Ramygalos šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijose: geolingvistinė analizė

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research interests: areal studies of the Baltic languages, geolinguistics, dialectology, perceptual dialectology. THE RAMYGALA SUBDIALECT IN CLASSIFICATIONS OF LITHUANIAN DIALECTS: A GEOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS Ramygala Subdialect in the Classifications of Lithuanian Dialects: Geolinguistic Analysis ANNOTATION Based on handwritten dialect material from the second half of the 20th century, this article presents a geolinguistic comparative study of the Ramygala subdialect. The heterogeneity of the area of the subdialect under investigation is first and foremost reflected in its place in classifications of Lithuanian dialects. In Antanas Baranauskas’s dialect classification of the late 19th century, the Ramygala subdialect, although assigned to the easternmost group, was closer to the Western Aukštaitian dialect. In later dialect classifications, a larger part of the area discussed, and eventually the entire area of the subdialect, was assigned to the Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects. The data collected and analyzed show that in the Ramygala subdialect area, both unshifted (an, am, en, em; ą, ę) and raised (un, um, in, im; ų, į) diphthongs and former nasal vowels were used with similar intensity. The eastern fringes of the subdialect area stand out more for the narrowing of these features characteristic of eastern speech. The minor linguistic changes documented in the subdialect area attest not only to the accuracy of the reconstructed eastern boundary of A. Baranauskas’s easternmost group. It is hypothesized that in the first half of the 20th century, not only the Central Aukštaitians but also their neighbors, the Eastern Aukštaitian Pantininkai, were transitional. KEYWORDS: Ramygala subdialect, traditional classification of Lithuanian dialects, Antanas Baranauskas’s dialect classification, Antanas Salys’s dialect classification, Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialects, Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžys subdialects, dialect boundaries. Straipsniai / Articles 167 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ ANNOTATION Based on the manuscript materials on dialects from the second half of the 20th century, the article presents the geolinguistic comparative study on the Rymgala subdialect. The heterogeneity of the area of the subdialect in question is first shown by its place in the classifications of Lithuanian dialects. Though the Rymgala subdialect falls to the so called First Eastern dialect according to the late 19th century classification of dialects by Antanas Baranauskas, it was actually closer to the Western Aukštaitian dialect. In later classifications of dialects a greater part of the area or even the whole area of the subdialect was attributed to the subdialects of Eastern Aukštaitian. The data collected and analysed in the study show that the unchanged (an, am, en, em; ą, ę) and narrowed (un, um, in, im; ų, į) mixed diphthongs and former nasal vowels were used in the area spoken by the Rymgala subdialect to a similar intensity. The eastern borders of the area of the subdialect tend to demonstrate the narrowing of these features, which is characteristic of eastern subdialects. Minor linguistic changes recorded in the area of the subdialect do not only show the accuracy of the reconstructed eastern boundary of Baranauskas’ First Eastern dialect. An assumption can be made that in the first half of the 20th century not only Middle Aukštaitian but also its neighbouring Eastern Aukštaitian Pantinkai was transitional by nature. KEYWORDS: Rymgala subdialect, classification of Lithuanian traditional dialects, Antanas Baranauskas’ classification of dialects, Antanas Salys’ classification of dialects, Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai, Eastern Aukštaitian of Panevėžys, dialect boundaries. At the beginning of the 21st century, traditional Lithuanian dialectology is transforming into geolinguistics (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 36). The geolinguistic perspective enables researchers to inventory the full linguistic diversity of a given area. The scope of other kinds of geolinguistic research is expanding: analyses have begun to address not only peripheries that have experienced or are experiencing the influence of other dialects and languages, but also the speech varieties of central Lithuanian-language areas, such as Jonava (Kazlauskaitė 2008: 600–609; Geržotaitė 2012: 156–174). In Antanas Salys’ classification of the first half of the 20th century, the Jonava speech variety was assigned to the Central Aukštaitian dialects (Salys 1933: 21–34; 1935: 1–87; 1946: 1–67; 1992: 3–140). The Central Aukštaitian subdialect was described as transitional by the author of this classification. In terms of its retention of the diphthongs an, am, en, em, it was closer to Western Aukštaitian, while in terms of the raising/realization of /e/, it tended toward the Pantininkai of Eastern Aukštaitian (Salys 1946: 53; 1992: 109). 168 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Ramyğalos šnektą lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė In the dialect classification by Alekso Girdenis and Zigmas Zinkevičius from the second half of the 20th century, most of Central Aukštaitian was assigned to Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147; Zinkevičius 1969: 138). Not only the Baisogala–Kėdainiai–Jonava area, located at the center of the Central Aukštaitian subdialect and identified by these linguists, was considered close to Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai (Geržotaitė 2016: 65). Surviliškis (LKA 335), which lay on the boundary between Central Aukštaitian and Eastern Aukštaitian in A. Salys’ classification, apparently also tended to be associated with them1 (Kazlauskaitė 2012: 339). In the second half of the 20th century, it was assigned to Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai. A different configuration of almost the entire Central Aukštaitian area emerges from the refined classification of A. Salys’ dialects and, in particular, from the geolinguistic reconstruction of Antanas Baranauskas’ dialect classification (Geržotaitė 2012: 156–174; 2014: 108–111; 2015: 133–165; 2016: 65–68 (see Fig. 1). A comparison of the two classifications shows that the aforementioned area was not merely confined to the south of Šiauliai, but extended much farther east and encompassed a considerable part of the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai (northern and southern) distinguished by A. Girdenis and Z. Zinkevičius. The aim of this article is to discuss the development of the Ramygala speech-area (the environs of Ėriškiai, LKA 267; Uliūnai, LKA 268; Krekenava, LKA 299; Ramygala, LKA 300; Jotainiai, LKA 301; Surviliškis, LKA 335; Truskava, LKA 336; and Aukštadvaris, LKA 337), which is currently classified as part of the southern Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai (see Fig. 1). The objectives are: 1) to review the sociolinguistic situation in the speech area on the basis of data provided in manuscript sources; 2) to use geolinguistic comparative and cartographic methods to present the status of the speech area in Lithuanian dialect classifications: those of A. Baranauskas from the late 19th century, A. Salys from the 1930s, and A. Girdenis and Z. Zinkevičius from the second half of the 20th century; 3) to conduct a comparative analysis of the recorded linguistic features of the speech area and attempt to assess how the speech variety has changed. The research material consists mainly of descriptions and texts of speech varieties from the second half of the 20th century, preserved in the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (19 manuscripts were examined; see the list of manuscript sources), as well as audio recordings lasting more than three hours (see the list of audio sources). Published texts of the speech variety were also used. 1 The numbers in parentheses are the Lithuanian Language Atlas location (survey-point) identifiers (see LKA I 21–30). Straipsniai / Articles 169 Fig. 1. The area of the Ramýgala dialect (the environs of Ėriškiai, LKA 267; Uliūnai, LKA 268; Krekenava, LKA 299; Ramýgala, LKA 300; Jotainiai, LKA 301; Surviliškis, LKA 335; Truskava, LKA 336; and Aukštadvaris, LKA 337) in Lithuanian dialect classifications (fragment)2 2 The boundaries of the Upper Lithuanian middle subdialects in Antanas Salys’s classification are marked on the map with finer lines; the boundaries of the eastern subdialects in Antanas Baranauskas’s division, which almost correspond to them, are marked with heavier lines. The abbreviations denote the western Upper Lithuanian Šiauliai subdialect (VAŠ) and the eastern Upper Lithuanian Panevėžys subdialect (RAP) in the classification by Aleksas Girdenis and Zigmas Zinkevičius. 170 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Ramygalo šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė 1. THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION OF THE RAMYGALA DIALECT IN MANUSCRIPT SOURCES In terms of language use, the central part of the Ramygala dialect area is described by individual dialect researchers as homogeneous. Only Lithuanian was used in the environs of Ėriškiai (LKA 267), and in the 1950s–1960s it reportedly preserved it relatively well (Mikėnas 1951 (1): 4; for more, see Šukys 1986: 127). The environs of Surviliškis (LKA 335) are considered entirely Lithuanian-speaking (Sabaliauskas 1959: 3). Only Lithuanian-speaking families (there were no mixed families at all) lived in Gudeliai, assigned to the Ramygala survey point (LKA 300), and in the nearby villages of Pašiliai and Raukštoniškiai (Masiliūnas 1959: 2). There were no manors or people of other nationalities in Garuckai village, east of Ramygala, either (Čyplienė 2016: 563). According to the researcher, changes in the dialect around this survey point were brought about by increased population mobility following the construction of the Kaunas–Panevėžys highway in 1933–1934 (Masiliūnas 1959: 2). Young people from Aukštadvaris (LKA 337) and its environs maintained closer ties with Ramygala’s residents, primarily for educational purposes (Liberytė 1959: 4–5). Residents of the Jotainiai (LKA 301) area also attended church in Aukštadvaris (PKT II 211). It has been established that the inhabitants of other villages in the area under study, near Ramygala (Miškinis 2016: 725) and Aukštadvaris (Kubilienė 2016: 536; Malinauskas 2016: 661), were also Lithuanian-speaking. Almost all the residents of Dūdoniai village, assigned to the Uliūnai survey point (LKA 268), were Lithuanian in the period mentioned (Gaivenis 1960 (1): 1–2, 5). A little over a decade earlier, in 1946, according to priest Juozas Dubnikas, the Uliūnai parish had been entirely Lithuanian-speaking (Dubnikas 1946: 288). The village of Užartėlė, assigned to the Truskava survey point (LKA 336), was inhabited by just a few people who had the least dealings with the manor (Eigminas (1): 5)4. However, most of the inhabitants around this survey point were by then farmhands and new settlers from former manors (Pavermėnas, Pągelupis, Gaišiai, and others) (Eigminas (1): 5). Manor density was more pronounced along the western edge of the Ramygala dialect area near Krekenava (LKA 299) and along its eastern edge near Jotainiai (LKA 301). However, the influence of Slavic languages on the dialects of these areas was not the same. According to Valerija Diržinskienė (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 3), these languages had a greater influence on the speech of the people of Krekenava. This fact 3 Here and in the other parenthetical notes, the numbers indicate which manuscript survey notebook is being referred to. 4 The year in which the survey point was studied is not specified in the manuscript description of Truskava. Straipsniai / Articles 171 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ This is confirmed by the list of estates located within a radius of ten kilometres from the town in as many as six directions, as presented by the researcher: toward Upytė (~ LKA point 232 (Naujamiestis)), Naujamiestis (LKA 232), Vadaktai (LKA 266), Pociūnėliai (LKA 265), Surviliškis (LKA 335), and Truskava (LKA 336) (Adomaitė-Diržienė 1957: 2–3). It was noted that the older residents of the northern Krekenava environs, toward Vadaktai (LKA 266), no longer knew Lithuanian (Adomaitė-Diržienė 1957: 3). According to Rutkaitė (Rutkaitė 1960 (1): 3), the residents of Vadaktai (LKA 66) “speak only Polish.” In collecting dialect material for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, only a few families speaking Lithuanian at home were found in this area. The inhabitants selected as representatives of the dialect, who spoke Lithuanian, were also reported to communicate fluently in Polish (Rutkaitė 1960 (1): 8). For more on these and other localities and the transcribed texts recorded there, see (Karas, Rutkovas, Geben, Ūnškienė 2001: 229–278; Karas 2002; Zielińska 2002: 58–59; Saniewska-Mochowa, Zielińska 2005: 69–85). In addition, there were also Russian-speaking villages in the Krekenava environs. Although much work had also been done on Jotainiai (Jotainiai, Žūdžiai, Barklainiai), the dialect of the residents of these environs was more strongly influenced by the fact that some informants had moved from localities belonging to another subdialect. Quite often, one of the parents of those interviewed, even if they had been born here, was from elsewhere (Urbanavičiūtė (1): 2–5)5. There were also people who had moved from neighbouring subdialect areas to the environs of other survey points. In the village of Stebėkiai, east of Aukštadvaris and assigned to this point by A. Salys, the local resident Marija Sereikienė testified that inhabitants speaking the Kupiškėnai and Uteniškiai subdialects predominated (Sereikienė 2016: 802–803). Her own grandparents, it is said, spoke the “Kupiškis–Anykščiai dialect.” The influence of Slavic languages on the speech of the areas under study was, it seems, not great, because the network of Polish-language schools there was underdeveloped. Polish primary schools were established in the autumn of 1926 only in a few localities belonging to Panevėžys County: Krekenava, Vadakliai (~ LKA point 301), and Vadaktai (LKA 266), located north of the Ramygala dialect area (Šetkus 2007: 43). A broader network of such schools extended across localities in Kaunas County (for example, Jonava (two classes), Lapės, Babtai) and Kėdainiai County (for example, Žeimiai and Dotnuva (two classes in each locality)), west of the area under study (Šetkus 2007: 43). 5 The manuscript does not specify the year in which the survey point was investigated in the description of Jotainiai. 172 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Ramyg alos šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė More detailed information about the school situation in the Ramygala environs before the 1920s is lacking. Local-history works indicate that a state primary school was established in Ramygala in 1852. After the abolition of serfdom, a second primary school also operated for a time; the two were later merged. Around 1911, a second primary school for girls opened in Ramygala (Astramskas 2016: 189); in 1918, a progymnasium and two primary schools were established (Juška 1946: 282). A school opened in 1905 in Ėriškiai (Astramskas 2016: 189) and Surviliškis (Kviklys 1965: 442). The Truskava primary school began operating in 1906 (with Lithuanian also taught from 1915), and the Jotainiai primary school in 1907 (with Russian as the language of instruction) (Astramskas 2016: 189; Miknienė 2016: 632–635; Šidlauskas 2016: 827–828). Around 1905, the young ladies of Bistrampolis Manor taught children in Uliūnai in Lithuanian; more than a decade later, around 1918–1922, a school was opened, as the source says, “pati,” and in 192[?] a state school was established (Balsevičiūtė, Peleckienė, Račiūnas, Ulys 1993: 167; Astramskas 2016: 191). Instruction in primary schools was mainly in Russian. After the ban on the press was lifted, Lithuanian began to be used in teaching Lithuanian grammar (Astramskas 2016: 190). It is worth noting that some local residents born in the very late nineteenth or early twentieth century and interviewed by linguists in the second half of the twentieth century were entirely without schooling (Eigminas 1): 5–7). Thus, unlike in the Kaunas (or Kėdainiai–Jonava) area, Polish did not predominate in the Ramygala dialect area (Rutkovska 2014: 217). The territory analysed in this article, with the exception of Krekenava, may be regarded more as the periphery of an urban area. It may be assumed that the dialect changes in the Ramygala dialect described in the following sections and documented in different periods, like those in the neighbouring area around Radviliškis, are better viewed as the result of natural dialect change than of interaction between several languages (Geržotaitė 2016: 112–125). 2. The Ramýgala Dialect in A. Baranauskas’s Classification of Dialects In the classification by A. Girdenis and Z. Zinkevičius, the dialect assigned to the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai is unusually positioned on the reconstructed map of A. Baranauskas’s classification of Lithuanian dialects from the late nineteenth century (Geržotaitė 2015: 45; 2016: 45). Located on the eastern edge of the dialect of the Eastern Easterners, First Žiemiečiai⁶ ⁶ To A. Baranauskas, who discussed somewhat different linguistic aspects in a letter to Weber, this dialect seemed “almost like an intermediate kind between the eastern and western Lithuanians” (Almaunskis 1930: 93). Straipsniai / Articles 173 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ On this map, the Ramýgala dialect (Panevėžys County) seems to be wedged between dialects assigned to the Easterners Second and Third (see Fig. 2).7 Fig. 2. The area of the Ramýgala dialect (the vicinity of Eriškiai, LKA 267; Uliūnai, LKA 268; Krekenava, LKA 299; Ramýgala, LKA 300; Jotainiai, LKA 301; Surviliškis, LKA 335; Truskavõs, LKA 336; and Aukštadvaris, LKA 337) in A. Baranauskas’s classification of dialects (fragment)8 7 The linguistic situation in the parts of the area of the dialect of the Easterners First Žemiečiai that fell within Šiauliai and Ukmergė counties has been discussed fairly comprehensively across all dialect classifications (Geržotaitė 2012: 156–174; 2016: 65–68, 112–125). The only acceptable conclusion is that in one locality in Šiauliai County, Šeduva (LKA 199), recent research has recorded more varied use of features distinguishing not only the Easterners First, but also both classifications that almost correspond to one another: A. Salys’s classification of the Central Aukštaitians with the High Easterners Pantininkai, and A. Girdenis and Z. Zinkevičius’s classification of the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai with the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai (Švambarytė-Valužienė 2016: 313). 8 The abbreviations denote A. Baranauskas’s Easterners First Žemiečiai (R1ž), Easterners Second (R2), and Third (R3). 174 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Ramyalos šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė According to A. Baranauskas, in the territory of the Easterners First, both stressed (acute and circumflex) and unstressed mixed diphthongs an, am, en, em were supposed to remain intact, e.g.: įngas ‘window’, bánda ‘herd’, tãmpu ‘I become’, kañtis ‘to fall’, klampùs ‘muddy’, pė́mpė ‘a quail’ (Baranovski 1898: 60–61; see also Alminauskis 1930: 73). Instead of the former nasal vowel ą, a long a was pronounced (Baranovski 1898: 61; Geržotaitė 2015: 151; 2016: 48–49)⁹. The use of the features discussed above is inconsistently recorded in the texts collected by A. Baranauskas and published by Franz Specht from the Ramygala area. In the parish of Kėkenavõs, northwest of Ramygala (the town itself may also have belonged to it, or, more likely, Surviliškis, located southwest of Ramygala, LKA 335; it is known that the recorder of these texts, Aleksandras Žirgulaitis [Zirgulacis], identified by F. Specht, came from this area), the dialect of the Easterners First Žiemiečiai was spoken (Specht 1920: 194–197)¹⁰. Here the diphthong an, as A. Baranauskas also indicated, remained intact, e.g.: ant nakvýnės ‘for the night’ (Specht 1920: 194), į vãndenį ‘into the water’ (Specht 1920: 195), gyvéntojų ‘residents’ (Specht 1920: 196), įsigãndo ‘became frightened’ (Specht 1920: 194, 195). The former nasal ą was pronounced as long or short a, e.g.: ãžulnų ‘oaken’ (Specht 1920: 197), vĩsa vãsarą ‘all summer’ (Specht 1920: 195). In the parish of Aukštādvaris (Wysokidwór), also identified by F. Specht as belonging to the Easterners First Žiemiečiai, narrowing of the diphthong an—characteristic of the Easterners Third through Sixth—was already recorded, e.g.: nusigund ‘became frightened’ (Specht 1920: 192), runkų ‘of hands’ (Specht 1920: 192), ũnksi ‘early’ (Specht 1920: 192). The former nasal ą was pronounced as long or short a, e.g.: kãrtą ‘once’ (Specht 1920: 191), žiedą ‘flower’ (Specht 1920: 191), kąsnẽlį ‘a little bite’ (Specht 1920: 192). In the Ramygala area, bordering other Eastern dialects, forms with a hard consonant l were recorded, e.g.: lãik ‘time’ (Specht 1920: 195), lėkti ‘to fly’ (Specht 1920: 196), galėja ‘could’ (Specht 1920: 195). Around Kėkenava (or, more likely, Surviliškis), reduced endings occur, e.g.: bėgù ‘runs’ (Specht 1920: 194), pasitìnku ‘meets, i.e. encounters’ (Specht 1920: 194), mėškù ‘bear’ (Specht 1920: 195), žiemù ‘winter’ (Specht 1920: 195), õzku ‘goat’ (Specht 1920: 197). 9 In the speech of the Easterners Second, these features had a different pronunciation: the diphthongs an, am and the former nasal ą were realized as on, om and o, e.g.: óngs, rónds, klómps, žós ‘goose’, ós ‘shaft’, gáwo ‘got’, dárba ‘work’ (Baranovski 1898: 74); among the Easterners Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, they were realized as un, um and u, e.g.: lungas, dungùs ‘sky’, umz̃ius ‘age’, klumpùs (Baranovski 1898: 64). 10 In A. Salys’s classification of dialects, Surviliškis lies at the boundary between two subdialects: Central Aukštaitian and Eastern Aukštaitian Pantininkai (or A. Baranauskas’s Easterners First Žiemiečiai) (Geržotaitė 2016: 65–66). Aleksandras Žirgulis himself assigned his dialect to the Eastern Aukštaitian Pantininkai and noted its principal features: darkening of l and the realization of the mixed diphthongs (stressed and unstressed) an, am, en, em as on, om, en, em, e.g.: rõn.kv ‘hand’, pẽn.k ‘five’ (Kazlauskaitė 2012: 322–323). Straipsniai / Articles 175 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ The transition of the dialect of the first eastern Samogitians, to which the Ramygala speech also belonged, is evident from the somewhat different pronunciation of the diphthongs am, an and former nasal vowels ą, ę that Įrgis Gerulis identified as characteristic of it (Gerulis 1930: 39–40). According to this linguist, in the Samogitian area, instead of the acute-stressed an, am, one finds on, om, e.g.: b́ė̀ndė ‘water’, bŕng(u)s ‘expensive’; in the circumflex-stressed position, un, um, e.g.: un.t ‘on’, atainùčės ‘coming’, tumsùlė ‘dark ones’. (Un)stressed ą was reflected as ǫ, e.g.: kǫ̀ ‘what’, uzbǫ̀ns ‘a jug’ (Gerulis 1930: 40). The first elements of the diphthongs en, em, including those with circumflex stress, were narrowed, e.g.: mẽn.ko ‘small’, tẽmpt(i) ‘to stretch’, uždẽngi ‘to cover’; the former nasal ę was pronounced like short e, for example, atsikėlỹ̃pęs ‘having knelt down’ (Gerulis 1930: 39). It should be noted that these reflexes of the diphthongs an, am and former nasal ą are reported on the basis of the speech of people from the village of Rėkliai, located about 3–4 kilometers north of Panevėžys (Gerulis 1930: 39–40). At that time, as Baranauskas noted (Baranovski 1898: 62), in two localities of the first eastern Samogitians—Panevėžys and Smilgiai—alongside the retained an, am and former nasal ą, reflexes characteristic of the northern dialects (i.e., the second eastern dialects) could already be heard, e.g.: bróngs ‘expensive’, klómpus ‘muddy’, ąsa ‘handle’. The influence of northern and/or eastern dialects on the aforementioned areas around Smilgiai and Panevėžys is reflected in handwritten dialect materials from the second half of the 20th century (Rutkauskaitė 1959 (1): 4). For example, around Smilgiai (LKA 20), acute-stressed diphthongs were pronounced as by the pantininkai, while instances of the circumflex-stressed an, am reflexes on, om, characteristic of the pontininkai, were recorded chiefly with pluses in the puntininkai area, i.e., un, um (Rutkauskaitė 1959 (1): 4). Thus, the pronunciation of the features under discussion that J. Gerulis identified as characteristic of the first eastern Samogitians is closer to the second and third eastern groups distinguished by A. Baranauskas. The reconstructed affiliation of these two localities is further confirmed by the fact that the Panevėžys parish (and thus Panevėžys itself), as can be seen from the texts published by F. Specht, also spoke the dialect of the first eastern Samogitians (Specht 1920: XIV, 218). The dialectal affiliations of other localities identified by F. Specht almost or entirely coincide with those that emerge from the reconstructed dialect map of A. Baranauskas. Near the Šeduva parish (apparently also in Šeduva itself, LKA 199), the boundaries of the first eastern Samogitians and the second eastern groups intersect (Specht 1920: XII–XIV). On A. Baranauskas’s dialect map, this locality fell only within the area of the first eastern Samogitians (Geržotaitė 2015: 145; 2016: 46–47, 55). The Joniškis (~ LKA 51) and Radviliškis (~ LKA 198) parishes (and thus their centers), as shown by F. Specht’s texts and the reconstructed dialect map of A. Baranauskas, lay within the territory of a single dialect, that of the first eastern Samogitians (Specht 1920: XIV). 176 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Ramýgalos šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė 3. THE RAMYGALA SPEECH IN A. SALYS’S DIALECT CLASSIFICATION On the basis of the same features, most of the speech area under discussion was assigned not to the Western Aukštaitians (as in A. Baranauskas’s classification) but to the Eastern Aukštaitian pantininkai in A. Salys’s revised early 20th-century dialect classification (Geržotaitė 2016: 65–66). Thus, in this classification, the first eastern Samogitians identified by A. Baranauskas around Ramygala encompassed a small area of the Western Aukštaitians and almost the entire southern part of the neighboring Eastern Aukštaitian pantininkai area (see Fig. 3). 3 FIG. The area of the Ramygala speech (the areas around Ériškiai, LKA 267; Uliūnai, LKA 268; Krekenava, LKA 29; Ramygala, LKA 300; Jotainiai, LKA 301; Surviliškis, LKA 335; Truskava, LKA 336; and Aukštadvaris, LKA 337) in A. Salys’s revised dialect classification (Geržotaitė 2016: 65–66) (excerpt)11 11 Abbreviations denote the Western Aukštaitians (AV), Eastern Aukštaitian pantininkai (ARPn), pantininkai (ARP), and puntininkai (ARpu) in A. Salys’s classification. Straipsniai / Articles 177 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ In the area of the southern Eastern Highlanders’ pantininkai (not the Central Highlanders) in this classification, that is, around Ramygala, the reflexes of the features mentioned above must have been somewhat different: the acute-stressed components of the diphthongs an, am must have been preserved intact here, for example, lá·nᵍas ‘window’, sá·mᵗis ‘ladle’, while the circumflex-stressed ones had the reflexes ʌn, ʌm, e.g.: rɔːn·k(ᵘ) ‘hand.ACC’, kɔːm·p(ᵘ)s ‘corner’, rm·št(i)s ‘prop’. The diphthongs en, em must have been pronounced similarly: those with acute stress remained unchanged, while those with circumflex stress were pronounced in a narrowed form, e.g.: t̃vẽn·kᵗ ‘to dam’, tẽm·pᵗ ‘to stretch’ (Salys 1992: 115). The former nasal vowels ą, ę were narrowed in this area regardless of intonation, e.g.: ž̃·si ‘goose.ACC’, kɔːst ‘to bite’ (Salys 1992: 115). It is worth noting that the unchanged diphthongs an, am (see Fig. 3) were pronounced only in the western part of the area of the dialect under investigation, around Krekenava and Surviliškis (Salys 1933; 1935: 67; 1946: 54; Geržotaitė 2016: 65–66). In this way, the expression “pernaiūtį” (‘the year before last’), as A. Salys put it, comes to be pronounced more quickly not only by the Western Highlanders he described, but also by the Central Highlanders. A. Salys assigned the area around Ramygala to the pantininkai rather than the puntininkai only because diphthong narrowing there was not uniform, but depended on intonation (Salys 1992: 304). The linguist was apparently entirely unaware of the circumflex-stressed diphthong narrowing (ã, ãm > ũn, ũm; ẽn, ẽm > in, im) that links the local dialects under analysis with the puntininkai (cf. A. Salys’s remark that “[...] in Z. Zinkevičius’s most recent studies of the Panevėžys subdialect he distinguished [...] an, am, en, em turned into [...] five distinct [...]” (Salys 1992: 305)). On the other hand, this pronunciation may not have been consistent in the area in the 1930s, although it had already been recorded in texts published by F. Specht roughly a decade earlier. It should be added that in his encyclopedic article on Lithuanian dialects, A. Salys placed the eastern boundary of the Central Highlanders who preserve the diphthongs an, am intact at Žemėliai (LKA 25), Pašvitinys (LKA 76), Linkuva, Lygumai, Pakruojis (LKA 137), Klovainiai, and Šeduva (LKA 199) (Salys 1992: 304). This boundary thus lies even farther east than Petras Būtėnas drew it in his work (1932: 178–179), and almost coincides with the eastern boundary of the eastern First Lowlanders as described and reconstructed by A. Baranauskas (see also the map in Geržotaitė 2016: 66) (see Fig. 4). The similarity between the boundaries drawn merely confirms that such a boundary of the area of the eastern First Lowlanders distinguished by A. Baranauskas—both its southern and northeastern limits, as they emerged from the reconstructed dialect-classification map—could indeed have existed. Thus, the area to which the western dialects were closer until as late as the 1930s was apparently considerably larger. 178 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII The Ramygala dialect in the classification of Lithuanian dialects: a geolinguistic analysis 4 pav. Rytinė aukštaičių viduriečių riba A. Salio (1992: 304) ir P. Būtėno (1932: 178–179) duomenimis12 12 The points shaded gray on the map mark the localities identified in A. Salys’s encyclopedic article, while those outlined with dashed lines mark the localities indicating the northeastern boundary of the Central Highlanders, as specified in P. Būtėnas’s work. Straipsniai / Articles 179 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ 4. THE RAMYGALA AREA ACCORDING TO DIALECT DATA FROM THE 1960s–1980s The entire area of the Ramygala dialect was indeed assigned to the Eastern Highlanders’ Panevėžys subdialect in the classification of Lithuanian dialects by A. Girdenis and Z. Zinkevičius from the second half of the 20th century, on the basis of the pronunciation of short word-final vowels (see Fig. 1)13. On the basis of features characteristic of A. Baranauskas’s eastern First Lowlanders, recorded in dialect material from the second half of the 20th century, the area around Ramygala could not be assigned exclusively to the eastern dialects, although it was strongly influenced by them. The localities that may be considered least affected by the eastern dialects are Surviliškis (Sabaliauskas 1959; 1960), Ramygala (Masiūnas 1959), and Truskava (Eigminas (1–3)) (see table; percentages are given in parentheses). The fact that the residents of Surviliškis (LKA 335) and its environs maintained closer ties with the residents of Kėdainiai—that is, with representatives of the Western rather than the Eastern Highlanders’ subdialect—may have led to a dual pronunciation of the circumflex-stressed diphthong an, am (acute-stressed an, am were preserved intact) (Sabaliauskas 1960: 3), e.g.: pa-simė ‘pasimadė’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 6), ūnkti ‘anksti’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 7), rąndu ‘randu’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 11)14, įsiganda ‘įsigando’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 14), kambər(i)s ‘kambarius’ (Sabaliauskas 1959: 15)15. The diphthong en had the reflex in here (Sabaliauskas 1960: 6), e.g.: švìnte ‘šventė’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 6), piŋktᵃˢ ‘penktas’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 3), uždiŋgᵃ ‘uždengia’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 9). In Surviliškis, the former nasal vowel ą was preserved intact in stressed stems, e.g.: žąs.u.ku ‘žąsiukų’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 8), į.įgasti ‘įsigasti’ (Sabaliauskas 1960: 17). Variation in the diphthong en is also reflected in forms recorded in the early 1970s in Kažokai village, near Surviliškis, e.g.: š’v’inta ‘šventa’ (LT III 196), k’r’enta ‘krenta’ (LT III 196), g’iv’en’t ‘gyventi’ (LT III 197), š’v’intoris ‘šventorius’ (LT III 197), g’iv’en.c’e ‘gyvenčiau’ (LT III 197). The diphthong an was recorded unchanged, e.g.: lank’em ‘lankėme’ (LT III 196), antrū ‘antrų’ (LT III 196). 13 The dialectal affiliation of Ramygala, which has remained almost unchanged, is also confirmed by later studies (Meiliūnaitė 2016: 1278–1284, etc.). 14 The text is a song. 15 It should be noted that few forms containing the diphthongs an, am, en, em were recorded in this locality or the others, whether they were preserved intact or narrowed. 180 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI The Ramygala Subdialect in the Classification of Lithuanian Dialects: A Geolinguistic Analysis TABLE. Comparison of the distinguishing features of localities around Ramygala16 Features | Kameno acute-stressed am, an, em, en (retained (+) or narrowed (−)) | Kameno circumflex-stressed am, an, em, en (retained (+) or narrowed (−)) | Unstressed am, an, em, en (retained (+) or narrowed (−)) | Kameno ą, ę (retained (+) or narrowed (−)) | Word-final ą, ę (retained (+) or narrowed (−)) Localities | Ėriškiai (LKA 267)¹⁷ | + | − | − / (+)¹⁸ | + | + / − Uliūnai (LKA 268) | − / (+) (88 / 12) | − / + (70 / 30) | − / (+) (86 / 14) | + (100) | − (100) Krekenava (LKA 299) | + (100) | − / (+) (84 / 16) | − / + (67 / 33) | + (100) | + / (−) (95 / 5) Ramygala (LKA 300) | + (100) | − / + (67 / 33) | − / + (56 / 44) | + (100) | + / (−) (89 / 11) Jotainiai (LKA 301) | + / − (72 / 28) | − / (+) (95 / 5) | − / (+) (95 / 5) | + / (−) (88 / 12) | + / − (73 / 27) Surviliškis (LKA 335) | + (100) | − / + (64 / 36) | + / − (62.5 / 37.5) | + (100) | + / (−) (97 / 3) Truskava (LKA 336) | + (100) | − / + (62.5 / 37.5) | − / + (70 / 30) | + (100) | + / (−) (90 / 10) Aukštadvaris (LKA 337) | + (100) | − / + (73 / 27) | − / (+) (89 / 11) | + (100) | + / (−) (89 / 11) Didesnis dėmesys, anot Kazimiero Masiūno (Masiūnas 1959: 6), turėjo būti skiriamas centrinei analizuojamos šnektos vietovei, Ramygalai, ties kuria fiksuotos kelioms patarmėms būdingos ypatybės. Rankraštinės medžiagos duomenimis, tvirtrapradžiai kirčiuotų dvigarsių an, am pirmieji dėmenys, kaip ir būdinga A. Salio skirstymo pantininkams, šiame punkte išlaikyti sveiki, pvz.: brãngus ‘brangus’ (Masiūnas 1959: 7), prõ langą ‘pro langą’ (Masiūnas 1959: 13), slãnˈkˈoji ‘slankioja’ (Masiūnas 1959: 17). Nepatės užrašytas ir buvęs 16 The table summarizes the usage of features characteristic of the subdialect, as recorded in handwritten dialect texts. Statistics on the features used in the few audio recordings were not included because of the lack of recordings (they are available for only half of the Ramygala subdialect area) and their uneven quality. In addition, some recordings, namely those from Uliūnai, come from localities considerably farther away and attributable to another point. Therefore, these data are not exact, but only approximate. Even so, they make it possible to form a general picture. 17 Since the Ėriškiai description is based not on dialect texts but on responses to the questionnaire in the Lithuanian Language Atlas data-collection programme (Senkus 1951), the data collected and summarized by Jonas Šukys in these localities at about the same time were also consulted (Šukys 1986: 127–146). 18 Rare instances of usage are given in parentheses in the table. Straipsniai / Articles 181 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ nosinis ą, pvz.: užbō.na ‘užboną’ (Masilūnas 1959: 13), nenusigą.sk ‘nenusigąsk’ (Masilūnas 1959: 18). Acute-stressed and unstressed an is pronounced in two ways, e.g.: įsigunda ‘got frightened’ (Masilūnas 1959: 8), pasisamdžiusi ‘having hired’ (Masilūnas 1959: 14), ūntra ‘second’ (Masilūnas 1959: 18), rankos ‘hands’ (vs. K.) (Masilūnas 1959: 20), ūntrą ‘second’ (Masilūnas 1959: 21), įsigandęs ‘frightened’ (Masilūnas 1959: 13), Untā.na ‘Antanas’ (Masilūnas 1959: 8), valandō.s ‘hours’ (Masilūnas 1959: 11), ū.škam-pis ‘backwaters’ (Masilūnas 1959: 17); en is narrowed, e.g.: švinta ‘holy’ (Masilūnas 1959: 10), luntē.la ‘table’ (Masilūnas 1959: 21). Therefore, Ramygala itself cannot be assigned exclusively to the pantininkai or puntininkai, and no examples of the pronunciation characteristic of the pontininkai mentioned by the researcher were recorded in the handwritten texts. Listening to audio recordings from the 1970s likewise reveals a similar situation in Ramygala. Here, as in Surviliškis, the diphthongs an, am, en, em with circumflex intonation remain unchanged, e.g.: vándenē ‘of water’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala)¹⁹, lāngā ‘of the window’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala), pẽnpē ‘pėpė’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala), gyvẽnsim ‘we will live’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala). Acute-stressed an is recorded both unchanged and narrowed, e.g.: nesuprantų ‘I do not understand’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala), ūnkstī ‘early’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala), tum̄pa ‘stretches’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala), āntras ‘second’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala) (cf. ūntras (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala), Añškų ‘Ančiškų’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala); en remains unchanged, e.g.: švẽnta ‘holy’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala), lēndū ‘they lend’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala)²⁰, ūzdengō ‘I covered’ (O. V., born 1884, Ramygala). Unchanged diphthongs an, en (e.g.: dan’t’im ‘with teeth’ (LT II 195), pal’engvū ‘gently’ (LT II 196)) were also recorded in Ramygala by other researchers in the 1970s. In villages around Truskava, according to Kazys Eigminas, circumflex-stressed diphthongs am, an are pronounced unchanged, while circumflex-stressed and unstressed ones are realized as um, un, although they quite often remain unchanged or am, an and um, un are used interchangeably. The diphthongs em, en are pronounced similarly: circumflex-stressed forms remain unchanged, while circumflex-stressed and unstressed forms are pronounced in two ways, as im, in and em, en (Eigminas (1): 12). These observations are confirmed by forms found in the handwritten texts from the locality. Circumflex-stressed an remains unchanged, e.g.: vándenį ‘water’ (Eigminas (1): 13), lāngā ‘window’ (Eigminas (3): 15). Former nasal vowels ą, ę are also recorded unchanged. Circumflex-stressed an, am, en are pronounced in two ways, e.g.: runk(b)s ‘hands’ (Eigminas (2): 13) (cf. ranką ‘hand’ (Eigminas (3): 1), skūmbina ‘is ringing’ (Eigminas (2): 21), 19 See recording No. 51001300, recorded in the Sound Sources collection. 20 See recording No. 51001300, recorded in the Sound Sources collection. 182 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Ramgalos šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė skūmbit ‘to ring (~ to call)’ (Eignimas (2): 19, 21), ā́ntra ‘the second’ (Eignimas (3): 5), kãmpa ‘of the corner’ (Eignimas (3): 17), neiškẽntis ‘having endured’ (Eignimas (2): 7), piñkus ‘five’ (Eignimas (2): 13). The same pronunciation of the diphthong an is also confirmed by audio-recording data, e.g.: lãngus ‘windows’ (A. J., b. 1888, Šukioniai)²¹, rañką ‘hand’ (A. J., b. 1888, Šukioniai), lù̃nks ‘bow’ (A. J., b. 1888, Šukioniai), lunkai ‘bows’ (A. J., b. 1888, Šukioniai). Thus, around Truskava, the reflexes of these features characteristic of A. Salys’s classification of the Western Aukštaitians and Eastern Aukštaitian paninkai seem to intermingle. The Krekenava (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957), Ėriškiai (Mikenas 1951 (1–5)), and Aukštadvaris (Libertė 1959) points, which were somewhat more closely aligned with the eastern dialects than the localities discussed above, are shown in the table. In terms of the narrowing of the circumflex diphthongs an, am, en, Krekenava, according to the data in the manuscript description, is closer to both the Eastern Third and other dialects described by A. Baranauskas and J. Gerulis, e.g.: dùntis ‘teeth’ (ds. G.) (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 7), kùmpa ‘of the corner’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 11), lùntos ‘boards’ (ds. V.) (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 7), pù piñkis ‘five each’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 8, 14), diñkt ‘to cover’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 15). Cases in which the diphthongs remain unchanged are rare, e.g.: suprãntu ‘I understand’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 8), nebeatãndu ‘I can no longer find’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 24), nekenčù ‘I dislike’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 19). Circumflex-stressed diphthongs an, en, and the nasal vowel ą (mostly in Kameno) are preserved intact, e.g.: lãngą ‘of the window’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 21), gyvẽns ‘I will live’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 10), kąsnẽlį ‘a small bite’ (Diržinskienė 1957: 12), nusigãsti ‘to be frightened’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 12), vãlanda ‘an hour’ (Adomaitė-Diržinskienė 1957: 150). Atsakymuose į Lietuvių kalbos atlaso medžiagos rinkimo programos (Senkus 1951) klausimus išryškėja ir Ėriškių pereigiškumas (Mikenas 1951 (2): 23). Tvirtagaliai am, an ir en bus nosinis ą čia išlaikyti nepakitę, pvz.: sã.m’is, pãntis, tã.nė ‘tankiai’, kã.ndu ‘kandą’, kãsnis ‘kąsnis’, ãžolùs ‘ąžuolas’, kãst ‘kąsti’. Dviejopa tvirtagalių dvigarsių vartosena Ėriškius ir artina prie vakarinų šnektų, ir tolina nuo jų (Mikenas 1951 (2): 23). According to the audio recordings, circumflex an, en are likewise recorded unchanged, e.g.: vãnd’õ ‘of water’ (J. B., b. 1897, Vitriškiai²²²³, gyvẽnt ‘to live’ (J. B., 21 See recording No. 0901336 in the list of audio recording sources. 22 The official form is Vitriškis (ATSŽ 350). 23 See recording No. 34101267 in the list of audio recording sources. Straipsniai / Articles 183 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ b. 1897, Vitriškiai24. Only two forms with these diphthongs bearing circumflex stress were heard: ūkšti ‘ankšti’ (J. B., b. 1897, Vitriškiai), pi̇̀nki ‘penki’ (J. B., b. 1897, Vitriškiai). Jonas Šukys also reached similar conclusions about this point. Based on a study of local residents’ speech conducted in 1959 and 1970, he noted that, according to A. Salys’s classification, Ėriškiai belongs to the Eastern Aukštaitian pantininkai subdialect area (Šukys 1986: 127–128). In word stems, circumflexed vowels, unstressed an, am, en, em in circumflexed suffixes, and stressed and unstressed ą, ę are preserved intact here, as in the pantininkai area, according to the linguist (Šukys 1986: 131–132). However, circumflexed diphthongs are already reflected as um, un, im, in, e.g.: sùndem “sądeme,” rùnk “ranką,” tùmp “tempia,” pi̇̀nk “penki” (Šukys 1986: 132). This narrowing differs not only from the feature A. Baranauskas identified as characteristic of this area, but also from A. Salys’s description. Aukštadvaryje, kaip nurodo Aldona Liberytė (Liberytė 1959: 8), vietoj tvirtagalių am, an, em, en (kirčiuotų ir nekirčiuotų) jau sistemiškai turi um, un, im, in, pvz.: rùnk(bl)s „rankas“ (dgs. G.) (Liberytė 1959: 18), ìsigùda „įsigando“ (Liberytė 1959: 57), tùmpa „tampo“ (Liberytė 1959: 63), apdìnksu „apdengsiu“ (Liberytė 1959: 17), dìṅt(bl)s „dentas“ (Liberytė 1959: 38), švìntes „šventės“ (dgs. V.) (Liberytė 1959: 40), pi̇̀nkis „penkis“ (Liberytė 1959: 45). Buvę nosiniai ą, ę išlaikyti sveiki, pvz.: sùsalù „sūlau“ (Liberytė 1959: 15), gražìnsu „grąžinsiu“ (Liberytė 1959: 38), nusigrėžė „nusigręžė“ (Liberytė 1959: 36). It is noteworthy that the approximate boundary between western and eastern subdialects, drawn roughly through Ramygala on the basis of the pronunciation of an, am diphthongs recorded in F. Specht’s texts, is also reflected in the views of Aukštadvaris residents, who say: “around Krėkenava they speak differently again / They call that place Tinai station / The way we speak, everyone, well, they wouldn’t understand / A little different are their speech and shores [...]” (Liberytė 1959: 35). According to local residents, more pronounced linguistic differences (at the phonetic rather than lexical level) distinguish not their own area but the Panevėžys surroundings to the north, where people say: žò.sis ‘žąsis’, vón.do ‘vanduo’, lóng(bl)s ‘langas’ (Liberytė 1959: 35). The areas most affected by eastern subdialects are identified as Uliūnai (Gavenis 1960 (1–2)) and Jotainiai (Urbanaivičiūtė (1–4) (see table). Gavenis assigns the speech of residents of the Uliūnai point to the Eastern Aukštaitian pontininkai under A. Salys’s classification (Gavenis 1960 (1): 5). The linguist Aloyzas Vidugiris also assigned the Uliūnai subdialect to the Panevėžys Eastern Aukštaitians who speak pontininkai, based on A. Girdenis and Z. Zinkevičius’s dialect classification (Vidugiris 1993: 197). There were positive results (Vidugiris 1993: 198), besides the features characteristic of the pontininkai 24 See entry No. 3401267 in the List of Audio Sources. 184 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Ramyg़alas šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė characteristic diphthongs am, em reflex, with variations caused by neighboring subdialects also occurring. It is noteworthy that the aforementioned pontininkai would almost correspond to A. Baranauskas’s second easterners, although there are some minor differences. In A. Baranauskas’s dialect classification, Uliūnai, like the Ramygala-area localities already discussed, belonged to the area of the first lowland easterners. Panevėžys, already mentioned, and even Smilgiai were also within this area. Thus, shifts in dialect boundaries are evident: the southern boundary of the dialect of the second easterners identified by A. Baranauskas ran somewhat farther north than that of the pontininkai later identified by A. Salys. Panevėžys, situated at the border between the first lowland easterners and the second easterners, is identified as the major city to which Uliūnai residents most often travelled in the 1960s (Gavenis 1960 (1): 4). It is therefore not surprising to hear in Uliūnai reflexes characteristic of the pontininkai in A. Salys’s classification or of A. Baranauskas’s second easterners (not the first), such as circumflexed forms and circumflexed diphthongs an, am, en, em, and reflexes of former nasal ą, e.g.: uˈždenˈ longs ˈcovers the windowsˈ (Gavenis 1960 (2): 6), vōnde ˈof waterˈ (Gavenis 1960 (1): 13), rōkom ˈwith handsˈ (Gavenis 1960 (1): 10), ǫntrˈsecondˈ (Gavenis 1960 (2): 6), grįˈžˈliving roomˈ (Gavenis 1960 (1): 10), drōˈsei ˈboldlyˈ (Gavenis 1960 (1): 23). The variation in the pronunciation of these features is also reflected in dialect audio recordings from the 1960s and 1970s. Circumflex-stressed diphthongs an, en were heard both without narrowing, as in the pontininkai area, and narrowed, as among the pontininkai or puntininkai, e.g.: pãṡnta ˈpasentaˈ (S. G., b. 1894, Barklainiai)25, gýventi ˈgyventiˈ (S. G., b. 1894, Barklainiai), lōngs ˈlangasˈ (J. L., b. 1897, Uliūnai)26, brōngs ˈbrangusˈ (J. L., b. 1897, Uliūnai). These diphthongs were pronounced similarly with circumflex intonation or in unstressed position: an, am, e.g.: pińkų ˈof fiveˈ (O. R., b. 1904, Uliūnai)27, rūnkos ˈhandsˈ (plural gen.) (O. R., b. 1904, Uliūnai), suramstī̀s ˈpropped upˈ (O. R., b. 1904, Uliūnai), rōnką ˈhandˈ (O. R., b. 1904, Uliūnai), pusuntrōs ˈone and a halfˈ (O. R., b. 1904, Uliūnai), kambari ˈroomˈ (J. L., b. 1897, Uliūnai), vōžˈuojant ˈwhile drivingˈ (S. G., b. 1894, Barklainiai), rankīte ˈlittle handˈ (O. R., b. 1904, Uliūnai); en, em, e.g.: deńts ˈtoothˈ (S. G., b. 1894, Barklainiai), pinkiese ˈamong fiveˈ (J. L., b. 1897, Uliūnai). Reflexes of former nasal ą, ę in stems and endings are characteristic of the pontininkai area, e.g.: žōsu ˈof geeseˈ (O. R., b. 1904, Uliūnai), žōsukai ˈgoslingsˈ (O. R., 25 See entry No. 09803268 in the Audio Sources list. 26 See entry No. 4204268 in the Audio Sources list. 27 See entry No. 4204268 in the Audio Sources list. Straipsniai / Articles 185 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ born in 1904, Ulūnai), stōgo ‘roof’ (S. G., born in 1894, Bārklainiai), laikō ‘time’ (O. R., born in 1904, Ulūnai). In Jotainiai, surrounded by large estates, according to Žaneta Urbanavičiūtė-Markevičienė, the Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect was spoken, but it is difficult to say precisely which of the subdialects—pantininkai or pontininkai. It was concluded that in Jotainiai, “[…] perhaps pontininkai do predominate after all […]. There are also puntininkai who moved here from Vadokliai. Therefore, the dialect is very heterogeneous, very varied” (Urbanavičiūtė (1): 4–5). This heterogeneity was explained by the fact that, in A. Salys’s dialect classification, Jotainiai lay on the edge of the Eastern Aukštaitian pantininkai area (see Fig. 3). North of Jotainiai, around Ulūnai (LKA 268), the Eastern Aukštaitian pontininkai subdialect was spoken; to the east and southwest, for example, around the aforementioned Vadokliai, the puntininkai subdialects were spoken. At this location, A. Baranauskas’s division also placed the boundary between two dialects—the first Eastern Lowlanders and the third Eastern Lowlanders (see Fig. 2). The characteristic pronunciation of the northern second Eastern Lowlanders (or the Eastern Aukštaitian pontininkai in A. Salys’s classification) was recorded by A. Baranauskas, as already mentioned, only near Panevėžys; it did not extend as far as Ulūnai on the more southerly northern outskirts of Ramygala. According to the researcher, the dialect’s heterogeneity is evidenced by variation in the use of the distinguishing diphthongs an, an, en: “pantininkai say: páːntis / áːntis / láːŋ(u)s / péːpe. But they render the circumflex not as om, on, em, en, as other pantininkai do, but as um, un, im, in: dūːtis / dūːg(u)s / lūːkos / švīːte / pīːki, including in unstressed syllables: piktáːnis / dunkélis […]” (Urbanavičiūtė (1): 5). It is noted that not only pantininkai but also pontininkai in Jotainiai are kelepi: “pōːntis / óːntis / patōːmse / lōŋ(u)s and pūntis / ūntis / patumse / luong(u)s// The circumflex is likewise rendered as um, un, im, in, as by the pantininkai: lūːk(u)s, rīm.ti” (Urbanavičiūtė (1): 5–6). Even more variation is found in these localities, according to the dialect researcher (Urbanavičiūtė (1): 6), in the reflexes of the former nasal vowels ą, ę, which “pontininkai […] render as o, e: óːž(u)s / žóːsin(u)s / švést / gróːt(u)s. Pantininkai pronounced one word one way and another word differently, but the difference is not based on accent: óːž.u(l)us / žóːsin(u)s / grīːst’ / grāːt(u)s. Many pantininkai do not change these sounds at all: āːž.u(l)us / zāːsis’ / grīːst’ / grēːst’. In word-final position, they hardly change ą at all; it is only shortened: rūːka / gáːla / nāːma / lāːka. Pantininkai, of course, say: rūːko / gáːlo / nāːmo. The ę is not preserved as clearly.” The manuscript texts also do not record the diphthongs an, en, or the former nasal vowel ą, which are identified in other works by this linguist as characteristic of Jotainiai. 186 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Ramgalos šnektą lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė Fig. 5. Shifts in the subdialect according to the reflexes of stem circumflex am, an, em, en, based on manuscript data Straipsniai / Articles 187 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ FIG. 6. The isophone segment for stem circumflex am, an at the border between the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai and Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai dialect areas (LKA II, map no. 69, 84–86) stem forms such as uont(i)s ‘duck’, piempe ‘lapwing’, žuos(i)s ‘goose’, gruoz(t)us ‘drill’ (Urbanavičiūtė 1963: 209)28. Thus, the differences between the use of features distinguishing the western and eastern dialects, as summarized in the table on the basis of manuscript texts and audio recordings, as well as those documented in printed texts, are not great compared with the patterns illustrated on the maps of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language. They almost completely coincide not only with the eastern boundary of the first lowlanders among the easterners described by A. Baranauskas, as reconstructed on the map, but also with the boundary of the Central Aukštaitian area refined by A. Salys, as drawn on the maps of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language. 28 See also the examples given by Z. Zinkevičius, which are said to be characteristic of the Ramygala area, especially Jotainiai, for the pronunciation of diphthongs with a rising first component: luoŋgs ‘window’, šuom't's ‘ladle’ (Zinkevičius 1969: 143). 188 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Ramyg alos šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė the isophones of stem acute-stressed am, an (see LKA II, map no. 68, 83–84), em, en (see LKA II, map no. 70, 86–87), preserved unchanged in stressed (see LKA II, map no. 44, 61–62) and unstressed (see LKA II, map no. 45, 62–63) stem positions, ą, ę. The obvious discrepancy is that the generalized pattern shown on the maps of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language does not reflect all the pronunciations of stem circumflex am, an (see LKA II, map no. 69, 84–86), em, en documented in manuscript materials from the Ramygala area (see LKA II, map no. 71, 87–88) (see Figs. 5, 6). The observed varied use of forms with circumflex am, an shows that until the second half of the 20th century this isophone ran roughly through the middle of the dialect area under analysis29. CONCLUSIONS To summarize the comparative geolinguistic study of the Ramygala dialect, the area of the southern Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai emerges as transitional. The following arguments support its transitional character: 1. The dialect affiliation of the Ramygala area varied across all classifications of Lithuanian dialects. In two of them—those of A. Baranauskas and A. Salys—the Ramygala dialect, or part of it, was included in the territory regarded as an intermediate dialect area between the Western and Eastern Aukštaitians. 2. The results of refining the geolinguistic classification of the dialects are confirmed by analysis of the manuscript dialect materials, which examined the diphthongs an, am, en, em distinguishing Western and Eastern Aukštaitian, as well as the isophones of the former nasal vowels ą, ę. In the area of the dialect under analysis, pronunciations of these features characteristic of both Aukštaitian subdialects were recorded until the second half of the 20th century. The small shifts of the aforementioned isophones along the margins of the Ramygala dialect, explained by the influence of neighboring Eastern Aukštaitian dialects, are indicated not only by the reconstructed eastern boundary of the Eastern Aukštaitian area 29 At the beginning of the 20th century, the areas and boundaries of traditional Lithuanian subdialects were changing (see Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 255–257, map XIII and commentary, separate insert). As dialects converge, distinguishing features are disappearing. Larger linguistic formations (regions) are taking shape. For example, the Ramygala dialect is becoming part of the western Eastern Aukštaitian region forming on the basis of the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai (see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014a: 257–262), since, like the entire southern part of the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai, it has very pronounced features and is therefore relatively easily influenced by neighboring dialects and the standard language (Meilūnaitė 2009: 19–23; 2016: 1281; Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 188–191, etc.). Straipsniai / Articles 189 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ the precision of the boundaries of the former dialect in A. Baranauskas’s classification. These research findings allow us to suggest that, in A. Šalys’s classification, transitional dialects were not only the Eastern Aukštaitians, but also their neighboring Eastern Aukštaitian Pantininkai. LITERATŪRA Aliūkaitė Daiva, Bakšienė Rima, Jaroslavienė Jurgita ir kt. 2014: Punktų tinklo tankis geolingvistinės skirties aukštaičiai: žemaičiai požiūriu. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolingvistika: ideologija, teorija ir metodai, pagrindinės sąvokos. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 29–47. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014a: Gelektų ir regiolektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262. Alminauskis Kazys 1930: Vyskupo Antano Baranausko laiškai Hugo Weberiui. – Archivum Philologicum 1, 69–103. Astramskas Arūnas 2016: Ramygalos parapija ir valsčius XIX amžiuje. – Ramygalą, vyr. red. ir sud. Gražina Nավալinskienė. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 126–211. ATŽ – Lietuvos TSR Administracinio-teritorinio suskirstymo žinynas 2, sud. Zigmantas Noreika, Vincas Stravinskas. Vilnius: Mintis, 196. Balsevičiūtė Gražina, Peleckienė Genovaitė, Račiūnas Bronus, Ulys Albertas 1993: Iš Ulūnų mokyklos istorijos. – Ulūnai, sud. Albertas Ulys. Vilnius: Lietuvos kraštotyros draugija, 167–174. Baranovskij Antonij [=Барановский Антоний] 1898: Замѣклюковость языкъ и словарь. Санктпетербургъ: Типографія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. Būtėnas Petras 1932: Augštaičių tarmes okutančios pašnekes sienos. – Archivum Philologicum 3, 168–193. Čyplienė Ona 2016: Garuckų kaimas ir jo žmonės. – Ramygalą, vyr. red. ir sud. Gražina Navалinskienė. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 561–565. Dubnikas Juozas 1946: Ulūnai. – Panevėžio vyskupija. Istoriniai duomenys, pastoracinė veikla, sud. Kazimieras Paltarokas. Vilnius: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija, 1998, 288. 190 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Ramygłos šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė Gerullis Georg 1930: Litauische Dialektstudien. Leipzig: Markert & Peters Verlag. Geržotaitė Laura 2012: Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 67, 156–174. Geržotaitė Laura 2014: Lietuvos tarmių klasifikacijos: gretinamoji analizė. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Dangolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 108–111. Geržotaitė Laura 2015: Geolingvistinė Antano Baranausko lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijos analizė. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 4, sud. Vilija Ragaišienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 133–165. Geržotaitė Laura 2016: Lietuvos tarmių klasifikacijos tyrimas geolingvistiniu aspektu. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Geržotaitė Laura, Mikulėnienė Dangolė 2014: Geolektų ir regiolektų formavimasis Lietuvoje: žemėlapis ir komentarai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Dangolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, XII žemėlapis. Girdenis Alekas, Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos. – Kalbotyra 14, 139–147. Juška Antanas 1946: Ramygala. – Panevėžio vyskupija. Istoriniai duomenys, pastoracinė veikla, sud. Kazimieras Paltarokas. Vilnius: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija, 198, 277–287. Karaś Halina 2002: Gwary polskie na Kowieńszczyźnie. Warszawa-Puńsk: Wydawnictwo „Aušra”. Karaś Halina, Rutkowska Krystyna, Geben Kinga, Ušinskienė Wiktoria 2001: Język polski na Kowieńszczyźnie. Historia, sytuacja socjolingwistyczna, cechy językowe, teksty. Warszawa: Elipsa. Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2008: Jonavos šnektos fonetinės ypatybės. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 2, 600–609. Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2012: Balsų sistema Aleksandro Žirgulio darbe „Survilškio tarmė“. – Baltistica 47(2), 321–342. Kubiliūnienė Loreta 2016: Butkiškių kaimas. – Ramygala, vyr. red. ir sud. Gražina Navalinskienė. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 534–537. Kviklys Bronius 1965: Mūsų Lietuva. Krašto vietovių istoriniai, geografiniai, etnografiniai bruožai 2. Boston: Lietuvių Enciklopedijos leidykla. Straipsniai / Articles 191 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ LKA I – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1. Leksika, ats. red. Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. LKA II – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 2. Fonetika, ats. red. Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. LT III – Lietuvių tarmės 3: rytų aukštaičių ir vakarų žemaičių tekstai, sud. Žaneta Urbanavičiūtė-Markavičienė, Vladas Grinaveckis. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, 1993. Malinauskas Alvydas 2016: Juodžių kaimo istorija. – Ramygala, vyr. red. ir sud. Gražina Navalinskienė. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 661–683. Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2009: Pietų panevėžiškių vokalizmas ir jo raidos bruožai. Dataro disertacija. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla. Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2016: Pietiniai panevėžiškiai: bendrieji Ramygalos šnektos bruožai. – Ramygala, vyr. red. ir sud. Gražina Navalinskienė. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 1278–1284. Miknienė Stasė 2016: Jotainių kaimas. – Ramygala, vyr. red. ir sud. Gražina Navalinskienė. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 622–642. Miškinis Vytautas 2016: Metinių, Šambalioniškio, Repšių, Dubarų kaimų istorija. – Ramygala, vyr. red. ir sud. Gražina Navalinskienė. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 720–730. PKT II – Iš Panevėžio krašto tautosakos 2, sud. Eugenijus Urbanas. Panevėžys: UAB „Panevėžio spaustuvė“, 2006. Rutkovska Kristina 2014: Lenкų kalbos plitimas ir vartojimo ypatumai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 216–227. Salys Antanas 193: Kelios pastabos tarmių istorijai. – Archivum Philologicum 4, 21–34. Salys Antanas 1935: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės (Rankraščio teisėmis). Kaunas. Salys Antanas 1946: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės (Rankraščio teisėmis). Tübingenas. Salys Antanas 192: Raštai 4: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Roma: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija. Saniewska-Mochowa Zofia, Zielińska Anna 2005: Szlachta łużańska i jej polszczyzna dawniej i dziś. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 29, 69–85. Senkus Juozas 1951: Lietuvių kalbos atlaso medžiagos rinkimo programa. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. 192 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Ramyg alos šne kta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė Specht Franz 1920: Litauische Mundarten gesammelt von A. Baranowski 1. Texte. Leipzig: Verlag von K. F. Koehler. Šėtus Benediktas 2007: Lenkų mokyklų steigimas Lietuvoje 1926 m. – Istorija. Lietuvos aukštųjų mokyklų mokslo darbai. Vilnius: Lietuvos edukologijos universitetas, 65, 38–47. Šidlauskas Vincas 2016: Truskava ir jos apylinkės. – Ramygala, vyr. red. ir sud. Gražina Navalinskienė. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 818–848. Šukys Jonas 1986: Eriškų tarmė. – Upytė, ats. red. Norbertas Vėlius. Vilnius: Mintis, 127–146. Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2016: Kaip kalbama buvusiame Šeduvos valsčiuje. – Šeduva, sud. Jonas Linkevičius. Vilnius: VšĮ „Versmės“ leidykla, 307–315. Urbanavičiūtė Žaneta 1963: Kelios naujesnės jotvingių tarmės ypatybės. – Kalbotyra 9, 209–211. Vidugiris Aloyzas 1993: Būdingesnės Uliūnų šnektos fonetinės ypatybės. – Uliūnai, sud. Albertas Ulys. Vilnius: Lietuvos kraštotyros draugija, 197–200. Zielińska Anna 2002: Mniejszość polska na Litwie kowieńskiej. Studium socjolingwistyczne. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1969: Apie lietuvių kalbos tarmių skirstymą. – Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija 3 (31). Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 365–380. RANKRAŠTINIAI ŠALTINIAI Adomitytė-Diržinskienė Valerija 1957: Krekenava, Ramygalos raj. (299). Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 410. Eigminas Kazys (metai nenurodyti): Punkto Nr. 336 (Ramygalos raj., Truskavos apyl. Užartėlės kaimas) informacijos ir tekstai. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 518 (1–3). Gaivenis Kazimieras 1960: Punkto Nr. 268. Dūdų (Panevėžio raj.). Informaciniai dalykai ir tekstai. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 606 (1–2). Libertė Aldona 1959: Aukštadvaris – 337. Informaciniai dalykai ir tekstai. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 532. Masiūnas Kazimieras 1959: Gudelių punktas Nr. 300. Informaciniai dalykai ir tekstai. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 523. Straipsniai / Articles 193 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ Mikėnas Jonas 1951: Ramygalos rajono Ėriškių apyl. ir k. tarmės apklausas. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 104 (1–5). Rutkauskaitė V. 1959: 201 Smilgų punkto, Šeduvos raj. Informacijai dalykai ir tekstai. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 648 (1–2). Rutkauskaitė V. 1960: Informacijos ir tekstai iš punkto Nr. 266, t. y. Vadaktų tarmės. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 521 (1–2). Sabaliauskas Jonas 1959: Survilškis (299). Informaciniai dalykai ir kiti tarmės dėsniai. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 560. Sabaliauskas Jonas 1960: Survilškis (299). Tiriamojo punkto Nr. 335 tarmės tekstai. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 560. Urbanavičiūtė Žaneta (metai nenurodyti): Jotainių tarmės tekstai (301). Lietuvių kalbos instituto Geolingvistikos centro Tarmių archyvas, Nr. 736 (1–4). GARSINIAI ŠALTINIAI Barklainių k., Uliūnų par., Panevėžio r. CD 42 RAP 3: 0980268 (1964 m. įrašė A. Vidugiris, K. Morkūnas). Masiokų k., Ramygalos aps., Panevėžio r. CD 142 RAP 3: 1650300 (1964 m., įrašė K. Morkūnas). Masiokų k., Ramygalos aps., Panevėžio r. CD 142 RAP 3: 1660100 (1964 m., įrašė K. Morkūnas). Ramygalą, Panevėžio r. CD 177 RAP 10: 5100130, 5101300, 5101300 (1978 m., įrašė A. Vidugiris). Šukionių k., Truskavos par., Kėdainių r. CD 174 RAP 9: 0990136 (1964 m., įrašė K. Morkūnas, A. Vidugiris). Uliūnai, Panevėžio r. CD 185 RAP 11: 4201268, CD 218 RAP 13: 42301268 (1973 m. įrašė A. Vidugiris). Vitriškių k., Panevėžio r. CD 218 RAP 13: 3410267, 3420267, 3430267 (1970 m., įrašė A. Vidugiris, E. Grinaveckienė). 194 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Ramygalos šnekta lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijoje: geolingvistinė analizė Ramygal[a] Subdialect in the Classifications of Lithuanian Dialects: Geolinguistic Analysis SUMMARY The article discusses the development of the Ramygal[a] subdialect attributed to the Eastern Aukštaitian of Panevėžys by Alekas Girdenis and Zigmas Zinkevičius. The research materials comprise the manuscript descriptions and texts as well as audio recordings in this subdialect dating to the second half of the 20th century. The place of the area of the subdialect in the classifications of Lithuanian dialects is established by comparing dialects by methods of digital cartography. A comparative analysis of the linguistic features recorded in the area of the subdialect enables us to evaluate the changes that occurred in the Ramygal[a] subdialect. The dialectal belonging of the Ramygal[a] subdialect varied across all classifications of Lithuanian dialects. Even two of them – classifications by Antanas Baranauskas and Antanas Salys – assigned this subdialect or its part to the transitional area between Western and Eastern Aukštaitian. The whole area of the subdialect was attributed to Eastern Aukštaitian in the classification by Girdenis and Zinkevičius in the second half of the 20th century. The twofold pronunciation of mixed diphthongs am, an, em, en and former nasal vowels ą, ę was recorded in the area of the Ramygal[a] subdialect migrating across classifications. The maintenance of the above features links the subdialect in question with Western Aukštaitian subdialects, whereas their narrowing associates it with Eastern Aukštaitian. Though influenced by eastern subdialects, the Ramygal[a] subdialect should not be assigned to them alone. Minor linguistic changes recorded in the subdialect confirm the accuracy of the reconstructed eastern boundary of Baranauskas’ First Eastern. An assumption can be made that not only Middle Aukštaitian but also its neighbouring Eastern Aukštaitian Pantininkai was transitional by nature in Salys’ classification. Įteikta 2017 m. lapkričio 14 d. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 195