ULRICH GEUPEL

Philipps University of Marburg

Research institutions: Comparative Linguistics, Celtic Studies.

OLD LITHUANIAN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY

(ALEW)

Edited by Wolfgang Hock et al.

3 Bde. Hamburg: Baar, 2015, 1639 S. ISBN 978-3-93536-74-5

The recent past has brought an unforeseen proliferation of tools available to Balticists and linguists interested in Baltic. Following the second edition of Vytautas Mažiulis’ PKŽ on Old Prussian, Wojciech Smoczyński’s SEJL (including the addenda Smoczyński 2008 and 2009) on Lithuanian across historical periods, which take into account to varying degrees the current state of discussion in historical-comparative linguistics, as well as the data-rich LKŽ, two new dictionaries appeared in 2015 that consider Baltic from an Indo-European perspective. First, Rik Dekken’s Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon from the Dutch publisher Brill, and shortly thereafter the present Old Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary, conceived under the direction of Wolfgang Hock by a working group at Humboldt University of Berlin and published by Baar Verlag in Hamburg. While the former systematically covers all the Baltic languages, the latter is language-specific.

A clear disadvantage of V. Mažiulis’ PKŽ, W. Smoczyński’s SEJL, and the LKŽ is their [text truncated in source]

Stripsnai / Articles

271

ULRICH GEUPEL

are difficult to access linguistically, since they are not written in generally known modern scholarly languages. Indo-Europeanists have therefore continued to turn first to Ernst Fraenkel’s LEW, which is outdated in every respect. At least for the latter group, which seeks reliable synchronic and historical-etymological information on Lithuanian words for Indo-European etymologies, ALEW offers a new, indispensable resource that will largely replace LEW.

The introductory remarks are brief and, over nine pages, introduce the subject and aim of the work, lemmatization, article structure, citation conventions, the linguistic material consulted, and the project and its contributors. By far the most space is thus taken up by the dictionary proper (1,323 pages) in the first and second volumes. Accompanying it is a separate, slimmer volume containing lists of abbreviated textual sources, a bibliography, and detailed indices for all the languages cited. The third volume is rounded off with a color map showing the distribution of Lithuanian dialects at the beginning of the 21st century.

Verzichtet wird, anders als in Derksen 2015, auf die Besprechung theoretischer Hintergründe und linguistischer Vorannahmen, etwa zur Gültigkeit umstrittener Lautgesetze, was dazu verpflichtet, bei strittigen Fragen in den Einzelfällen Stellung zu beziehen. Dem kommt das ALEW auch konsequent immer dann nach, wenn es von der Communis Opinio abweicht.

The headword in each entry is followed by brief grammatical information and definitions with quotations from the original sources. In inherited words, these are followed—marked only by a black square—first by a list of Baltic and Slavic cognates, then by related words in other Indo-European languages, usually with the Proto-Indo-European root given. A new paragraph presents a short to medium-length discussion of philological questions concerning the Old Lithuanian and Baltic material and the etymological grouping, focusing primarily on problems of phonology, morphology, and semantics. The first section of each entry, which provides a detailed presentation of the primary material with contexts as well as a list of the Balto-Slavic cognates, is printed in a larger typeface than the following historical-linguistic discussion. The first impression this creates—that of a dictionary of Old Lithuanian attestations with additional etymological information in the “fine print”—does not, however, correspond to the work’s focus or to the quality of its very good discussions; it is due solely to considerations of space.

The data on which ALEW is based consist of Old Lithuanian primary sources, to which the entries refer by sigla. Texts dating

272

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

ALTLITAUISCHES ETYMOLOGISCHES WÖRTERBUCH (ALEW)

from before 1700 are considered Old Lithuanian. The principal textual sources from that period that are available in published editions have been included. Some minor works that have not yet been edited had to be omitted. The Baltic cognates cited, drawn from the relevant dictionaries and specialist literature, cover all the other languages of the branch, and Curonian of the Spit has also been systematically included. The index lists more than 700 Curonian of the Spit lexemes.

ALEW stands out from the bulk of etymological dictionaries through its exemplary treatment of synchronic and diachronic semantics, bringing philological work on primary sources together with linguistic history, as the following excerpt shows: “Semantically, it is probably to be assumed that the verb based on blagnas ‘unsuitable, useless’ was secondarily restricted to describing the state of a hangover, from which ‘to sober up’ then developed. The verb’s more general use before this semantic specialization is evidently directly attested in MgT 134₁₇, where blagnimas was used to translate Latin levitas ‘frivolity’” (I 119 s.v. blagnas).

Word formation is likewise discussed concisely wherever the authors considered it necessary, often with reference to the still authoritative standard work by Panas Skardžius (1943). The Caland system and the tomós type of Proto-Indo-European nouns are mentioned here and there, but overall the description of the specific semantics of suffixal word formation remains within the usual, and therefore limited, bounds. Exemplary in its identification of the morphemes involved and their morphematic function is the entry for āklas ‘plough’ (I 55), which informs the reader about the variation and distribution of suffixes functioning as “instrument nouns,” as well as the formation of arklys ‘horse’ as the lexicalization of a derivation formed with the possessive suffix *i̯o-. The descriptions, found in most entries, of the clear, observable morphological relationships between etymologically related lexemes provide users with a useful basis for further research in this area. A typical description is found s.v. balā (I 91): “The now-obsolete Lithuanian noun and its Latvian counterpart give the impression of an o-grade suffixal derivation from a lost primary verb (cf. Skardžius 1943: 377f. on the word-formation pattern).” The cases that can readily be collected with the help of ALEW and examined in terms of their age could support the idea—which has not yet become communis opinio—that an o-grade was optionally introduced when a Proto-Indo-European adjective (verbal adjective) of the type *bʰ(e)rnó- ‘born’ was substantivized (cf. Latvian bērns ‘child’) → Proto-Germanic *bʰorno- (> Gothic barn ‘child’; cf. Neri 2013: 198), also for Baltic.

Recenzijos / Reviews

273

ULRICH GEPEL

An o-grade also occurs elsewhere in the formation of Balto-Slavic nouns; compare Russian zob ‘fodder, food’ with Lithuanian žėbù ‘to eat slowly, chew,’ which presumably reflects an old relationship, unless the noun is, less probably, formed directly from Common Slavic *zobati.

Because of the restriction to the (Old) Lithuanian vocabulary, a few interesting Baltic continuants of Proto-Indo-European inherited words could not be covered, such as Old Prussian genō ‘woman’ (Proto-Indo-European *ǵenh₂-), Latvian kũns ‘deaf’ (Proto-Indo-European *k̑urna-), and Latvian dargs ‘dear, precious’ (related to Old Church Slavonic dragъ, Russian dorogój ‘id.’). In these cases, researchers can consult Derksen’s new Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon, provided the word is included in its very incomplete selection, as well as Konstantins Karulis’ LEV and PEŽ. In some cases, however, the authors of ALEW could not resist pointing to historically important Baltic synonyms that have no Lithuanian cognate—for example, Latvian asins ‘blood’ (Latgalian asnis) s.v. kraujas, which is of great historical-linguistic significance as the only Baltic and Slavic continuant of Proto-Indo-European *h₁ēsh₂-r/n- (I 521), and Old Prussian warus ‘lip’ s.v. Lithuanian lūpà ‘id.’ (I 602). In the latter case, the fine-print discussion section provides an overview of the various Baltic words meaning ‘lip’. Although no further etymology is usually given, this approach serves users with an interest in historical linguistics, since it makes it possible to investigate semantic shifts that may have occurred through lexical replacement, or mutual analogical influence.

Whenever the root is attested in Old Lithuanian, the relevant derivatives in the other Baltic languages are generally all cited, even if they lack an exact counterpart in Lithuanian. Here and there, the treatment cannot, understandably, be exhaustive in historically difficult cases such as derivatives of a root that split off lexically at an early stage. Thus the Latvian gaļa ‘meat’ and Latgalian gala ‘id.’, which are not listed in ALEW, are probably best related to Lithuanian galas ‘end, goal’ and hence to the Proto-Indo-European root *ǵʰelH- ‘torment, prick’; a discussion of the different semantic developments would, however, have exceeded the scope of the work.

The restriction to Old Lithuanian material has several advantages. First, in historical-comparative linguistics it is customary to start from the oldest linguistic stage, since it may have preserved more archaisms and is closer to a reconstructed proto-stage. The time depth of Lithuanian, like that of the other Baltic languages, is not very great, so a second reason carries more weight: the corpus can be covered relatively comprehensively, leaving room for discussion of the relevant attestations. From the still very extensive

274

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

OLD LITHUANIAN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY (ALEW)

In the Old Lithuanian corpus, a selection nevertheless had to be made, as was only natural. In doing so, ALEW selected those lexemes that are of interest from a linguistic-historical perspective: “significance for historical-comparative linguistics or for the specifically Old Lithuanian linguistic stage [...] cultural-historical and quantitative criteria were also brought to bear (interest in intellectual history and material culture, as well as frequency and distribution)” (Introduction: I 7). Unlike R. Derksen’s work, which was tailored to the needs of Indo-Europeanists, loanwords were systematically taken into account in accordance with this conception, although this was the area in which some compromises had to be made. Thus, readers may miss some lemmas for loanwords from Slavic, without it being clear why these in particular were not included, e.g. pūkas ‘people, army, community’ (cf. Skardžius 1931: 83), which is discussed in LEW s.v. and is well attested in Old Lithuanian, e.g. BrBXX. Its absence is all the more surprising given that, for example, ābas ‘camp, military camp, army’ (p. 17) was included. Users might well be interested in pūkas, since the word is widely distributed in the Baltic languages and its source language is not immediately apparent. In all the included loanwords, however, these two aspects—distribution within Baltic and the routes of borrowing—are discussed exemplary, insofar as space and the current state of research allow. For the many borrowings that are so early that they cannot (yet) be assigned unequivocally to Polish or Belarusian, this provides a good starting point for the detailed specialized study that is needed. Of great benefit to Balticists, in turn, is the overview provided of attestations within the Old Lithuanian corpus, including, unlike in Fraenkel’s dictionary, an indication of the earliest attestation.

Indo-Europeanists who are not specifically Balticists would surely have welcomed learning more in an introductory chapter about theoretical and methodological questions such as reconstruction—for example, of Proto-Old Lithuanian or Proto-Balto-Slavic—and whether these should be incorporated systematically into Indo-European discussions of Baltic linguistic history at all. There is no doubt that the situation in this/these branch(es) is more difficult than, for instance, in Germanic, for which EWahd and Guus Kroonen’s Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic systematically work with Proto-Germanic reconstructions. Research literature is indeed not uniform, even for that proto-language, as regards the depth of reconstruction or many particular questions, but this does not prevent such proposals from being regularly given. Reconstructed Proto-Old Lithuanian forms could provide a useful basis for comparing the individual Baltic-language developments and, in

Recenzijos / Reviews

275

ULRICH GEUPEL

comparison with R. Derksen’s proposals, which consistently reconstruct the forms of the earlier stages, could be useful in focusing the discussion.

The further discussion of theoretical assumptions—for example, individual sound laws advocated by the authors and the development of the accent system, as discussed in an introductory chapter of dictionaries in the Leiden series, including the aforementioned works by R. Derksen and G. Kroonen—would certainly be useful to those who are not experts in the Baltic languages. ALEW, however, is easy to consult even without this, since problematic assumptions are noted where appropriate in the discussion, as, for example, in I 617: “If the root vocalism -a- of Latin arose regularly from Proto-Indo-European *o /#m_ with Schrijver (1991: 454f.) [...]”—this sound law, after all, has no unequivocal witnesses apart from the Latin word for ‘sea’, Latin mare. As a supplement and theoretical framework for current assumptions in the historical grammar of Balto-Slavic, together with an extensive bibliography that has, however, already become somewhat outdated, readers can also consult the two articles by ALEW editor Wolfgang Hock, Hock 2004 and Hock 2005, in the journal Kratylos.

The Baltic languages are of particular interest for Indo-European questions in those respects in which they are regarded as unusually archaic. It is now well known that not all ablaut grades and other word-formation patterns attested in Baltic directly reflect inheritance from the Proto-Indo-European parent language; rather, their archaism consists precisely in having preserved these processes as productive mechanisms over a long period. Here, ALEW’s great strength is that it first surveys and weighs the internal Baltic material at face value, including all dialectally divergent forms, and exercises caution before transferring a particular derivative one-to-one into Proto-Indo-European. At the same time, the partial omission of a date of formation for the form in question leaves a gap in the presentation, leaving users to make their own decision. Also worth noting positively is the up-to-date inclusion of new roots from light verb constructions (cf., e.g., I 331 s.v. gridí ← Proto-Indo-European gʷer(H)- dʰeh₁- ‘give news’), which could continue to be coined in Baltic and Slavic in particular, owing to their transparent morphology.

The scope of the work and the time taken to compile it necessarily mean that the different aspects of a word’s history to be discussed must be weighted. The treatment of synchronic and diachronic semantics is remarkably good, well above average. On the other hand, some readers might sometimes wish for a more thorough classification

276

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

ALTLITAUISCHES ETYMOLOGISCHES WÖRTERBUCH (ALEW)

of cognates. In some cases, it would have been possible to provide more information about which forms are exactly identical after sound laws are applied, where derivatives of one another occur, and where there is only root relationship despite an entirely different derivational history. As an illustration, consider Lithuanian kràjas ‘blood’: Latvian kreve ‘clotted blood, scab’ formally appears to be a derivative of it (a transfer into Proto-Balto-Slavic would posit a derivative with the suffix *-ęh₂ in a collective sense), but an exact formal equation holds between Lithuanian kràjas and the Vedic adjective kravyá- ‘bloody’, both deriving hypothetically from Proto-Indo-European < *krou̯(h₂)-ió-. In addition, Old Church Slavonic krъvь is listed. ALEW refrains from taking a more definite position, noting (I 521): “Another formation from the same root occurs in Slavic.” In R. Derksen’s dictionary, by contrast, readers find a concise statement that takes a position on the derivational history: “The baltic forms present a derivative in *-io- of the root not reflected in Slavic” (p. 255). Instead, ALEW offers a more detailed discussion of semantics: readers learn that the Lithuanian lemma is the unmarked (i.e. generic) word for blood, providing an important piece of information for lexicologists interested in semantic fields, and that Latvian reflects the presumed older meaning ‘blood outside the body’.

An etymological dictionary that aims to cover the language as a whole cannot include every conceivable etymological proposal found in the secondary literature, so there remains ample room for future research to discuss individual connections between Baltic lexemes and potential cognates within Indo-European—for example, whether Lithuanian kę̃kti ‘harm’ (I 477) could be the otherwise lost primary verb corresponding to Greek κακός and Albanian keq (< Proto-Indo-European *k̑n̥k(í)ó-), with the o-grade substantivization Lithuanian kañka ‘torment, anguish’ (I 447). It is also worth considering whether the family of Lithuanian rū́ti, rū̃kas ‘smoke, smoke’ (II 878) must necessarily be a borrowing from Germanic, since the corresponding consonantism is not very conclusive in view of the Kluge forms in the Germanic family (cf. Kroonen 2013: 410 s.v. reukan ~ rūkan), and an old *k should not be entirely ruled out; for now, therefore, one could more cautiously posit an isogloss between Baltic and Germanic.

One of the most intriguing problems in Baltic or Balto-Slavic, from both a historical-phonological and a dialect-geographical perspective, still lacks a generally accepted solution: the uneven development of the Proto-Indo-European primary palatals *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ. This problem must also be addressed in an etymological dictionary, and ALEW accordingly points to the particular development in each relevant word. Under the relevant lemma klausyti (I 503), one therefore also finds a

Recenzijos / Reviews

277

ULRICH GEPEL

A brief overview of the hypotheses concerning the inconsistent representation of PIE *ḱl- in these puns, which is continued in Baltic and Slavic sometimes as *šl- and sometimes as *kl-: “For the hypotheses proposed so far, see Stang (1966: 91f.). Following Meillet, Kortlandt (2009: 29f.) assumes a sound-law development PIE *ḱl > to Proto-Baltic *kl before back vowels” and rightly concludes: “The assumed distribution of Proto-Baltic *kl- and *šl- reflexes, however, finds no support in the material presented here.” In addition to the cited works, some of which are older, the most recent study of this problem—which is otherwise taken into account in the present work—could also have been mentioned: Reiner Lipp (2009), who, taking the Balto-Slavic material into account as well, argues for an early post-Proto-Indo-European innovation in the satem dialects, whereby context-sensitive allophones before front vowels were phonologized as phonological palatals. The idea of a wave-like spread of satemization that did not reach the northwest in its entirety is also raised, implicitly, in recent literature, including in EWAh (IV, 1254) s.v. huf: “[...] if PIE *ḱ entered as West Semitic *k in place of the expected *s,” with terminology drawing on the work of the Balticist Harvey E. Mayer.

The previously mentioned decision not to reconstruct Proto-Baltic and Proto-Balto-Slavic forms systematically might at first glance lead readers to assume that the authors reject a common precursor for each. A closer look at the discussion of the material presented shows, however, that sound and semantic changes, as well as word formations and new roots, were dated to the respective languages wherever the authors considered this necessary for their argument. Nor was there a categorical refusal to provide Proto-Baltic forms; the reviewer was able to note the following reconstructions: Proto-Baltic *berd(i)jā ‘fertile, pregnant’ (feminine nominative singular of an adjective, I 109), *dero- ‘wood’ (I 196), *aitaut- ‘grow’ (I 410), *karua- ‘animal, bull’ (I 461), *modl- ‘ask’ (I 633), *sun ‘with’ (II 986), *ins- (II 1102). More often, following standard conventions, “pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic” reconstructions and processes are invoked where the development in question was a late Proto-Indo-European or early dialectal innovation. Proto-Baltic forms are also cited fairly frequently, although not throughout, unlike in Derksen 2015.

Of the many aspects that must be taken into account in producing a work of this kind, given the limited space, ALEW has made very good choices, as already noted, and any regret at the omission of information beyond what is provided can only reflect individual preferences. Since early borrowings of Baltic words into other languages are not a focus of ALEW or of most of its users, they are scarcely recorded. As is only natural

278

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

ALTLITAUISCHES ETYMOLOGISCHES WÖRTERBUCH (AEW)

the Finnic languages of the Baltic Sea region prove to be important early contact languages alongside Slavic; they were in contact with the Baltic-speaking area at various times. See the overview, astutely organized according to the distribution of the words, in Sepo Suhonen (1988). Owing in part to the great age of these borrowings, however, they may also be of interest for the prehistory and early history of Baltic, as well as for cultural-historical questions, and it would be desirable for future work with an appropriate focus to take them into account. Although the number of borrowings falls far short of that of Germanic loans in Finnish, some are older still. The most recent works known to the reviewer on the influence of Baltic on these neighboring languages are Lars-Gunnar Larsson (2001) and Petri Kallio (2008). The former shows that some Baltic loans into Sami display no traces of Finnish sound changes, but do show early Sami developments, e.g. North Sami suodnī ‘dew, fog, vapor’ (Finnish halla ‘frost’) from Lithuanian šalną etc. ‘frost’, or North Sami suodni ‘hay’ (Finnish heinä ‘ditto’) from Lithuanian šienas etc. ‘hay’, so that they must have been transmitted either directly from Baltic or via an unknown third language—and in either case at a very early date. The consistent inclusion of this loanword material in handbooks of Indo-European languages would finally also be a welcome resource for Finno-Ugrists.

Minor errors or inconsistencies are unavoidable in a work of such monumental scope, but they occur in gratifyingly small numbers. To show that these are merely minor details, a few examples may be given:

(II 1019): “[...] an independent Ṛdhi derivation directly from Proto-Germanic *ḱerd ~ *ḱrd-nt. ‘heart’.” For the sake of clarity, it should have been stated here that only the weak stem can be the starting point for the derivation.

(II 1291): Russian zód is incorrectly written once as zōd.

(II 1291): “Disagreement in the pronunciation of the velar” (and elsewhere)—the unusual term “pronunciation” here refers to the precise phonetic nature (voiced/voiceless, etc.).

There is inconsistency in the notation in the following case: “Kentum[-development/doublet]” or “Satem-” (I 25 s.v. akēti, 28 s.v. akmuõ, 29 s.v. aksómnas, 30 s.v. akúotas, -a, 63 s.v. ášutas, 116 s.v. bìngti) as opposed to “centum-” (II 1014 s.v. šáuti and 1021 s.v. šénti) (as far as the reviewer has noticed).

As is immediately apparent, these are very marginal points, scarcely worth mentioning and in no way impairing the use of the work.

Recenzijos / Reviews

279

ULRICH GEPEL

In light of all that has been said, the conclusion must be wholly positive. This is a significant expansion of the research tools available for the study of Old Lithuanian and Baltic etymology, which benefits from the thorough treatment of the material and the caution exercised in discussing linguistic history; Wolfgang Hock and his team are owed great thanks for this.

It is undoubtedly advantageous that R. Derksen’s Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon and the ALEW appeared almost simultaneously, since they therefore do not refer to one another and each can present its own account, which often coincide but become interesting precisely where they differ. Anyone engaged in the linguistic history of Lithuanian and the Baltic languages in general is now fortunate to have a larger body of relevant, up-to-date works from which to choose what suits their purposes and, ideally, to consult all the works in question, since they complement one another and, where they discuss the same matters, allow different perspectives and opinions to be heard. The ALEW should further increase due attention to the Baltic branch of the Indo-European language family and to the vigorous Baltic research currently underway: its rich trove of etyma and word-formation patterns is a veritable treasure for every comparative Indo-Europeanist. Finally, it is also an important tool for philological work on Old texts.

Given the differences in the time and personnel available, the ALEW, in its thoroughness and representation of the current state of Indo-European linguistics, can be placed on a par with Mayrhofer’s Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindorischen and the Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. It would be desirable to make the work available and expand it in an online format; at the very least, a continuously updated list of addenda (and, where applicable, minor corrigenda) would be very helpful, for example with regard to new Lithuanian linguistic material made accessible through new text editions, as well as further Slavic loanwords.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Derksen Rick 2015: Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden [u.a.]: Brill.

EWAhd – Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen, ed. by Albert L. Lloyd, Otto Springer, Rosemarie Lühr. Göttingen [et al.]: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 198.

280

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

OLD LITHUANIAN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY (ALEW)

Hock Wolfgang 2004: Baltoslavisch. I. Teil: Phonologie. – Kratylos. Kritisches Berichts- und Rezensionsorgan für indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 49, 1–32.

Hock Wolfgang 2005: Baltoslavisch. II. Teil: Morphonologie, Stammbildung, Flexion. – Kratylos. Kritisches Berichts- und Rezensionsorgan für indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 50, 1–39.

Kallio Petri 2008: On The ‚Early Baltic‘ Loanwords in Common Finnic. – Evidence and counter-evidence. Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Bd. 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European linguistics, hrsg. von Alexander Lubotsky. Amsterdam [u.a.]: Rodopi, 265–277.

Kroonen Guus 2013: Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden [u.a.]: Brill.

Larsson Lars-Gunnar 2001: Baltic influence on Finnic languages. – The Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 1: Past and Present, hrsg. von Östen Dahl, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: Benjamins, 237–253.

LEV – Karulis Konstantīns 1992: Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca 1–2. Rīga: Avots.

LEW – Fraenkel Ernst 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Heidelberg: Winter.

Lipp Reiner 2009: Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen 1–2. Heidelberg: Winter.

LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20. Vilnius: Mokslo enciklopedijų leidykla, ²1968–2002.

Neri Sergio 2013: Zum urindogermanischen Wort für Hand. – Multi nominis Gram-maticus. Studies in Classical and Indo-European Linguistics in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum, on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, hrsg. von Adam I. Cooper, Jeremy Rau, Michael Weiss. Ann Arbor [u.a.]: Beech Stave Press 2013, 185–205.

PKEŽ – Mažiulis Vytautas 2013: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1–2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.

SEJL – Smoczyński Wojciech 2007: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego 1–2. Wilno: Uniwersytet Wileński, Wydział Filologgiczny.

Skardžius Pranas 1931: Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen. Kaunas: Spindulys.

Skardžius Pranas 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademija.

Recenzijos / Reviews

281

ULRICH GEUPEL

Smoczyński Wojciech 2008: Uzupełnienia do „Słownika etymologicznego języka litewskiego“. Część I. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 58, 53–151.

Smoczyński Wojciech 2009: Uzupełnienia do „Słownika etymologicznego języka litewskiego“. Część II. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 60, 17–127.

Suhonen Seppo 1988: Die baltischen Lehnwörter der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. – The Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign influences, hrsg. von Denis Sinor. Leiden [u.a.]: Brill, 616–637.

Received on 18 May 2017.

ULRICH GEUPEL

Philipps-Universität Marburg

Wilhelm-Röpke-Str. 6 01E05, D-35032 Marburg

[email protected]

282

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI