), Laimduotas Ceplytis (Laimdots Ceplītis), Austris Grasis, Ilmaras Bernovskis, Richardas Pietschas, and the monograph’s author herself) who in the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century collected a fairly extensive collection of recordings of living Curonian speech. The first part of the book concludes with reflections on the vitality of the Curonian language and the possibilities of its revival. The second part of the monograph, “The Phonetics and Phonology of the Curonian Language” (pp. 75–185), is devoted to a description of the idiom’s phonetics. It begins with a brief overview of the history of research into Curonian phonetics and phonology (pp. 75–78). Following this introduction, the syllable (pp. 78–81), stress—stress placement and intonation (pp. 81–91), vocalism (pp. 91–135), and consonantism (pp. 135–178) are discussed systematically. Each chapter consists of several or even numerous subsections. The conclusions are based on abundant material, both recorded by the author herself and collected from older recordings or notes. Each feature of the Curonian language is compared with features of Latvian, especially those of the Curonian subdialects; possible influence from other languages is identified, as are innovations of the Curonian idiom itself. The linguistic phenomena are examined from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. A few observations and thoughts arose while reading this highly valuable monograph. In discussing stress (pp. 81–82), the author notes that an unstressed prefix ne- (ni-) sometimes occurs in prefixed verbs, e.g., praes. 1. niʼat-secerūos ‘I do not remember’, praes. 3. nepalžīj ‘he/she did not help’, praes. 3. niʼāzmaksa.i̯į ‘he/she did not pay’. Similar facts were also indicated by earlier researchers; for example, Adalbertas Bezzenbergeris (1888: 42) cites several examples with a stressed root and after other prefixes as well, e.g., atnāku, salau­lāt. This raises the question of whether this is not a relic of the older and freer Latvian stress system, reflections of which are also visible in seventeenth–eighteenth-century Latvian poetry (cf. Ancītis 1936). An interesting case of analogical leveling, absent from Standard Latvian, is mentioned on page 96. As Plakis (Plāķis 1927: 48, 64) also described earlier, in the conjugational paradigm of the verb, the articulation of the root vowels /e/ and /æ/ is leveled, “so that the root ē in praes. 2. sg. is the same as in 1. sg. es bēgu, tu bēgi, and so on.” 304 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Dalia Kiseliūnaitė. The Language of the Curonians of the Curonian Spit: Part I. Phonetics and Phonology As in several southern Courland dialects, the Curonians used the noun pušis ‘boy, hired hand’ (p. 100), with a secondary š from the gen. sg. and plural case forms. It is not entirely possible to agree with the author’s claim that “the older prepositional structure is retained in prefixes: the Latvian uz in verbs has a diphthongal form: fut. 2. sg. uõzdaba ‘protect’, partic. a. praet. m. N. sg. uõzauš s ‘grown up’ (EK_03), praet. 3. uõzlik ‘put on’ (EK_31)” (p. 101). In this particular case, the diphthong is probably secondary (Endzelīns 1951: 688–689). The author’s following claim is also doubtful: “The preposition aiz is monophthongized here to az, while in the prefix, as in the southern Courland dialects, its form has the long vowel āz: praet. 3. āzmaksaī ‘paid’ (EK_28), az gāl’ da ‘behind the table’” (p. 101). This is probably not monophthongization, but the retention of a more archaic form of the preposition (Endzelīns 1951: 636; Rudzīte 1964: 144). Perhaps through an oversight, the following sentence appeared: “In the speech of present-day informants, the correspondences of Latvian standard-language prefix pār- ‘direction of an action across some object, through it, for a certain period, etc.’ and par- ‘direction of return movement’ are likewise not always clearly distinguished” (p. 105). Standard Latvian has no prefix par-, only pār-, which has both of the aforementioned shades of meaning. On page 110 the author states: “All cases with anaptyxis show that the shortening of the first component of mixed diphthongs and the shift of stress onto the consonant probably had decisive importance. This process could have begun in the Semigallian dialects and in the so-called ‘Semigallian corner’ of Courland, from which, as Endzelīnas conjectured, most of the population came to the northern part of the Spit. The first component shortened especially regularly in diphthongs with r, and subsequently in others as well. In this respect, the members of the opposition of the two Curonian intonations drew closer together (the non-continuous intonation lost its distinctive features of the falling intonation, while the continuous one had retained its short first component from ancient times).” Nevertheless, Jānis Endzelīnas explains the process in the opposite way (Endzelīns 1951: 152): the short vowel before tautosyllabic r is the retention of the old shortness characteristic of the language of the ancient Semigallians, rather than a secondary phenomenon. Regarding the history of the -am / -ām, -at / -āt endings of the 1st and 2nd pl. of verbs (pp. 126–127), it is stated that “Endzelīnas attempts to link the shortening with the shortening of the D.–I. plural forms of nouns (which certainly does occur in the Curonian language) (Endzelīns 1951: 884), but in the Courland dialects such a connection is probably not characteristic of any geographically more clearly defined area. Moreover, it would still be necessary to explain why noun forms with –ām in Latvian dialects, according to Endzelīnas, affected the 2nd person form of the verb, which is phonetically dissimilar?” It seems that Endzelīnas’s idea in this case is somewhat different—he first seeks phonetic parallels between the use of the plural D.–I. and plural 1 endings –am / –ām and only then maintains that the phonetic shortening of the plural 1 ending also gave rise to an analogous plural 2 ending –at with a short vowel. Perhaps there is an error in stating that “[in Latvian dialects, the ending of ā-stem forms passes into the a-stem paradigm less often (gads > gadus ‘happens, occurs’) than the reverse” (p. 128). Here the phenomenon should probably be explained in the opposite way—the a-stem ending Recenzijos / Reviews 305 PĒTERIS VANAGS rarely passes into the ā-stem paradigm. The author then speculates about this process: “Whether this tendency was brought by the Curonians from Courland or manifests itself as a certain leveling of the system [...], still needs to be investigated [...].” In this regard, Endzelynas’s observation should also be taken into account (Endzelīns 1951: 905) that in Nīca, Gramzda, and Vaiņode the distinction between –as and –ās was retained. Writing about the distribution of i and u (p. 134), the author gives the form iemacėnate (= iemācināt) ‘to teach’ as an example. Plaķis (Plāķis 1927: 65–66) also indicated such a suffix, e.g., māčēnu, kūrēnu. It should be noted that the suffix -en instead of -in is widely used in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts, including those of Georgo Mancelio, e.g., aitzenah t, dah wena, pafudenati¹. Thus, this may be an old phenomenon and not necessarily a phonetic one. Similarly, derivatives with -enieks: zemēnieks ‘a lowlander, an inhabitant of the other shore of the lagoon’ and others” (p. 134) fully correspond to the forms with –enieks, e.g., Mancelio Darbeneeki, Ghrāzeneeku, Muiteneekus², found in western Courland (Endzelīns 1951: 362) and in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts. Regarding the fate of the clusters ķi and ģi, the aforementioned forms of ia-stem verbs es ląžuos, šūtsch u / šōutsch u, lūdschu, luhdʒcho, luhdʒchu, luhdʒchohs, brautfcho, peēsautfcho, patteitfchu, aiʒleedfchu, kleedfchu, šūhdfchu, Beidfchu, Brautfchu, Kleedfchu, Leedfchu, Schņahtfchu, Schņaudfchu, Šmeltfchu, trentšchu, beidfchu, kleedfų, fchņa udfų, šle hdfų, šneedfų, fteidfų, brauʒu ¹ For more, see http://senie.korpuss.lv/index.jsp?wordform=%25ena%25&source=Manc1631_Cat&source=Manc1631_LGL&source=Manc1631_LVM&source=Manc1631_Syr&source=Manc1637_Sal&source=Manc1638_L&source=Manc1638_PhL&source=Manc1638_Run&source=Manc1654_LP1&source=Manc1654_LP2&source=Manc1654_LP3&sort=asc&limit=50&cols=4. ² For more, see http://senie.korpuss.lv/index.jsp?wordform=%25eneek%25&source=Manc1631_Cat&source=Manc1631_LGL&source=Manc1631_LVM&source=Manc1631_Syr&source=Manc1637_Sal&source=Manc1638_L&source=Manc1638_PhL&source=Manc1638_Run&source=Manc1654_LP1&source=Manc1654_LP2&source=Manc1654_LP3&sort=asc&limit=50&cols=4. ³ For more, see http://senie.korpuss.lv/index.jsp?wordform=luhd%25&sort=A-Z&limit=50&page=2&cols=4&source=SENIE. 306 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Dalia Kiseliūnaitė. The Language of the Curonians of the Curonian Spit: Part I. Phonetics and Phonology (tɕchu), brehzu (tɕchu), mautɕchu, pluhzu (tɕchu), rauzu (tɕchu), šmelku (tɕhu), tee-zu (tɕchu),trauzu (tɕchu), treezu (tɕchu), trenku (tɕchu) (Stender 1783: 111–115). Although the authenticity of some of these forms may be doubtful (cf. “It seems to me doubtful whether such present forms as beidžu, kliedžu, etc., have really been known anywhere (instead of the correct beidzu, kliedzu, etc. [...],” as J. Endzelynas states (Endzelīns 1914: 909)), an instance of usage recorded from the still living Curonian language confirms the spread of the analogical process in the language. The ancestors of the last Curonians may have brought this tendency with them when they migrated from old Courland. It is written on page 175 that “į disappears after a root or suffix consonant, while –s in the N. sg. form becomes –š (cel̨š ‘road’, kaimiņš ‘neighbor’, etc.).” This is not true, because in these words, after the vowel of the ending disappeared, a palatal consonant l / n and į arose, namely l / ņ, and it was precisely after this that it changed into š. In footnote 276 (p. 177), the author writes that “as far as I have heard, the inhabitants of Šventoji regularly use m. N. sg. mačs, G. sg. maĝą, etc.” If the nominative is indeed pronounced this way, it would be a secondary morphological pronunciation, because the result of the phonetic process can be seen in the Curonian text quoted on the same page: taç maç. In the final chapter of the book (pp. 179–185), the author summarizes and characterizes the phonetic features of the Curonian language, dividing them into several groups: features of the Livonian subdialects of Courland in the Latvian language, features of the central dialect, features common to both dialect groups, innovations of the Curonian language, and the influence of German and Lithuanian. The analysis of the linguistic data supports the hypothesis of two historically distinct groups of Curonians from northern and southern Courland, whose linguistic features later began to mix as a result of internal migration. Consequently, both the dialectal features of the Livonian subdialects and those of the Semigallian corner of southern Courland are visible in the recorded language. Local linguistic innovations also arose. However, perhaps “praes. 1. plūcu ‘ours’, slēžu ‘I close, lock’, etc.” (p. 184) should not be regarded as such, since, as already mentioned, such forms are also known from old seventeenth- and eighteenth-century writings; moreover, this is not a phonetic but a morphophonological process. Perhaps “the loss of the consonant j before s, causing progressive assimilation (s > š), in the Curonian language also affected the attributive masculine nominative form: jāunais ‘the young one’, pirm̄ais ‘the first one’, etc.” (p. 184) is not a specific Curonian innovation either, since such forms are also widely known from the dialects of southern Courland, e.g., Rucava, Nīca, Bārta, and others (Endzelīns 1951: 200). The broader general conclusions (pp. 186–189) are supplemented by lists of informants and the literature used (pp. 190–200). One minor point: J. Endzelynas’s articles perhaps should have been described uniformly. Now two are cited from the collection Darbu izlase, and two others from the journal Filologu biedrības raksti, although all four are found in both the primary and secondary source. The monograph’s text is also supplemented by highly valuable appendices: all the recording fragments cited and discussed in the monograph, which make it possible to hear the sound of the still living language. Dalia Kiseliūnaitė’s monograph is devoted to a truly already extinct variety of the Baltic languages—the Curonian language; it is a significant contribution to Baltic studies, needed by many Recenzijos / Reviews 307 PĒTERIS VANAGS other researchers, useful not only to linguists but also to historians, ethnologists, and other specialists. The promised second part of the monograph—a description of the grammar—is now eagerly awaited. LITERATŪRA Adolphi Heinrich 1685: Erster Versuch Einer kurtz-verfas­seten Anleitung Zur Lettischen Sprache, Mitau: George Radetzky. Ancītis Krišjānis 1936: Pārstatītais akcents nevācu dzejā. – Ceļi 7, Rīga: Ramave, 116–125. Bezzenberger Adalbert 1888: Ueber die Sprache der preußischen Letten, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Endzelīns Jānis 1905: Zur Erweichung der Gutturale im Lettischen. – Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 29, 178–195 (= Endzelīns Jānis 1974: Darbu iz­lase 1, Rīga: Zinātne, 290–306). Endzelīns Jānis 1914: Vecā Stendera Latviešu gramatika un vārdnīca. – Druva 9, 907–911 (= Endzelīns Jānis 1974: Darbu izlase 2, Rīga: Zinātne, 548–553). Endzelīns Jānis 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība. Plāķis Juris 1927: Kursenieku valoda. – Latvijas Universitātes raksti 16, 33–124. Rudzīte Marta 1964: Latviešu dialektoloģija, Rīga: Liesma. Stender Gotthard Friedrich 1783: Lettische Grammatik, Mitau: Johann Fried. Steffenhagen. Įteikta 2023 m. kovo 2 d. PĒTERIS VANAGS Latvistikas un baltistikas nodaļa Humanitāro zinātņu fakultāte Latvijas Universitāte Visvalža iela 4a, Rīga, LV–1050 [email protected] Institutionen för slaviska och baltiska språk, finska, nederländska och tyska Stockholms universitet Universitetsvägen 10 E, Stockholm, SE–106 91 [email protected] 308 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII