ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

Institute of Lithuanian Culture Research

Research interests: ancient Baltic religion and mythology, source studies; comparative grammar and etymology of Baltic and other Indo-European languages.

THE QUINTESSENCE OF THE INTERFERENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MORPHOLOGICAL AND SEMASIOLOGICAL LEVELS OF LITHUANIAN LEXEMES: KIRNIS

Determination of the Interferential Relationship of the Lexemes at the Morphological and Semasiological Levels: Kirnis

ABSTRACT

The article discusses the features of a twofold analysis (semasiological / onomasiological) of the interferential relationship between the semantic extensional and the referent of lexemes. Following a semasiological analysis of the theonym Kirnis, mentioned in Jan Łasicki’s work De Diis Samagitarum (1582), the onomasiological method of word analysis is regarded as casuistic.

On the basis of a newly conducted textual and grammatical analysis of the Latin text, and an etymological analysis of the onym, the previous semantic explication of the Lithuanian theonym Kirnis is refuted. This divine name is associated not with a phytonym, but with an object of worship of the social group of woodcutters.

ANNOTATION

The article deals with the determination of the interferential relationship of the semantic extensional and referent, which is to be based on the arguments of the twofold criteria (ono-

K E Y W O R D S: semasiological / onomasiological method, theonym, Jan Łasicki, Kirnis.

K E Y W O R D S: onomasiological / semasiological word research methodology, theonym, Jan Łasicki, Kirnis.

Straipsniai / Articles

105

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

masiological and semasiological). On the basis of the presented semasiological analysis of the theonym Lith. Kirnis mentioned in De Diis Samagitarum (1582) by Jan Łasicki, onomasiological word research methodology is defined as casuistic.

Also, a new explanation of the semantic value of the theonym Kirnis is presented. The assumption of the reconstruction of the individual social group deity cult of hewers is based on the recent translation of the fragments of Łasicki’s work from Latin and their textual research, as well as the etymological analysis of the theonym. The existence of the worshipping object as cherry-tree is refuted.

0. INTRODUCTION

Researchers establish the relationship between the semantic extensional and the referent using two methods: 1) semasiological analysis, in which, as Vincas Urbutis puts it, “the investigation proceeds from expression to content” (LKE 566); 2) the onomasiological method, in which “the investigation proceeds from content to expression” (LKE ibd.), that is, the motivation for the first explication of a word’s meaning is argued for through an interferential sequence of semantemes reflecting the connotation of the denoted object / subject, whereas the second is based on a syncretic semantic spread, whose structural elements are taxonomized according to the hyperonymic status of the denoted object / subject.

Proponents of onomasiological analysis often equate the referent’s predisposing effect on the structure of the semantic extensional with coherent systems of working elements, that is, they assess the compositional formations of a word’s morphemes identically; compare Vytautas Mažiulis’s (PEŽ II 195) attempt to interpret the semantic development of the noun Latin cornum ‘dogwood (Cornus); dogwood fruit’ (OLD 446), whose origin remains unclear to this day (see Горошева 2009: 306), on the basis of a reconstructed Indo-European adjective *kr̥nō-(–ā–)– ‘cut down, cut off’. The Latin word supposedly presupposes the sememe *‘fruit with a hard (capable of scoring or cutting) stone’; that is, a hypothetical morphological-semantic connection is posited, unsupported by factual evidence, since there is no evidence that anyone ever used dogwood stones to cut anything, to do any cutting, or to cut themselves. Moreover, it should be noted that written sources of Antiquity emphasize the hardness of the wood of some plants designated by this phytonym, rather than the morphological characteristics of the corresponding fruit components (see Анненковъ 1878: 109–110; БСЭ XX 611–612; LE XXVII 149; СД II 492–494); compare the comparison of dogwood to a spear: ae-rata torsit graue cuspide O. 8.408, that is, with a bronze blade, he hurled the spear (that is, dogwood – R. K.) ; bona bello cornus V. G. 2.448, that is, dogwood suitable for warfare (military use) (see OLD ibd.).

106

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leksemų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

1. LITHUANIAN NOUN KIRNIS ‘(BOT.) SOUR CHERRY (PRUNUS CERASUS)’ / LITHUANIAN NOUN KIRNĖ ‘THE SAME’ AND THE PROBLEM OF THE INTERFERENTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LITHUANIAN THEONYM KIRNIS

In addressing problems of word etymology, researchers often rely specifically on an onomasiological determination of the relationship between the semantic extensional and the referent, which leads to the emergence of phantasmagorical hypotheses. Some of them have not been refuted to this day, and the result of such a harsh approach to word origins is the codification of pseudo-lexemes, or their inclusion in the principal Lithuanian lexicographic compilations (for example, LKŽ[e]), whose factual material is not usually doubted (or questioned as to its historicity). Blindly trusting the factual data in these dictionaries and applying the aforementioned onomasiological method (or disregarding the peculiarities of similarity in the internal method of language reconstruction), some researchers have even created protoforms for the Proto-Indo-European language (for Hjalmar Frisk’s and Viacheslav Ivanov’s hypothesis, see below).

One such word is the Lithuanian noun kirnis, meaning ‘(bot.) sour cherry (Prunus cerasus)’, which the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language lists on the basis of only two sources: the data of Kazimieras Būga and of the compilers of the publication Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary. Part I (compiled by the Botanical Dictionary commission, chaired by Associate Professor L. Vailionis. Edited by Dr J. Dagys. Kaunas, 1938) (see LKŽ[e]); whereas the Lithuanian noun kirnė, ‘the same’, is attested only in Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary (LKŽe). There are grounds for suspecting that this is an artificial botanical term, created according to the method of Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža, the first researcher of Lithuanian flora, who “‹...› coined neologisms, giving plants, among other things, the names of Lithuanian (Samogitian) mythological beings (besides Austėja, also Eraičinas, Gardunytis, Guboja, Poklius, Raganė, Ratainytė, Sotvaras, Tvertikas, Gabė, etc.) <...>” (Balsys 2006: 78). Unfortunately, some researchers have tended to archaize these forms (Senvaitienė 2002: 6), although they support this conjecture with botanical rather than linguistic arguments (see note 4).

It is possible to make the cautious assumption that K. Būga, drawing on the work by Jan Łasicki, On the Deities of the Samogitians and Other Sarmatians, and of False Christians. Also on the Religion of the Armenians (1582)¹, where the theonym Lithuanian Kirnis² is mentioned for the first time, presumably interpreted e r r o n e o u s l y (see below) as the god of cherries (cf. Kirnis guards the cherry trees of a certain castle situated beside a lake, i.e. “Kirnis guards one’s,

¹ Apie šį veikalą ir jo tyrimo aplinkybes bei peripetijas plačiau žr. Dini 2010: 305–307; Kregždys 2011a: 101–106; Ališauskas 2012.

² Apie šio teonimo iki šiol nenustatytą funkcinę atribuciją plačiau žr. Senvaitė 2002: 6.

Straipsniai / Articles

107

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

situated by a lake), worshipped in Samogitia³. Praeterea, sunt certis agris, quemadmodum nobilioribus familiis, fingulares dei. videlicet Deuoitis agri Poiurskij, Vetuftis Retovovskij, Guboi ac Tvoerticos Sarakovvskij, Kirnis Plotelfcij, that is, “Moreover, particular districts, like noble families, have their own gods. For example, Deuotis [Dievaitis] is worshipped in the coastal region, Vetustis in Rietavas, and Guboi and Tvverticos in Sarake, Kirnis in Plateliai” [Łasickis 1969: 19, 21, 40–41]), named a plant with it: ‘sour cherry (Prunus cerasus)’. K. Būga apparently relied on a hypothesis advanced by Otto Schrader (I 589; 1907: 175), which Max Niedermann supported (1902: 97): supposedly, the theonym Kirnis ‘god—protector of cherries’, mentioned in J. Łasicki’s work De Diis Samagitarum..., reflects Proto-Lithuanian *kirnas ‘cherry’ (→ *Kirnijas) (for more detail, see IEW 572; Walde, Hofmann I 277; see also Грошева 2009: 307–308).

This attempt by these researchers to reconstruct a Baltic cognate with a zero-grade root was apparently unsuccessful (cf. Beekes I 771), giving rise to numerous erroneous claims repeated in later works⁴.

This assumption may be made for the following reasons: I. Factual discrepancies: a) c u l t i v a t e d cherry trees began to be planted on Lithuanian estates only in the sixteenth⁵ century; b) this plant is not celebrated in Lithuanian folklore,

³It should be noted separately that the mythological material was collected and presented to Jan Łasicki by Jakobs Łaskowski, a Polish nobleman from the Kalisz region and a land surveyor (inspector) for Sigismund Augustus in Samogitia (for more detail, see LE 1958: 188). The places he visited can be traced from the land-register lists compiled by J. Łaskowski himself. It is therefore believed (LE ibd.) that J. Łaskowski worked in Plateliai and Gargždai (the area of the Northern Samogitian Kretinga dialect), Josvainiai (the dialect zone of Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai), Ariogala (the dialect area of Western Aukštaitian Kaunas), the village of Šiaudinė (Kiduliai district, Šakiai county, near Kaimelis [close to Jurbarkas, in the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas territorial zone]), and Karšuva—in the lands of Western Lithuania (see also Kregždys 2011a: 105; Ališauskas 2012: 32–33).

⁴Besides linguistic works, this phantasmagorical account has also been interpreted in studies by scholars of Lithuanian mythology (it is regrettable that folklorists attempting to interpret mythological matters so rarely draw on the work of linguists; cf. the linguistic analysis by Zigmas Zinkevičius [1981: 96–97] of the deity Apidome mentioned by J. Łasicki (Lascius 1868: 12 [89]), which continues to be ignored [see Vaitkevičienė 2002: 18; Ališauskas 2012: 45, 113]). Compare the claims of Antonio Mierzyński (1892: 59, 77), Aleksander Brückner (1980: 212), Wilhelm Mannhardt (1936: 380), Jonas Basanavičius, and Petras Klimas concerning a dendrolatric tradition of Lithuanian god-worship founded on the cult of Kirnis (for more detail, see LM II 153; 175). This highly dubious idea was also developed in the works of Vittorė Pisani (1950: 91; see also LM III 71), Walter Jaskiewicz (1952: 85), Marija Gimbutienė (2002: 54), Ignas Narbutas (2003: 617, 618, 619), Gintaras Beresnevičius (2004: 190), Romas Batūra (2005: 115), Marta Eva Bětáková and Václav Blážek (2012: 91–93), and others. Algirdas Julius Greimas (1990: 95–96) was perhaps the first to doubt the deity’s authenticity, arguing that the functional description given for it is a Renaissance-era stereotype: instead of a god of marshes and swamps, as Greimas believed, J. Łasicki created a deity of cherries.

⁵According to Mato Pretorijus (MP II 387), cherries were already abundant in eighteenth-century Prussia, where they had become a common garden plant (cf. MP III 633).

108

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leks emų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

t. y. suponuojama labai vėlyva jo etiologija (žr. Balsys 2006: 351). Be to, K. Būga (II 199–201, 225) yra konstatavęs, kad vyšnių – ir laukinės (resp. Cerasus vulgaris), ir kultūrinės (resp. Prunus cerasus L.) – pavadinimai lietuvių pasiskolinti iš slavų kalbų. Pirmieji šio augalo skoliniai datuojami V–VII a., remiantis lie. dial. (žem.) viešnė ‘vyšnia’ Pl (< sl. *vę̑[<-ei-]śnja ‘t. p.’). Skolinį vartojo ir vakarų baltai, plg. pr. wisnaytos ‘vyšnios’ E 620 (žr. PEŽ IV 255), tačiau tai nereiškia, jog tuo metu Lietuvoje tokie augalai buvo auginami. Kultūrinių skolinių statusą galima motyvuoti jų semantine diskrecija, plg. V. Mažiulio (PEŽ ibd.) teiginį, kad pr. *višnai-tā iš pradžių reiškė sememą *‘slyvų vaisiai ir medeliai.’

II. Formal analyses presupposing the existence of a lapsus calami in J. Łasicki’s work De Diis Samagitarum....

In discussing the formal, or grammatical, discrepancies between Latin cerasus ‘cherry (tree)’ fem.; ‘cherry fruit’ neutr. ↔ Latin noun cerasum ‘cherry fruit’ (a morphological innovation, i.e. the neuter gender is secondary because of 1) Greek κεράσιον ‘cherry fruit’ neutr. [LS 798]; 2) its association with Latin noun pomum ‘fruit of a tree [especially apple, cherry, fig, walnut, etc.]’ neutr.—see Lewis, Short 1958: 317; Дворецкий 1976: 596; OLD 301) and the functional attribution denotatum caerasos indicated by J. Łasicki, one must first note the contradictory relationship between the root vowels -e- and -ae-. This has hitherto been ignored, although it is in fact decisive in establishing the absence of genetic links between these two lexemes, since Latin cerasus is a loanword from Greek κερασός ‘cherry’ (Ernout, Meillet 2001: 114; see also LS 798), and is not attested in ancient sources with root -ae- (see Ernout, Meillet ibid.), which usually reflects the diphthongoid of loanwords; compare Latin noun Graecus ‘Greek’, Latin adjective Graecus, -a, -um ‘Greek, Hellenic’ ← Greek Γραικός ‘Greek’ (see also Ernout, Meillet 2001: 280); Latin noun Aeoles ‘Aeolians’ ← Greek Αἰολεῖς ‘same’, and so forth. Of course, one might suppose that this change was influenced by the sound-modification tendency of Medieval Latin; compare the Latin noun aecclesia ‘church’ ↔ ecclesia ‘same’ (see Дробглав 1993: 11; see also Harrington 1997: 3). Such a supposition would be correct if dictionaries used in the Kingdom of Poland in the 16th century recorded this change. Unfortunately, they do not; compare Vulgar Latin cerasum ‘cherry fruit’ neut. / Vulgar Latin cerasus ‘cherry (tree)’ fem. (see Maczinsky 1564: 48; see also Erzepki 1900: 18), that is, not only does the root -e- not vary, but the differential forms of the words are also very clearly determined by semantic and grammatical, or gender, categories—

Kazimieras Būga (II 201), explaining the naming of this plant with Slavicisms already in early Lithuanian writings, states that “<...> the wild cherry ‘prunus avium’ does not grow in Lithuania,” while Dalia Senvaitytė (2002: 7), drawing on botanists’ research (LP 109), notes that “Cherries have grown in the territory of Lithuania since ancient times. The common cherry (also called sour cherry) (cerasus vulgaris) has been widespread since the earliest times.” Nevertheless, this researcher’s attempt to substantiate the inherited status of the Lithuanian phytonyms kirnis / kirnė ‘(bot.) cherry plum (Prunus cerasus)’ is entirely unsuccessful, since these plant names are not used in early writings and, most importantly, not in dialects. Thus, apparently, there should be no doubt (see above) about the very late origin of these words.

Straipsniai / Articles

109

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

as an indicator. Thus, it may be assumed that previous interpretations of this text, according to which the deity Kirnis is “the god of cherries,” may be mistaken:

Kirnis caerasos arcis alicuius secundum lacum sitae curat. in quos, placandi eius causa, gallos mactatos injiciunt, caereosque accendos in eis figunt (Lasic(i)us 1868: 11 [88]; see also Lasickis 1969: 40) ↔ “Kirnis watches over the cherries growing by a certain fortress situated beside a lake. To appease him, they throw slaughtered roosters among the cherry trees and set burning wax candles there” (Lasickis 1969: 19).

This claim is supported by the results of formal, or grammatical, analysis: 1) in quos in the second sentence does not agree with caerasos in the first, since the latter word is f e m i n i n e, whereas the prepositional phrase represents the m a s c u l i n e or n e u t e r gender; for if these lexical constituents were in agreement, J. Łasicki would have written in quas (if an association with Latin cerasus ‘cherry tree’ fem. were reflected) or in quae (if Latin cerasum ‘cherry fruit’ neutr. were intended); 2) in quos should apparently be treated as a parenthetical expression, translatable as ‘for this reason; therefore’ (see OLD 1560 [semantic entry 16]).

Thus, there can be no doubt that the passage analyzed in J. Łasicki’s work suggests information quite different from what has commonly been assumed until now. It may cautiously be conjectured that the Latin noun caerasos, which has prompted so much discussion, reflects a structural alternation characteristic of constructional sequences from various periods involving a sonant; cf. the Latin verb ar-cesso / accerso ‘to summon, call together’ (Vaan de 2008: 51), the Latin noun nervous ‘tendon, vein; membrum virile, etc.’ ← Proto-Latin *neuros (Vaan de 2008: 408), the Latin noun pūlex ‘flea’ ← Proto-Latin *pusl- ‘etc.’ < Proto-Indo-European *plus- ‘etc.’ (Vaan de 2008: 497). That is, the Latin cærafos mentioned by J. Łasicki apparently reflects transposition of the sonant –r– and fricative –s–, which brought about the transformation of the authentic form with etymological radical –ae–: Latin caesor ‘woodcutter’⁶ (← [deverbal noun] Latin caedo ‘to cut, chop’ [Lewis, Short 1958:

⁶ Even the ancient Italic peoples worshipped deities that governed the activities of social groups. They were called Latin numina ‘signs of the gods’ will/power, or the gods’ will/power ↔ deity’. One such mythonym was the god Silvanus, who watched over woodcutters (Гамильтон 2009: 13). The woodcutter mythonym is common in Greek myths (for more, see Hansen 2004: 3–4, 241; Лосев 1957: 142, 1996: 164, 854). It is also mentioned in North Germanic sagas (MacCulloch 1930: 207, 280). The Celts worshipped the god Esus (Esus, Aesus), depicted as a woodcutter (Штаерман 1961: 181, 264; see also Калыгин 2006: 81–82). The ancient Indians believed that the god Rudra was the lord of woodcutters (MacDonell 1912:

110

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leksemų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

265]) → *caer-a-sos (pl.) due to homophonic contamination with the following cae-reosque accendos ‘and the lit wax candles / torches’, apparently also led to the emergence of the innovative inflection -os (i.e., the factor of analogy was at work).

Therefore, the quoted passage should probably be interpreted as follows: Kirnys protects / looks after the woodcutters of some castle built by a lake. Therefore (they, i.e. the woodcutters – R. K.), in order to win him over, they throw in the slaughtered roosters and drive the lit torches in there (or, in that place – R. K.).

This conjecture can also be supported by factual evidence, since it is known that the town of Plateliai is situated beside the lake of the same name, whose surroundings were particularly heavily forested. The people who lived there also made their living from the timber industry, that is, they felled trees, sawed them into planks at sawmills, and so on (for more details, see LE XXIII 94–95), while J. Lasicis (Lasicus 1868: 13 [90]) states that the deity Kirnys was worshipped specifically near Plateliai Castle:

Praeterea, sunt certis agris, quemadmodum nobilioribus familijs, singulares dei videlicet Deuoitis agri Piourskij, Vetustis Retowskij, Guboi ac Tverticos Sarakovskij, Kirnis Plotelscij (Lasicis 1969: 41), i.e. “Moreover, in certain localities, as in noble families, there are individual (or, gods peculiar to that locality); namely: Deuoitis of the Pajūris area, Vetustis of Rietavas, Guboi and Tverticos of Sarakai, Kirnis of Plateliai.”

It is evident that an onomasiological interpretation of the semantic range of the lexeme also determined the direction of etymological inquiry into the theonym and the codification of its grammatical meaning. This method of studying lexemes determines not only the characteristics of the lexicographic systems of Lithuanian but also those of other Indo-European languages. For example, without carrying out a formal analysis of the Latin text, Viacheslav Ivanov (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov II 554) even reconstructs Indo-European *kʰr̥nō- ‘dogwood’, thereby positing not only the inherited status of a word that never existed in the Baltic languages (Gamkrelidze, Iva-

303). Their mythological narratives record the mythonym Old Indic dru-han ‘woodcutter’ as well as the sacralized name for an axe, Old Indic paraçu (MacDonell 1912: 384, 492). Similar mythological motifs are also found in Iranian legends (Алборов II 84).

Straipsniai / Articles

111

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

nov II 555), but also the paralogism of Indo-European *kʰr̥nō-, since V. Ivanov himself (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov II 554), following the hypothesis of Hjalmar Frisk (I 828), conjectures that Lithuanian Kirnis is supposedly cognate with the Latin noun cornus, -ī, -ūs feminine ‘dogwood (Cornus mas L.); dogwood wood; spear’, Greek κρᾱ́νον ‘dogwood’, and Greek κερασός ‘cherry’ are borrowings from some region of Asia Minor (see also Vaan de 2008: 137), while Albanian thanë ‘dogwood’ may likewise be of an entirely different origin (see Orel 1998: 472) than the one claimed by one of the authors of the aforementioned hypotheses, relying on earlier accounts of this lexeme (for more details, see Walde, Hofmann I 277).

Todėl neaiškios kilmės lo. cornus ‘sedula (Cornus mas L.)’ (Ernout, Meillet 2001: 143–144) ir gr. κρᾱ́νον ‘t. p.’ (Beekes I 770–771) negali būti gretinami su teonimu⁷ lie. Kirnis, nereflektuojančiu fitoniminės konotacijos (jo kilmės aprašą žr. 2 poskyryje), kaip tai buvo įprasta daryti iki šiol (plg. Schrader I 589; 1907: 175; Niedermannas 1902: 97; Boisaq 1916: 509; Chantraine II 577; IEW 572; Frisk II 7; Ernout, Meillet 2001: 144; Vaan de ibd.; Walde, Hofmann ibd.; Гошева 2009: 306 ir kt.). Vadinasi, suponuoti graikų, italikų ir baltų tos pačios kilmės izoleksą (plg. Гошева 2009: 308), reiškiančią vyšnią, nėra jokio pagrindo.

2. METHODS OF ETYMOLOGIZING THE LITHUANIAN THEONYM KIRNIS

The Lithuanian theonym Kirnis has so far been interpreted in various ways:

1) as a derivative, with the inflection -ys, of the Lithuanian noun kìrna 1 ‘a tree or shrub root washed out by water on a riverbank’, KzR, ‘a bushy, wet place’, J, J. Jabl, ‘a place where trees have fallen together, a pile of debris, a windthrow’, J, ‘a sharp stump of a shoot, a stump of a felled bush’, J, Kv, Sr, ‘a bundle of willow wands’, K, Slav II 2, ‘a multitude, heap, swarm of something; a center’, Šv, Brž, Ggr, J, ‘a miser’, Trgn ↔ Lithuanian dialect noun kirnas ‘a bundle of willow wands’, MŽ, N, | ↔ the Lithuanian noun kìrnos 1 (pl.) ‘wet, almost impassable bushy places, bogs’, BzBk XXVIII 308, G 91, K. Būg, Dr, Rt (LKŽe); a derivative (see Mannhardt 1936: 380–381; Jaskiewicz 1952: 85; Greimas 1990: 95–96 [see also note 3]; Balsys 2006: 351);

2) associated with Prussian kirno ‘stump, bush’, E 637 (Grienberger 1896: 20–21; Brückner 1980: 214);

3) the Prussian place-name Kirno, 1326 (Mierzyński 1892: 77), which is interpreted as an appellative, the Prussian noun kirno ‘stump, bush’ (for the place-name, see Gerullis 1922: 63);

⁷ This is not the first wholly unsuccessful attempt to connect Greek κρᾱ́νον ‘dogwood (Cornus mas L.)’ with the theonym. Marinus Willem de Visser (1903: 156) proposed the hypothesis that the epithet Κραναία of the theonym Greek Ἀθήνη (P. 10.34) derives from the Greek noun κράνεια ‘dogwood’, although the latter has an entirely different origin (see Караговъ 1913: 165–166).

112

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leksemų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

4) place name lie. Kirnės – place names in Šilalė district near Pajūris and Piliakalnis (Ališauskas 2012: 62; see also LATŽ 135)⁸;

5) PIE *kʰṛnō- ‘dogwood (Cornus)’ > → Proto-Slavic *kirnas ‘cherry’ → Proto-Slavic *Kirnijas → Lithuanian *kirnys ‘one who lives in a kirnis’ → Lithuanian Kirnis ‘deus cerasorum’ (Schrader I 589, 1907: 175; Niedermann 1902: 97; see also ПЯ IV 15; Gamkrelidze, Ivanov II 554; Грошева 2009: 308).

It should be noted that this mythonym is not mentioned in the Lithuanian etymological dictionaries of Ernst Fraenkel (LEW 241, 257) and Wojciech Smoczyński (SEJL 276–277).

Based on the textual and formal analysis of the excerpt from J. Łasicki’s work (see subsection 1), one may cautiously surmise that the theonym Lithuanian dialectal Kirnis reflects a defective form with an absorbed element⁹ -it-: Lithuanian dialectal (Samogitian) Kirnis (J. Łasicki) ↔

⁸ Vytautas Ališauskas’s (ibid.) conjecture is wholly implausible because of its exceptionally strange argumentation, or rather its lack of motivation. Drawing on an onomasiological method for studying the semantic development of the theonym, the author of the hypothesis claims that Lithuanian Kirnis is an appellative, that is, an onym reflecting the referent of the location where the toponymic deity was worshipped. Moreover, in recounting Walter Charles Jaskiewicz’s explanations of the origins of divine names, which were devised according to the principle of folk etymology (for more detail, see Kregždys 2011a: 102), he interprets not only the theonym Lithuanian Kirnis but also Lithuanian Deuȯitis, Vetustis, Tvverticos, Guboi. It is regrettable that this researcher distorts the information presented in J. Łasicki’s work, that is, changes the location of the deity’s worship (and thereby contradicts his own conjecture, which he argues on the basis of homophony between the place name and the deity’s name): the place of the deity’s cult mentioned by the author of De Diis Samagitarvm, P l a t e l i u s, that is, the n o r t h e r n S a m o g i t i a n K r e t i n g a d i s t r i c t a r e a i n P l u n g ė d i s t r i c t, is “relocated” by him to the southern Samogitian Varniai dialect area in Šilalė district, several dozen kilometres away, where the toponyms Lithuanian Kirnės. that he mentions are found.

It should be noted that Vytautas Ališauskas applies an exceptionally strange methodology not only when attempting to analyze Lithuanian mythologemes, but also when interpreting Latin lexemes (for more detail, see Kregždys 2011a: 102–103) and the cultural realities of other Indo-European peoples. For example, according to this researcher, the Greek phrase πότνια θηρῶν ‘mistress of beasts’ Il. 21.470 is “of Mycenaean origin,” although specialists in classical philology argue the contrary; cf. “this title of Artemis, so often used by modern scholars, only occurs here in Homer” (Richardson 2000: 94). In other words, this mythologeme is not attested in Linear B texts created during the heyday of Cretan and Mycenaean culture (see Kazanskene, Kazanskij 1986; Bartoněk 2002), and so forth.

⁹ Cf., for example, 1) the Prussian theonym Curche /Kurke/ ← *Kur-k-is/-īs/-as ‘god of the horned ones, i.e. he to whom the horned ones (cattle) are subject’ ← *Kur-ya-ka- ‘ditto’ (with absorption of the structural element -ya- [for more detail, see Крегждис 2009: 280–281; Kregždys 2012: 108–109]); 2) the Old Icelandic mythonym Váli ‘son of Odin or Loki’ < *Wa-ni-lo (with absorption of the structural element -ni- [for more detail, see Vries 1977: 641; see also Kempiński 2003: 219; Kregždys 2012: 286]) and others (for more examples, see Kregždys 2012: 41, 44, 92, 110, 116, 117, 131, 221, 286, 289–290, 307–308, 348, 355, 363, 373, 412, 414, 496, 497; Kregždys 2013: 94).

A form affected by absorption is not easy to identify, particularly when determining the etymological development of onomastic forms; cf., for example, Lithuanian personal name Širka (also cf. Lithuanian personal names Širkus, Širkus and Širkaitė) in the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames (LPŽ II 937), classified as ononyms of Slavic origin and associated with Belarusian personal names Шырко, Ширко and Russian personal names Ширков, Ширкин. Nevertheless, this explanation is argued on the basis of onomasiological analysis criteria (see section 0), which are casuistic, since the origin of the Russian personal name Ширков is linked to the Russian appellative personal name Ширяев(в) ← personal name Russian Ширяй *‘hardworking, diligent; a broad-shouldered person’ /

Straipsniai / Articles

113

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

*Kirnīs (with an accented ending [for the rationale, see Zinkevičius 2006: 61, 217–218]) ← Lithuanian dialectal *Kirnỹs ‘god of woodcutters’¹⁰ ← Lithuanian dialectal *Kirtinỹs ‘ditto’ (a n t o n o m a s i a, cf. the theonym Lithuanian Perkūnas ‘[myth.] god of thunder and lightning’ B, R, DK 77, LTR [Jz], Jrb [LKŽe] ↔ Lithuanian noun perkūnas 1 ‘thunder’ Nd, Ob, I. Simon, Pls, SD 251, LMD [Sln], JV 1033, DP 44, Lz, M. Valanč, BsMt II 194, Skd, Eiš, etc. [LKŽe]) ←?¹¹ n. agentis Lithuanian dialectal noun kirtinys ‘*woodcutter’ ← n. acti Lithuanian noun kirtinỹs 3^b ‘an area of forest felled, a clearing’¹² Skr, ‘felled trees’ rš (LKŽe), ‘mown grass’ Auk, ‘short words’ Snt (LKŽp) (cf. the derivational counterpart noun Lithuanian kalinỹs, -ẽ 3^b ‘one who is imprisoned’ K, BŽ 506, NdŽ, Š, SD 398, MŽ 214, Lex 40, M, J, SP II 166, V. Krėv, LC 1886, 23, etc. [LKŽe] ← Lithuanian noun kalinỹs 3^b ‘what is being hammered’ Šts, Vl ↔ Lithuanian noun kalinỹs 3^b ‘prison’ Kv, Ms; S. Stan, Grž, Als, Akm, J, Dglš, BsP II 41, JD 209, M. Valanč, etc. [LKŽe; see also Skardžius I 260–261]) ← Lithuanian verb¹³.

‘a fast horse’ (Ведина 2008: 194; Тупиковъ 1903: 842; РООР 112; Чайкина 1995: 116; Унбегаун 1989: 126 [cf. Russian adjective ширяй ‘broad-shouldered’ (Даль IV 634; see also Кюршунова 2010: 615)]), cf. Belarusian personal name Ширяй ‘broad-shouldered’ (Бірыла 1966: 194, 1969: 492), although it may also be Belarusian (see below). Besides this conjecture, several other possible explanations can be offered for the origin of the Lithuanian personal name Širka (Širkus, Širkus / Širkaitė); that is, these surnames may be derived from: 1) Belarusian appellative personal name Каўбы́рка ← Belarusian (archaic) ковшарь ‘maker of goblets’ (Бірыла 1969: 193) – with aphesis of Каў-, cf. Ukrainian personal name Ле́ра ← Ва-ле́рий (Скрипник, Дзятківська 2005: 45; on this type of change, see also Суслова, Суперанская 1991: 99, 111, 115–116; Kregždys 2010: 60, 2011: 148, 2013a: 65, 70); 2) the Polonism Lithuanian šinkorka 1 KŽ, šinkorkà 2 (f.) ‘female tavern keeper’ Ds, N, etc. (LKŽe) ← (Old / Middle) Polish szynkarka ‘female tavern owner, tavern keeper; tavern keeper’s wife’ (SW VI 704; SSt VIII 592; Linde V 586) → Belarusian (dialectal) шинкарка / шынкарка ‘female tavern keeper’ (Носовичъ 1984: 710; Байкоў, Некрашэвіч 1993: 353; СБГП V 531), through contamination with the Polonism Lithuanian šinkorius, -ė 1 (coll.) K I 150, K II 151, K, Rtr, NdŽ, šinkorius 2 ‘tavern keeper’ NdŽ, Mit VI 76 (SInt), BB 1Moz. 40.1, SD 367, Q 442, R 74, 305, MŽ 98, 409, N, M, L, etc. (LKŽe) ← (Old / Middle) Polish szynkarz ‘tavern owner, tavern keeper’ (← [Old / Middle] Polish szynk ‘distribution; practicing the trade of tavern keeper; sale of alcoholic beverages; tavern keeper’ < High German schenke, schenk / v. Schenke ‘tavern, inn’ [SW VI 704; Linde V 586; SSt VIII 592; Brückner 1985: 561; Фасмер IV 439]) → Old Belarusian шынкарь ‘tavern keeper’ (Булыка 1980: 74), Belarusian шынкар ‘ditto’ (Байкоў, Некрашэвіч 1993: 353), Russian шинка́рь ‘ditto’ (Даль IV 633) – assuming absorption of the structural elements -nko- (on this change, see above).

¹⁰ The Christianized East Slavic patron of woodcutters, Jacob the Woodcutter, venerated on October 22 / November 5 (СД II 135), may be associated with this mythonym. It was believed that the woodcutter’s function was purifying, protecting people from illness, death, and misfortune (for further details, see СД III 526). Bulgarian legends contain a cosmological motif connected with the woodcutter’s activity: it was said that the spots on the moon appeared when he piled firewood on it (СД III 152 [for further discussion of mythological counterparts among other Indo-European peoples, see note 6]).

¹¹ It should be noted that the Lithuanian dialectal n. agentis kirtinỹs 3^b ‘woodcutter’, given in LKŽe and described in Rš LKŽk, differs entirely from the account provided by the authors of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language: the entry actually records the form kirtinėlis, -io, -iai ‘little cutters’. Thus, the authors of LKŽ created a form without the diminutive suffix -ėlis. The author of this article expresses sincere gratitude to Dr. Rūta Petrokienė (Institute of the Lithuanian Language) for this information.

¹² This meaning is also recorded in LKŽKp in the dialect areas of Samogitian and Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialects, namely in Vž (according to Birutė Rokaitė-Vanagienė’s data [1962]) and Dovydai (Šakiai district).

¹³ The possibility that the base word was also a noun cannot be ruled out; cf. Lithuanian dialectal noun kirtà 4 ‘beating’ Grdm, LC 1886, 34 (LKŽe).

114

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leks emų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

Lithuanian verb kiršti¹⁴ ‘to knock down, lay low by striking with something sharp; to separate a part from the whole, to chop up’ J, A. Baran, Ds, Gršl, StnD 3, KlpD 28, S. Dauk, etc.; ‘to strike with something sharp’ SD 370, R, K, J. Jabl, Vaižg, Alk, Slnt, etc.; ‘to mow (crops, hay) with a scythe’ J. Jabl, J, P. Cvir, K. Donel, K II 267, etc.; ‘to sting, bite’ J. Jabl, Brb, Vžns, Skr, Lš, Prn, LTR (Rk), etc. (LKŽe) + suffix *-inio- (for details, see Skardžius ibid.), that is, the protosememe *‘god of woodcutters’ may be reflected here; cf. the Lithuanian nouns with hyperonymic connotation kirtėjas 1, 3], kirtėjas 4 K ‘one who fells (a tree) with an axe’ Žem, Slnt, Ps, Vlk, Krp, BB Joz. 9, 21, ‘one who mows (crops) with a scythe’ J. Balt, Mrk ↔ Lithuanian dialectal noun kirtėjys 4 ‘one who fells (a tree) with an axe’ Škn (LKŽe).

3. SUMMARY

The reconstruction of protoforms of lexemes, based on the onomasiological method for studying the semantic development of onomastic forms, has led to an extremely negative assessment of the object of this branch of linguistics (and especially of its etymological analysis): Radoslav Katičić (I 48) states that many accounts of the origins of onomastic forms are based on principles of folk etymology, while Aleksandra Superanskaja (Суперанская 1986: 78) points out that such studies are always hypothetical and supported by unreliable factual evidence.

On the basis of the status of the Lithuanian personal name Kirnis as a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (i.e. an occasionalism), diachronic analysis of possible isol exes and reconstruction of their protoforms must first and foremost be based on the results of the internal reconstruction method (cf. the arguments presented by Ivan Steblin-Kamenskij [Стеблин-Каменский 1999: 11]). For this reason, the methodology for studying onomastic forms must be coherent in its analysis of the levels of phonomorphology and semantic expression (see also Kregždys 2012: 38, 513).

4. CONCLUSIONS

1. The onomasiological method for investigating the semantic development of a lexeme, based on syncretic semantic dispersion whose structural-element taxonomy is determined by the hyperonymic status of the denoted object / subject, gives rise to etymological paralogisms.

2. The theonym De Diis Samagitarom... in J. Łasicki’s work Kirnis ‘god – guardian of cherry trees’ is not a reflection of Prussian *kirnas ‘cherry’ because of:

2a) factual discrepancies – cultivated cherry trees began to be planted in Lithuanian estates only in the 16th century;

2b) features of the formal analysis that imply a lapsus calami, i.e., V. lo. cerasus ‘cherry (tree)’ fem.; ‘cherry fruit’ neut. ≠ V. lo. caerasos (J. Łasickis);

¹⁴ Plg. verb. lie. dial. (žem.) kiŕtinti ‘duoti kirsti’ (Aleksandravičius 2011: 165).

Straipsniai / Articles

115

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

2c) V. lo. caerasos fem. (J. Łasickis) does not agree with the prepositional phrase in quos (masc. / neut.), since instead it should be in quas, in quae.

3. Theonym Lith. dial. (Samogitian) Kirnis presupposes a defective personal name Lith. dial. *Kirnỹs ‘god of woodcutters’, derived from the antonomastic Lith. dial. *Kirtinỹs ‘the same’.

4. The reconstruction of Indo-European *kʰr̥nō- ‘dogwood (Cornus)’ and, respectively, of the cherry-denoting isolexes in Greek, Italic, and Baltic languages, on the basis of Lith. dial. *Kirnỹs ‘god of woodcutters’, is not possible.

LITERATŪRA

Aleksandravičius Juozas 2011: Kretingos tarmės žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Ališauskas Vytautas 2012: Jono Lasickio pasakojimas apie žemaičių dievus. Tekstas ir kontekstai. Vilnius: Aidai.

Balsys Rimantas 2006: Lietuvių ir prūsų dievai, deivės, dvasios: nuo apeigos iki prietaro. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

Bartoněk Antonin 2002: Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag; C. Winter.

Batūra Romas 2005: Mitologinio Vižo ir jo aplinkos klausimu. – Senovės baltų kultūra 7. Vilnius: Versus aureus, 110–129.

Beekes I–II – Beekes Robert. Etymological Dictionary of Greek 1–2. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2010.

Beresnevičius Gintaras 2004: Lietuvių religija ir mitologija. Sisteminė studija. Vilnius: Tyto alba.

Bětáková Marta Eva, Blažek Václav 2012: Encyklopedie baltské mytologie. Praha: Nakladatelství Libri.

Boisacq Émile 1916: Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Grecque. Heidelberg & Paris: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, Librairie C. Klincksieck.

Brückner Alexander 1980: Mitologia słowiańska i polska. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Brückner Alexander 1985: Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wiedza powszechna.

Būga I–III – Būga Kazimieras. Rinktiniai raštai 1–3, sud. Zigmas Zinkevičius. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1958–1961.

Dini Pietro Umberto 2010: ALILETOESCVR: linguistica baltica delle origini. Livorno: Books & Company.

116

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leksemų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

Ernout Alfred, Meillet Alfred 2001: Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck.

Erzepki Bolesław 1900: Słownik Łacińsko-Polski Bartłomieja z Bydgoszczy. Podług rękopisu z roku 1532. Poznań: Drukarnia dziennika Poznańskiego.

Frisk I–III – Frisk Hjalmar. Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–3. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1960.

Gamkrelidze, Ivanov I–II – Gamkrelidze Thomas V., Ivanov Vjačeslav V. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture 1–2. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.

Gerullis Georg 1922: Die altpreußischen Orstnamen. Berlin und Leipzig: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verleger.

Gimbutienė Marija 2002: Baltų mitologija. Senovės lietuvių deivės ir dievai. Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla.

Greimas Algirdas Julius 1990: Tautos atminties beieškant. Vilnius & Chicago: Mokslas.

Grienberger Theodor von 1896: Die Baltica des Libellus Lasiczki. Untersuchungen zur litauischen Mythologie. – Archiv für slavische Philologie 18, 1–86.

Hansen William F. 2004: Handbook of classical mythology. Santa Barbara, California & Oxford, England: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Harrington Karl Pomeroy 1997: Medieval Latin, revised by Joseph Pucci; with a grammatical introduction by Alison Goddard Elliott. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

IEW – Pokorny Julius. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Bern und München: A. Francke AG-Verlag, 1959–1969.

Il. Ὀμήρου Ἰλιάς

Jaskiewicz Walter C. 1952: Study in Lithuanian mythology. – Studi Baltici. Accademia Toscana di scienze e lettere „La colombaria“; 65–106.

Katičić I–II – Katičić Radoslav. Ancient Languages of the Balkans 1–2. The Hague & Paris: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Kempiński Andrzej M. 2003: Ilustrowany leksykon mitologii wikingów. Poznań: KURPISZ.

Kregždys Rolandas 2010: M. Strykowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 62–63, 50–81.

Kregždys Rolandas 2011: Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 64–65, 137–164.

Kregždys Rolandas 2011a: Baltiškųjų teonimų perteikimo ir dievų funkcijų nustatymo problematika Jano Łasickio veikale „De diis Samagitarvm cæterorvmque Sarmatarum,

Straipsniai / Articles

117

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

& falsorum Christianorum. Item de religione Armeniorum“: Salaus, Klamals, Atlaibos, Tawals. Perspectives of Baltic Philology II. Poznań: Wydawnictwo „Rys“, 101–121.

Kregždys Rolandas 2012: Baltų mitologemų etimologijos žodynas I: Kristburgo sutartis. Vilnius: Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas.

Kregždys Rolandas 2013: Ancient Baltic Religion: Evaluation of Archetypes Authenticity. Oriental Studies. Between East and West. Scientific Papers. University of Latvia, vol. 793. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte, 91–98.

Kregždys Rolandas 2013a: Rytų baltų fitonimo aviete (Rubus) morfologinė raida ir etimologinių sąsajų problematika. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 69, 61–78.

Lasic ius J. Polonus 1868: De Diis Samagitarum libellus, herausgegeben von W. Mannhardt mit Nachträgen von A. Bielenſtein. Riga: Verlag von J. Bacmeister.

Lasickis Jonas 1969: Apie žemaičių, kitų sarmatų bei netikrų krikščionių dievous. Vilnius: Vaga.

LATŽ – Lietuvos TSR administracinio-teritorinio suskirstymo žinynas 2. Vilnius: Mintis, 1976.

LE I–XXXVII – Lietuvių enciklopedija 1–37. Bostonas: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1953–1985.

LEW – Fraenkel Ernst. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Heidelberg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962–1965.

Lewis Charlton T., Short Charles 1958: A Latin Dictionary founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Linde I–VI – Linde M. Samuil Bogumil. Słownik języka polskiego 1–6. Warszawa: w Drukarni Xięży Piiarów, 1807–1814.

LKE – Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, par. Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1999.

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (t. 1–20, 1941–2002). Antrasis elektroninis leidimas. Red. kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė ir kt. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2013.

LKŽk – Lietuvių kalbos žodyno kartoteka, saugoma Lietuvių kalbos instituto Leksikografijos centre.

LKŽKp – Lietuvių kalbos žodyno kartotekos papildymai, saugomi Lietuvių kalbos instituto Leksikografijos centre.

LM I–III – Lietuvių mitologija 1–3, sud. Norbertas Vėlius (t. 1–2), N. Vėlius ir Gintaras Beresnevičius (t. 3). Vilnius: Mintis, 1995–2003.

LP – Lietuvos pomologija. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1974.

LPŽ I–II – Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 1–2. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985–1989.

118

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leksēmų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

LS – Liddell Henry George, Scott Robert. A Greek-English lexicon. New York & Cincinnati: American Book Company, 1882 (eighth edition).

MacCulloch John Arnott 1930: Eddic Mythology. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America & Marshall Jones Company.

MacDonell Arthur Anthony 1912: Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. London: John Murray.

Maczinsky Ioannus 1564: Lexicon LatinoPolonicum ex optimis Latinae Linguae scriptoribus concinnatum. Regiomonti Borvssiae: Typographus Ioannes Daubmannus.

Mannhardt Wilhelm 1936: Letto-Preussische Götterlehre. Riga: Herausgegeben von der Lettisch-Literärischen Gesellschaft.

Mierzyński Antoni 1892: Mythologiae Lituanicae Monumenta. Źródła do Mythologii Litewskiej I. Warszawa: Druk K. Kowalewskiego.

MP I–IV – Pretorijus Matas. Prūsijos įdomybės, arba Prūsijos regykla 1–3, par. Inge Lukšaitė. Vilnius: Pradai (t. 1 – 1999), Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla (t. 2 – 2004, t. 3 – 2006, t. 4 – 2011).

Narbutas Ignas 2003: Jono Lasickio pasakojimas apie žemaičių mitologiją. Struktūros bruožai. Naujasis židinys-Aidai 11–12, 616–622.

Niedermann Max 1902: Notes d’étymologie latin. Mélanges linguistiques offerts à A. Meillet par ses élèves D. Barbelenet, G. Dottin, R. Gauthiot, M. Grammont, A. Laronde, M. Niedermann, J. Vendryes. Avec un Avant-Propos par P. Boyer. Paris: Klincksieck.

O. – Publius Ovidius Naso. Metamorphoseon (libri 1–15).

OLD – Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1968.

Orel Vladimir 1998: Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden & Köln: Brill.

P. – Παυσανίου Πριήγησις τῆς Ἑλλάδος.

PEŽ I–IV – Mažiulis Vytautas. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1–4. Vilnius: Mokslas (t. 1), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla (t. 2, 3), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas (t. 4), 1988–1997.

Pisani Vittore 1950: Le religioni dei celti e dei balto-slavi nell’Europa precristiana. Milano: Instituto editoriale Galileo.

Richardson Nicholas 2000: The Iliad: a commentary. Volume VI: books 21–24. General editor G. S. Kirk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schrader I–II – Schrader Otto. Reallexikon der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Grundzüge einer Kultur- und Völkergeschichte Alteuropas. 2, verm. u. umgearb. Aufl. Hrsg. von A. Nehring. 2 Bde. Berlin: De Gruyter 1917–1923 (A-K), 1929 (L-Z).

Schrader Otto S. 1907: Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte. 3 v. Jena: Hermann Costenoble.

Straipsniai / Articles

119

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

SEJL – Smoczyński Wojciech. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Wilno: Printer Polyglott, 2007.

Senvაიtytė Dalia 2002: Mitologinės Kirnio interpretacijos. – Liaudies kultūra 6(87), 6–10.

Skardžius I–VII – Skardžius Pranas. Rinktiniai raštai 1–7, par. Albertas Rosinas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996–2013.

SSt I–XI – Słownik staropolski 1–11, red. S. Urbańczyk (t. 1, A–Ć, Warszawa 1953–1955; t. 2, D–H, Wrocław–Kraków–Warszawa 1956–1959; t. 3, I–K, Wrocław–Kraków–Warszawa 1960–1962; t. 4, L–M, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1963–1965; t. 5, N–Ó, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1965–1969; t. 6, P–Pożenie, Wrocław–Warszawa–Gdańsk 1970–1973; t. 7, Póć–Rozproszyć, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk 1973–1977; t. 8, Rozpróchnięć–Szyszki, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź: 1977–1981; t. 9, Ściadły–Używowanie, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź 1982–1987; t. 10, W–Wżgim, Kraków 1988–1993; t. 11, Z–Ż, Kraków 1995–2002...). Zakład narodowy imienia Ossolińskich; Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii nauk.

SW I–VIII – Karłowicz Jan, Kryński Adam A., Niedźwiedzki Władysław (red.). Słownik języka polskiego 1–8. Warszawa: W drukarni E. Lubowskiego (1–2), W drukarni „Gazety Handlowej“ (3–6), W drukarni „Współczesnej“ (7), Wydawnictwo kasy pomocy dla osób pracujących na polu naukowem imienia J. Mianowskiego (8), 1898–1923.

V. G. – Publi Vergili Maronis. Georgica.

Vaan Michiel de 2008: Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Leiden & Boston: Brill.

Vaitkevičienė Daiva 2002: Namų laimė. – Liaudies kultūra 4(85), 9–21.

Visser Marinus Willem de 1903: Die nicht menschengestaltigen Götter der Griechen. Leiden: Buchhandlung und Druckerei vormals E. J. Brill.

Vries Jan de 1977: Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Walde, Hofmann I–II – Walde Alois, Hofmann Johann Baptist. Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1938 (Bd. 1 [a–l]), Carl Winter Universitätsverlag1954 (Bd. 2 [m–z]).

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1981: Dėl vienos mitologinės dievybės vardo. – Baltistica 17(1), 96–97.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 2006: Lietuvių tarmių kilmė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Алборов I–II – Алборов Борис Андреевич. Некоторые вопросы осетинской филологии 1–2. Владикавказ: Издательско-полиграфическое предприятие им. В. А. Гассиева, 1979–2005.

120

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leksemų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

Анненковъ Николай 1878: Ботанический словарь. Санкт Петербургъ: Типографія императорской академіи наукъ.

Байкоў Мікалай Я., Некрашэвіч Сцяпан М. 1993: Беларуска-расійскі слоўнік. Факсімільнае выданне. Мінск: Народная асвета.

Бірғыла Мікалай В. 1966: Беларуская антрапанімія. Уласныя імёны, імёны-мянушкі, імёны па бацьку, прозвішчы. Мінск: Навука і тэхніка.

Бірғыла Мікалай В. 1969: Беларуская антрапанімія 2. Прозвішчы, утворныя ад апелятыўнай лексікі. Мінск: Навука і тэхніка.

БСЭ I–L – Большая советская энциклопедия 1–50, ред. Б. А. Введенский. Москва: Большая советская энциклопедия, 1969–1981.

Ведина Тамара Ф. 2008: Энциклопедия русских фамилий. Тайны происхождения и значения. Москва: Астрель, АСТ.

Гамильтон Эдит 2009: Мифы и легенды Греции и Рима. Москва: Центрполиграф.

Грошева Антонина В. 2009: Латинская земледельческая лексика на индоевропейском фоне. Санкт-Петербург: Наука.

Даль I–IV – Даль Владимир. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка 1–4. Москва: Русский язык, 1989–1991.

Дворецкий Иосиф Хананович 1976: Латинско-русский словарь. Изд. 2-е. Москва: Русский язык.

Дрбоглав Донат Александрович 1993: Учебное пособие по средневековой латыни. Москва: Изд-во МГУ.

Кагаровъ Евгеній 1913: Культъ фетишей, растений, животныхъ въ Древней Греціи. С.-Петербургъ: Сенатская Типографія.

Казанскене Ванда Петровна, Казанский Николай Николаевич 1986: Предметно-понятийный словарь греческого языка. Крито-микенский период. Ленинград: Наука.

Калыгин Виктор Павлович 2006: Этимологический словарь кельтских теонимов. Москва: Наука.

Крегждис Роландас 2009: Прусс. Curche: этимология теонима, функции божества; проблематика установления культовых соответствий на почве обрядовой традиции восточно-балтийских, славянских и других индоевропейских народов. – Studia Mythologica Slavica 12, 249–320.

Кюршунова Ирина Алексеевна 2010: Словарь некалендарных личных имен, прозвищ и фамильных прозваний Северо-Западной Руси XV–XVII вв. Санкт-Петербург: Дмитрий Буланин.

Straipsniai / Articles

121

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

Лосев Алексей Федорович 1957: Античная мифология в ее историческом развитии. Москва: Государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство министерства просвещения РСФСР.

Лосев Алексей Федорович 1996: Мифология греков и римлян. Москва: Мысль.

Носовичъ Иван И. 1984: Словарь бѣлорусскаго нарѣчія (Specimina philologiae Slavicae). München: Verlag Otto Sagner.

ПЯ I–V – Топоров Владимир Николаевич. Прусский язык: Словарь. Москва: Наука, 1975–1990.

РООР – Русская ономастика и ономастика России. Словарь, под ред. Олега Николаевича Трубачева. Москва: Школа-Пресс, 1994.

СБГП I–V – Слоўнік беларускіх гаворак Паўночна-Заходняй Беларусі і яе пагранічча 1–5. Мінск: Навука і тэхніка, 1979–1986.

СД I–V – Славянские древности. Этнолингвистический словарь 1–5, ред. Никита И. Толстой. Москва: Международные отношения, 1995–2012.

Скрипник Лариса Григорівна, Дзятківська Ніна Пантелеймонівна 2005: Власні імена людей. Київ: Наукова думка.

Стеблин-Каменский Иван М. 1999: Этимологический словарь ваханского языка. Санкт-Петербург: Петербургское Востоковедение.

Суперанская Александра Васильевна и др. 1986: Теория и методика ономастических исследований. Москва: Наука.

Суслова Анна Владимировна, Суперанская Александра Васильевна 1991: О русских именах. Ленинград: Лениздат.

Тупиковъ Николай М. 1903: Словарь древне-русскихъ личныхъ собственныхъ именъ. С.-Петербургъ: Типографія И. Н. Скороходова.

Унбегаун Б. 1989: Русские фамилии. Москва: Прогресс.

Фасмер I–IV – Фасмер Макс. Этимологический словарь русского языка 1–4. Москва: Прогресс, 1986–1987.

Чайкина Юлия Ивановна 1995: Вологодские фамилии: Этимологический словарь. Вологда: Русь.

Штаерман Елена Михайловна 1961: Мораль и религия угнетенных классов Римской империи (Италия и Западные провинции). Москва: Издательство академии наук СССР.

122

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Lietuvių kalbos leksemų morfologinio ir semasiologinio lygmenų interferencinio ryšio kvintesencija: Kirnis

Determination of the Interferential Relationship of the Lexemes at the Morphological and Semasiological Levels: Kirnis

S U M M A R Y

The article presents a semasiological analysis of theonym Lith. Kirnis mentioned in De Diis Samagitarum (1582) by Jan Łasicki. It also deals with the determination of the interferential relationship of the semantic extens ionale and referent, which is to be based on the arguments of the twofold criteria (onomasiological and semasiological).

The assumption of the deity cult reconstruction by the individual social group of hewers is based on the following conclusions:

1. Onomasiological word research methodology, based on the syncretic semantic distribution of the lexeme, which accounts for hyperonymic status of the definite object / subject in the case of taxonomy of its structural complexes, presupposes the emergence of pseudo-scientific etymologies.

2. Theonym Lith. Kirnis with the meaning ‘protector of the cherries’, mentioned in De Diis Samagitarum by J. Łasicki, cannot be interpreted as a reflection of Proto-Lith. *kirnas ‘cherry’. The said conclusion can be drawn on the basis of

2a. factographic discrepancy, for the cultivation of tamed cherries as plants of the manor in Lithuania began in the 16^th c. only;

2b. outcomes of the formal analysis of Łasicki’s text, which is written in Latin, that presuppose existence of lapsus calami, i.e. M.A. Lat. cerasus ‘cherry (tree)’ fem.; ‘cherry (fruit)’ neutr. ≠ M.A. Lat. caerasos (J. Łasicki);

2c. M.A. Lat. caerasos fem. (J. Łasicki) does not agree with the grammatical status of prepositional syntagma in quos (masc. / neutr.), which regularly should be put down as in quas, in quae.

3. Theonym Lith. dial. (Lowland) Kirnis presupposes reconstruction of the defective form Lith. dial. *Kirny̆s ‘deity of hewers’, which is to be derived from Lith. dial. *Kirtiny̆s ‘ditto’. The origin of the last is to be justified by the phenomenon of antonomasia.

4. Given the analysis of the theonym Lith. Kirnis, the possibility of the reconstruction of I-E *kʰrnō- ‘cornel (Cornus’), as well as the existence of Greek, Italic and Baltic isolexeme with the meaning of ‘cherry’ must be rejected.

Įteikta 2014 m. kovo 4 d.

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS

Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas

Saltoniškių g. 58, Vilnius LT-08105, Lietuva

[email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

123