DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

Klaipėda University

Research interests: Baltic studies, geolinguistics, the history of the verb.

SIMAS KARALIŪNAS

BALTIC ETHNONYMS

Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2015, 620 p.

ISBN 978-609-411-150-1

Classical etymologies of the names of Baltic tribes and peoples, most often associated with hydronymy¹, began to be actively re-evaluated in the second half of the 20th century. One of the most prominent “revisionists” of the Baltic onomasticon is the renowned Balticist Simas Karaliūnas², who has been “stirring up” the issues surrounding ethnonyms for several decades.

The monograph discusses Baltic ethnonyms in a very broad historical and comparative context. This subject, researched with extraordinary care over many years and familiar to the scholarly communities of Lithuania and the world through conference presentations, articles³, and the opus magnum “The Baltic Past in Historical Sources”⁴, here is fundamental-

¹ Kazimieras Būga, Janis Endzelīns, Antanas Salys, Jerzy Nalepa, Kazimieras Kuzavinis, Jonas Kabelka, Bronys Savukynas, Vilius Pėteraitis, Zigmas Zinkevičius, and others.

² The monograph was written about while its respected author was still alive. He remains alive in the memory of the global community of linguists today.

³ Karaliūnas S. On the meaning and origin of the Prussian ethnonym. – Baltistica, 13(2), 1977, 372–373; Karaliūnas S. The Aists and their name (A critical review of linguistic research). – Science and Lithuania, 1991, no. 2(3), 4–12; Karaliūnas S. The origin of the name Lithuania. – Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics 35, 1995, 55–99; Каралюнас С. On the problems of the formation of Baltic and Slavic ethnonyms. – Slavistika Vilnensis [= Linguistics 47(2)], 1998, 7–28; Каралюнас С. Ethnonyms in the so-called Polish-Yatvingian glossary. – Polutropon. For the 70th anniversary of Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov, Moscow, 1998, 154–156; Karaliūnas S. The origin of the ethnonym gudai. From the contacts of the Baltic-Germanic and Baltic-Slavic past. – Works and Days 10(19), 1999, 7–54; Karaliūnas S. Ethnonyms in the territory of Latvia. – International Congress of Balticists “Baltic Languages at the Turn of the Ages”. Conference abstracts. Riga, 2000, 125–129; Karaliūnas S. On the origin and formation of the name Aismarės. – Problems of Lexicography and Lexicology. In memory of the 100th anniversary of Antanas Salys’s birth. Conference abstracts, Vilnius, 2002, 7–8; Karaliūnas S. Dainava. The meaning, history, and origin of the name. – Baltistica 41(1), 2006, 103–117.

⁴ Karaliūnas S. Baltų praeitis istoriniuose šaltiniuose 1, 2. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2004, 2005.

Straipsniai / Articles

297

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

greatly expanded and supplemented with new research. The 14 chapters consistently present the historiography of ethnonyms, the areal distribution of variants, a critical review of all etymologies, and new, original hypotheses on the origins of the ethnonyms.

The first chapter examines data on the earliest mentions of Baltic ethnonyms in several major historical sources: Claudius Ptolemy’s “Geography” (2nd c., Γαλίνδαι καὶ Σουδινοί, Βορούσχοι), Adam of Bremen’s “Deeds of the Bishops of the Church of Hamburg” (11th c., Churland, Chori, Semland, Sembi vel Pruzzi), Scandinavian sources (11th–14th c., SæimgaliR, Kūrland, Vitland, Sámland, Ermland, Lifland), Danish sources (12th c., Pruscia, Prycia, Prussia, Samland, Semlandia, Sembi, Kurland, Semigalia), Alberic’s “World Chronicle” (13th c., Prutia, Curlandia, Lethovia, Withlandia et Sambia), the anonymous “Prologue to the Description of the World” (13th c., Pruscia, Prutheni, Jetwisia, Ituesi, Zambia, Curlandia, Samoitia, Lectauia, Lectaui and Nalsani), and Peter of Dusburg’s “Chronicle of the Prussian Land” (14th c., Sudowia, Galindia).

The second chapter presents the question of the Galindians. Drawing on documents of the Teutonic Order and other geographical and historical sources, and sometimes archaeological evidence, it locates their territory and historical events, examines recorded variants of the name and their reliability, connections with anthroponyms, toponyms, and appellatives, and the relations between the western and eastern Galindians. Rejecting existing etymologies as insufficiently substantiated, S. Karaliūnas proposes a new hypothesis. He posits the following ancient meaning for the forms of the Galindian ethnonym *Galindā / *Gelindā, *Galendā / *Gelendā or *Galandā / *Gelandā, *Gilandā: ‘inhabitants of distant surroundings, of a remote region, as an undivided whole’; from this developed the meaning of the region’s name, ‘distant surroundings, remote region’. The motivation for this toponym is grounded in a comparative-historical analysis of words for the viscera (stomach, intestines) in Baltic, Greek, and Slavic languages that share the same root, explicating the semantic progression of the sememes ‘belly, stomach; womb’, ‘innards; intestines’, ‘deep place, hollow’, ‘depth, deep’, ‘bottom (of a vessel, sea, etc.)’, and ‘earth, soil, ground; foundation, base...’.

The third chapter of the monograph is devoted to the Sudovians. After carefully examining the source spellings and reflexes of the Sudovian name in Prussian and Lithuanian oikonyms, and discussing possible etymologies of the Sudovians, the author again advances a new hypothesis for the origin of this ethnonym. He reconstructs the Baltic adjective *sūd̄as ‘plump, luxuriant, fertile; thick, round (of a man, child, girl); firm, compact, dense (of cloth, thread, weft)’ (alongside Lithuanian sūd̄ras / sūd̄rūs) as a derivative of the verb sūd̄yti ‘to sprinkle with salt, make salty, preserve with salt...’, and derives from it the ethnonym and regional names Sūdava and Sūduva. The author supports the semantic-typological parallel for this motivation with the origins of other peoples’ ethnonyms: the expression of the Enets, a Siberian people related to the Nenets, моду погой незва ‘my kin are thick (that is, numerous, many)’, and the Old Turkic noun türk ‘tribal union’, alongside the adjective türk ‘strong, sturdy, powerful; numerous’.

298

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV

Simas Karaliūnas. Baltų etnonimai

Interpretations of the origins of the names of the Sudovian lands mentioned by Peter of Dusburg, Pokima, Kymenov and Kisrnovia, are also added.

The fourth chapter examines the ethnonym Yatvingian. With tireless persistence, the author inventories all the etymologies of the Yatvingian name, demonstrating their shortcomings. The connection between the Yatvingian ethnonym and the hydronyms Jatfa, Jotupis, Jotija, Jotūlė is rejected on the grounds that the ethnonym and hydronyms were independently derived from the same verbal root *jā- ‘to go, travel, ride’. Drawing on Kazimieras Būga’s hypothesis that the Yatvingian name is related to the appellatives Russian ямба́, я́мбо ‘a large shoal of fish’, Bulgarian я́мо ‘a row, line, heap’, Serbo-Croatian jàto ‘a group, flock (of fish, birds); herd, drove (of sheep, cattle, horses)’, and Slovenian játo, játa ‘a large group, flock of living creatures of the same kind moving through water or air (fish, birds...)’, S. Karaliūnas reconstructs Yatvingian *jātvā ‘warriors, a band of warriors’, deriving all the appellative nouns from the same verbal root as the hydronyms. According to the scholar, in the Baltic languages, from *jā- ‘to go, travel, ride’, words with i- and u-stems were formed: *jāti- and *jātu-, with the meanings ‘group, herd (of moving living creatures)’ and ‘mounted warriors, cavalry’. In the Yatvingian language, the u-stem form *jātu- acquired the collective formant *-ā (< ide. *-aH), while from the u-stem form there had been derived *jā́tv-ingas ‘belonging to the Yatvians’.

The origins of the names Dainava and Dainavians are presented in the fifth chapter. The author proposes not to link the forms recorded in historical sources with the Lithuanian oikonyms Dainava, Dainiai or with corresponding hydronyms found in the Baltic area. On the basis of the use and semantics of the Lithuanian adjectives dieni ‘about to foal, carrying, expecting (of a mare)’ and dienė ‘swollen, soon to foal (of a mare)’, as well as correspondences in Indo-Iranian languages, the linguist posits a Baltic root *dēi-n- and reconstructs the Lithuanian nouns *diena, *dienė ‘cow’, based on the primary, etymological meaning ‘one that suckles, one that is suckling’. Thus he relates the ethnonym for the inhabitants *dainiai ‘Dainavians’ to the Baltic *dáinē, *dēinā, *dēinē feminine noun ‘cow about to calve; young, milked cow’, and *dēinī feminine adjective ‘about to foal, carrying, expecting (of a mare)’. The suffixed forms Dainavà, Dainuvà may have expressed the collective meaning of the whole tribe. The semantic motivation of the ethnonym *dainiai from the noun *dáinē ‘cow’ is explained as ‘those belonging to cows, associated with cows, i.e. herdsmen, cowherds’.

The sixth and seventh chapters continue the discussion of the Yotvingians, examining linguistic remnants recorded in the dialects and onomastic material of southern Lithuania and Belarus, especially in hydronymy. Based on historical documentation and archaeology, an attempt is made to locate the territory inhabited by the Yotvingians, and new hypotheses are offered for the origins of Polesia and the Slavic ethnonyms вельняне, древляне, dregoviči, Pollexiani. The names of the left-bank tributaries of the Pripyat are analyzed; they indicate that the area from the Neman in the north to the Pripyat and its left-bank tributaries in the south was Baltic-speaking from the earliest times. Updated

Recenzijos / Reviews

299

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

the problematic nature of Baltic and Slavic relations⁵: questions concerning the chronology, homeland, and migrations of the Slavic ethnos, which, incidentally, are markedly at odds with more recent archaeological research⁶.

The eighth chapter of the monograph is devoted to the problems surrounding the ethnonym Prussians and the names of Prussian lands. The Prussian theme is deliberately introduced through attestations of the lexeme Prussian in old Lithuanian and Latvian dictionaries, other writings and dialects, and folklore. The development of the ethnonym’s meaning (from an ancient Baltic tribe to a German from East Prussia or a representative of a confessional affiliation) and its formal structure are explained in detail. Following a detailed analysis of historical sources, the conclusion is drawn that the Prussians must have constituted a group of social prestige, a kind of vitingai, mounted warriors associated with horses and their breeding and training, but not with any particular region or land. The hypothesis is supported by root lexemes prus- attested in Germanic and Slavic languages, meaning ‘Prussian; horse, steed, stallion’. Having critically assessed all interpretations of the origin of the Prussian ethnonym (including his own earlier one⁷), S. Karaliūnas elucidates the semantics of the reconstructed underlying verb *prus- ‘to splash, dash, spray; to snort (of horses)’, from which the nouns associated with the ethnonym are derived, particularly its connection with the pouring of water, reflected in Old Indian pruṣṇóti ‘he sprinkles, sprays, drips, moistens’, Serbo-Croatian prskām, prskati ‘to gush’, Lithuanian praūšti (–ia, –ė) ‘to clean with water, wash, wash (the face); wash (the hands, feet, head, the whole body), bathe; wash, launder (clothes, dishes)’, and so on. Drawing on typological parallels in Germanic, Indo-Iranian, Anatolian, and other Indo-European languages, the scholar proposes a new etymology: the original meaning of the Prussian ethnonym may have been ‘those who moisten, spray, pour out seeds (semina emittentes)’, that is, ‘men’.

The origins of the names of the Prussian lands listed in the chronicle of Peter of Dusburg are then reinterpreted. Baltic etymologies are proposed for Kulm and Löbau, which had been considered to be of foreign origin. However, deriving Löbau from Lithuanian liubėti is unconvincing, since this verb is attested in LKŽ by a single sentence, reconstructed from just one present-tense form, while the related liūbyti is considered a Slavic loanword⁸. In S. Karaliūnas’s view, the names of Prussian lands were most often motivated by the occupations and activities of their inhabitants (Löbau, Warmia, Natangia, Sambia, Nadruvia, Barta, Scalovia), and less often by physiographic or topographic features (Kulm, Pomesania, Pogesania). The land Sasna, mentioned in other sources, having rejected hydronymic and ‘hare-related’ origins,

⁵ See the detailed and still relevant publication: Karaliūnas S. Some Questions Concerning the Earliest Relations between the Baltic and Slavic Languages. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 10, 1968, 7–100.

⁶ For example, Eugenijus Jova dates the Slavic emergence to the fifth century (Jova E. Aisčiai. Kilmė. Vilnius: Edukologija, 2012, 44–55).

⁷ Karaliūnas S. On the Meaning and Origin of the Prussian Ethnonym. – Baltistica 13(2), 1977, 372–373.

⁸ Fraenkel E. Litauisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1. Heidelberg: Winter; Göttingen: Vandenhoec & Ruprecht, 1962, 378.

300

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV

Simas Karaliūnas. Baltų etnonimai

is likewise explained anew: the reconstructed lexeme Prussian *sasnā ‘tree bark; pine’ is linked to Slavic *sosna ‘pine’.

S. Karaliūnas connects Witland, mentioned in historical sources, with vitingai as the name of a social group, deriving it from *vītā (or vītia- ‘driving, defending, driving away, out…’) and the suffix -ing-: vitingai—‘belonging to the pursuers, men who pursue’.

The name Lithuania and the ethnonym Lithuanians are explained in the ninth chapter by drawing on historian Artūras Dubonis’s research on the leičiai and their social functions, as well as facts in historical sources concerning the likely retinue of the ruler of Lithuania. This professional-social category may have given its name to the Lithuanians as an ethnos. Karaliūnas rejects as insignificant Zigmas Zinkevičius’s argument that the difference in pitch accent rules out linking leitį and Lithuania, maintaining that this is a regular feature of vowel gradation in Lithuanian roots and the intonational system, and does not prevent these names from being regarded as cognate. Structural analogical variants are also adduced; compare vienas, vič-vienas and vič-veinėlis, šiekštas and šeíkštis, príemenė and preímenė, miélas and meīlas, and so on.

The author derives Lithuanian *leitīs from the Indo-European root *leit- ‘to go, travel; to accompany’ (as also Gothic ga-leiban ‘to depart, go out’, Old Norse líða ‘to pass, depart; to disappear, vanish, perish’, Old English (ze)līðan ‘to go out, depart, travel; to sail’, Old Saxon līthan, līðan ‘to go, travel’, Old Frisian lītha ‘to endure, reluctantly allow’, Old High German ga-līdan ‘to travel’, and so on). In some Lithuanian dialects, the form Lithuanian *leit-(i)jai became leičiai ‘the ruler’s retinue, horse-feeders’, and in others *liečiai ‘Lithuanians’. In certain Lithuanian dialects, with quantitative alternation of the root vowels, *leit(i)jai > *leit(i)jai developed; with the addition of the suffix -uv-, Lithuanian Lietuvà arose from it as a name for the whole (cf. bernavà ‘a group of young men, lads’, brolavà, broliavà ‘brotherhood, brothers and their children’).

The tenth part discusses the ethnonyms of the Latvians and Latgalians, dividing the discussion into three parts: attestations in historical sources and interpretations of the recorded forms, the origins of the ethnonyms, and the case for the Baltic character of the appellative lata.

The scholar adheres to the hypothesis on the origin of the Latvian ethnonym proposed at the Seventh International Congress of Balticists in Riga⁹, supported by the appellatives Latvian lata ‘strip of land; field, soil’ and late ‘part of a plot, ploughed land, or field’. The name latuvā ‘Latvians’, *latā ‘Latvians’, therefore meant etymologically ‘people of the land’. Typological parallels from the same area are presented: Estonian marahvas ‘people of one’s own land (die Leute (unseres) Landes)’, Zemgalians (zemgali), Samogitians (žemaiši).

The eleventh chapter opens with an analysis of the Selian localization, ethnic affiliation, and historical-source evidence. In place of the traditional derivation of the ethnonym from corresponding hydronyms, a new hypothesis of its origin is proposed, linking Ptolemy’s Σάλοι with the appellatives Lithuanian salà ‘village’ and Latvian sala ‘the same’, in the author’s view,

VII Starptautiskais baltištu kongress 1995. g. 13.–15. jūnijā. Referātu tēzes, Rīga, 1995, 47–49.

Recenzijos / Reviews

301

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

which may have been a collective plural *salā ‘village as an indivisible whole’; later, the name was transferred to designate its inhabitants. The appellatives mentioned are associated with Lithuanian salà ‘an area of land surrounded by water on all sides; a raised, dry patch of land in a bog, marsh...’, Latin solum ‘earth, soil; (room) floor; (foot) sole; foundation; bottom; underside’, Old High German sal masc. ‘apartment; dwelling, habitation; hall’, Old Church Slavonic selo ‘soil, field; pasture; village, settlement’, Russian село ‘village, church village; apartment, dwelling, habitation; settlement, village; field, cultivated land, plot of land’, etc., derived from the verbal Indo-European root *sel- ‘to live, be’. In the numerous hydronyms and toponyms of Latvia, Lithuania, and Courland (Sēlnieki, Sēļi, Sēlietis, Sēļu muiža, Sēļēķi, Sēlis, Sēles, Sēļi, Sēļa purvs, Sēlieši, Sēliškas, Sēlieši, Sēļi, Sēleši, Sēlieši, Sēlaiši, Sēlas, Sēlēki, Sēliupis, Sēliupỹs, Sēlē, Sēliškes), S. Karaliūnas does not see an ethnonym sėlių, but reconstructs the Baltic appellative *sėlā ‘island; elevation, hillock in a marsh; forest land; marsh, bog, etc.’, whose quantitative root-vowel ablaut is connected with Lithuanian *selā, *selio-, *seliā- ‘village’, Old Church Slavonic selo ‘soil, field; pasture; village, settlement’. In his view, “the ethnonym of the Selonians in historical sources, Latin Selones, German Sēlen, and the Latvian oikonym Sēlpils may be based both on the Baltic protoform *sēl(i)iai, which, with the suffix *-(i)ia- denoting belonging, was most likely derived from *sėlā or *sēl(i)iā ‘island; elevation, hillock in a marsh; marsh, bog, etc.’, and on Baltic *sėlā nominative plural neuter ‘the Selonians as an indivisible whole’.”

The discussion of the Selonians concludes with a very short section on remnants of the Selonian language, already known from other studies.

The twelfth part of the monograph examines the origin of the ethnonym Semigallians. The scholar believes that the etymological counterpart of the name of the Semigallian land may be the oikonym Žemýgala in the vicinity of Raseiniai; thus, the name of the Semigallian land is composed of the words Lithuanian žẽmė, Latvian zeme, and gãlas, Latvian gals ‘region, land’—Semigallians, ‘people of the land’. In the minds of language users, because of their similar sound, Lithuanian žẽmė and Latvian zeme became conflated with Lithuanian žiemiai ‘north’ and Latvian ziemeļi ‘north’; the name of the Semigallian tribe and land may thus have been reinterpreted as ‘situated in the north’. Ethnonyms žemaitis, *latuvā, *latā bei *talavā are offered as typological parallels; they may have formed according to the same semantic model, from common nouns žẽmė, *lat(av)ā, *talavā denoting land (soil, field).

The reflexes of the Semigallian language in dialects and in the onomasticon are discussed in considerable detail: anaptyxis, the fate of tautosyllabic clusters with n, continuants of Baltic š, ž and palatalized k, g, and so on.

The thirteenth chapter presents the issues surrounding the last Baltic ethnonym—the Curonians. The ethnonym is associated with the appellative *kuršā-, cf. Lithuanian kuršas ‘hook (Haken)’. The meanings of the hypothetical base word kuršas, ‘wedge, hook’ and ‘stake, pole; post’, are derived from the meaning of a verbal root, ‘to split; to cleave’; thus kuršas means ‘something split off, cleaved off’, ‘something branching off’. Such a meaning may have formed the basis for the emergence of the meanings ‘group of people, band’, ‘family, lineage,’

302

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV

Simas Karaliūnas. Baltų etnonimai

‘generation (of people)’, ‘tribe’. From Baltic *Kuršā ‘the Curonian tribe as an indivisible whole’ (reconstructed from attestations such as Kursa Dunika, folk songs; and the Tāmnieki form Kuorsa ‘Curonian land (Kurland)’), inhabitant names may have been formed: Lithuanian kuršiai, kuršai, Latvian kursi. The new etymology is (very) richly illustrated with typological semasiological parallels from Indo-European and Finnic languages, which explain the derivational relationship between the meanings ‘split off, hook’, ‘stake, pole; post’, and ‘group of people, band’, ‘family, lineage, (people’s) generation’, ‘tribe’. In addition, the hypotheses of Jonas Kazlauskas and Max Vasmer are linked in an original way, with the claim that Lithuanian kuršas ‘hook’ and Slavic *kъrchъ (< Indo-European *ḱr̥so-) ‘bent, curved, crooked’ (> ‘left, left-handed’) are cognate words.

Two Curonian land names are newly etymologized—Ceklis ir Vannenia.

Trumputis keturioliktasis skyrelis skirtas baltų kaimynams lyviams. Etnonimai ir kraštavardžiai lyv. līva, lība, est. liivi, liivilane ‘lyviai’, suom. liivi, Liivinmaa ‘Lyvių kraštas’, liiviläinen ‘lyviai’ siejami su apeliatyvais est. liiv, suom. liiva ‘smėlis; dumblas, purvas’ ir kt., etimologiniame suomių kalbos žodyne laikomų baltizmais¹⁰, plg. lat. glūve ‘žalios gleivės ant vandens, mulvė, dumblas; spalva’ (ME I 628) ir liet. glyvas (be kirčio) ‘gleivės?’ (LKŽ III 428). Priebalsių junginys gl dėl fonotaktinių finų kalbų taisyklių pakeistas l. Šiam skyreliui pritiktų ir Kuršių skyriuje minima kita etimologija, lyvių etnonimą siejanti su apeliatyvais la. līvis (līve, līvens) ‘velkamas tinklas, bradnys žvejoti sekliame vandenyje (ein Stossnetz); trikampis bučius, varža (eine dreieckige Garnreuse); keturkampis tinklas’ (ME II 491), slīvo ‘taip pat’ (Rauna – ME II 937), liet. nu-leiŏvėti, su-lei-vėti (-lėvi, -ėjo) ‘nusilpnėti, sumenkėti, sutižti’ (< *‘sulinkti, susilenkti’) (LKŽ VII 297), (iš-)làiveti (-ėja, -ėjo) ‘išdraikyti, išvartyti (apie rugius); išgulti, išvirsti’, iš-laivoti (-ója, -ójo) ‘daryti vingius (Biegungen machen)’ (LKŽ VII 74), rus. dial. ливый ‘nuolaidus, nuožulnus, nuotakus’, s. sl. левъ ‘kairias, kairus’, lot. laevus ‘kairias, kairysis’ (ir ‘kreivas, lenktas, nulinkęs žemyn’), gr. λαίός ‘kairias, kairysis’. Autorius mano, kad est. līv ‘tinklas’ galįs būti skolinys iš latvių kalbos (kaip ir liet. dial. lyvas ‘kelių bradinių (tinklų, tvirtinamų prie karties) junginys seklia­me vandenyje žvejoti’ (LKŽ VII 631)), tapęs pamatu lyb. līva, lība, est. liivi ir A. Breidako rekonstruotos vakarų finų genties šiaurės rytų Latvijoje vardui leivi rastis.

Summarizing his methodology and practice for etymologizing Baltic ethnonyms, S. Karaliūnas draws on the theory of cultural capitalism of the renowned French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, which makes it possible to explain functional and structural relations among ethnonyms: “The capital controlled by a primitive patriarchal community was its land, mother earth, nurturing earth, which different Baltic communities called by different names. The habitus of such communities habitus

Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja 2. Helsinki, 1995, 75, 76.

Recenzijos / Reviews

303

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

They were shaped by the land under their control and its character. This habitus was expanded and deepened by the relations of ownership within tribal communities, as well as relations within and between families, culture (religion), and language as a means of communication and mutual understanding; in many cases, the word denoting the land or patrimony under their control also became the name of the tribe.” However, by no means do all the Baltic ethnonyms discussed in the monograph reflect this model.

The Lithuanian academic community has long felt the need for a comprehensive compendium of Baltic ethnonyms. Hypotheses about the origins of ethnonyms mentioned in introductions to the Baltic languages and linguistics textbooks, and observations scattered through articles and conference abstracts, cannot provide a comprehensive picture or allow the reliability of individual etymologies to be assessed. In S. Karaliūnas’s monograph, all the research is meticulously collated and verified. The abundance of bibliography and sources attests to the thoroughness and depth of the study. Devoting considerable attention to internal reconstruction and drawing on a broad historical-comparative context and typology, the scholar proposes bold new etymologies that reject the dominant model of the hydronymic origin of ethnonyms: “<...> according to the available data, there is not a single Baltic ethnonym of hydronymic origin.” It is for the scholarly community and the wider public to accept or reject the new etymologies.

This monograph will undoubtedly become part of the public’s habitus, shaping our cultural field. For this, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the esteemed author, Simas Karaliūnas.

Submitted on 30 September 2016.

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ

Klaipėda University

5 Salomėjos Nėries St., LT-92227 Klaipėda

[email protected]

304

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV