AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

Klaipėda University

Research interests: the history of the verb, Prussian studies.

VERBS OF IMITATIVE ORIGIN IN PRUSSIAN

The Origin of Verbs of Imitation in Prussian

ABSTRACT

The article discusses terms related to the formation of new words. The concept of the imitative is explained. Verbs that are imitative or of imitative origin are sought in monuments of the Prussian language, and their structural features are discussed. East Baltic imitatives are compared with Prussian ones.

ANNOTATION

The article discusses terminology associated with the formation of new words and presents the concept of the imitatives. The verbal imitatives and verbs of imitative origin are collected from the sources of Old Prussian language and their structural characteristics is analysed. The imitatives of Old Prussian language are compared with the ones of Eastern Baltic languages.

WORD FORMATION BY IMITATIVE MEANS

New words can be formed in language in quite various ways. The best-known method is derivation, especially morphological derivation, based on the principle of binary divisibility: a base word (or words) and a derivative. Another way in which words come into being is also called derivation, when their structure remains unchanged but their function or meaning changes. This is syntactic or semantic derivation. Most words in language are formed through derivation (especially morphological derivation).

KEYWORDS: derivative (derived word), formal formation, re-formation, expansion, imitatives.

KEYWORDS: derivative, formative, performative, expansive, imitatives.

Straipsniai / Articles

31

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

new words, and they can be called derivatives. Words can also arise in other ways, without relying on other (i.e., base) words—simply by creating new words directly or reshaping old ones. This may involve root expansion¹ or stem reshaping by changing the structural type², although in linguists’ work these are often confused with derivation (for more on this, see Kaukienė 2005). This gives rise to extensions or remodelings.

One of the least studied methods is the formation (creation) of new words by imitative means. This produces direct formations (imitatives or onomatopoeic words), which seem to imitate real-world sounds (most often), or images and movements. Imitatives can belong to various parts of speech. This process usually produces emotionally expressive parts of speech (interjections and ideophones), e.g.: oi, trrr, plumpt. Verbs can arise in a similar way: roots are formed for them and they are given a certain morphological form required of a verb (birgzti, čiulbėti). Other parts of speech are formed imitatively less often, although imitative words can also include nominal forms, especially nouns.

Imitatives are characterized by iconicity. They can be recognized by the close relationship between their sound structure and concrete semantics. In addition, imitative words are characterized by “heavy roots” containing many consonants, diphthongs, and vowel combinations. Consonants are most often associated with meaning, for example: sibilants š, ž (indicating rustling or roaring: ošia, ūžia, šniokščia), and r (indicating vibration or trembling: virpa, tirta), and so on.

Sometimes synonyms with similar meanings and structures arise, differing in certain consonants or vowels (cf. urzgía, burzgía, birzgia), but variation in consonantism or vocalism is irregular and does not fit within the framework of regular vowel or consonant

¹ Root expansion is often identified in linguistic literature (especially in etymological studies), but is frequently confused with morphological derivation. When a root is expanded, a new element—the extender—is added to the old basic root. For example, from the basic root IE *ten- (Latin teneo ‘I hold, continue’, Lithuanian tėvas ‘father’), verbs are formed with the extenders -s- or -p-: Lithuanian tęsti ‘to continue’, Old Prussian tienstwei ‘to pull’, and Lithuanian tėmpti, Latvian tiept(iês) ‘to resist, struggle’. In the newly formed word, the necessary inflectional elements are also added to the expanded root. However, expansion is a matter not of morphology but of phonetics (or morphonology). Elements that expand the root (extenders) sometimes modify the meaning slightly, but there is no basis for speaking of derivational meaning. A word formed in this way can be called an extension.

² Words can arise from one root or another by reshaping the stem and changing its structural type. In Lithuanian and Latvian, two or more verbs with differences in categorical meaning can arise from a single root (root branching). Thus, alongside (i)a- or na-stem verbs, inchoative or sta-stem verbs with the same root are formed, e.g.: Lithuanian kelti – kẽlia / kìlti – kỹla; Latvian celt (el) – ceļu / cilt – cìlstu. Sometimes verbs may simply change their structural type, adapting better to their categorical meaning; cf. Lithuanian gėma → gimsta, Lithuanian degti, dėga ‘to burn, kindle’, ‘to blaze’ → dialectal dėgia ‘(sets) alight, (kindles)’ or dėnga ‘smoulders, (gets) stuck’, Latvian degt, degu ‘to burn, blaze’, degt, dedzu, dedzu ‘to burn, kindle a fire’. Another kind of structural-type change is the generalization of the past-tense suffix in the infinitive (and secondary thematization in past-tense forms); cf. reikti, reika, reikė (a paradigm still used in East Aukštaitian dialects) → reikėti, reikia, reikėjo. Verbs of the tekėti type also arose in this way (see Jakulis 2004: 155–156, 162), as perhaps did some words with other suffixes (e.g., žinoti, giedoti). Stem reshaping cannot be considered morphological derivation, since it is not associated with derivational meaning. Words reshaped in this way can be called remodelings.

32

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

patterns of inflection. This is because they are not cognates, but independently formed direct formations, created by imitating similar sounds, images, or movements.

Words of imitative origin are often called sound-imitative (German lautnachahmend, Russian звукоподражательные), but this is not entirely accurate. Although many imitative words are imitations of sounds, they can refer not only to sounds but also to movement and images (varvėti, tvieksti, blizgėti, etc.).

Imitatives can vary in age. The most recent ones are recognizable by the particularly strong relationship between their morphonological structure and meaning. Etymological evidence is an important criterion for determining the age of imitative words. The more cognates a word has in related languages (especially more distantly related ones), the older it can be considered. Words may have been formed imitatively since the earliest times. Later, regular phonetic changes or semantic development blurred the close relationship between structure and semantics.

Sometimes different methods of word formation or shaping can complement one another. In this case, it is important that new imitative words can be derived or reshaped from imitative words—that is, direct formations—through morphological derivation or root expansion, e.g.: kar̃kti – karksėti, karksóti, bùmpt – bumbsėti, and so on. Morphological or morphonological stem-forming elements that have no derivational meaning can even be added to roots, especially suffixes (ulbėti, čiurlenti). These words often show signs of reduplication and sometimes resemble ideophones of the corresponding type: bùrbti, dundėti, tirtėti, cf. bur-bur, dun-dun, tir-tir, and so on. However, such ideophones cannot be considered base words; moreover, such little words do not always occur alongside the verb (e.g., zirzėti).

IMITATIVES IN PRUSSIAN

Prussian, like the other Baltic languages, may have had various imitative words. However, Prussian imitative words, especially verbs, have been scarcely studied.

There are no verbs in the Elbing Vocabulary. Most of its words are nouns, and nominal imitative words can also be found. Some bird names sound highly expressive and are often associated with particular sounds, cf.: droanse [drōᵃnze] ‘corncrake’, prapolis [parpulis] ‘hoopoe’, gerto ‘hen’, gertis ‘rooster’, tresde ‘thrush’, and so on. The name of the bird itself, pepelis [pipelis] or [pipalis], also seems to be sound-imitative (cf. pip-palins K). Moreover, the names of birds and other animals may be associated with certain characteristic movements: weware ‘squirrel’, spurgis ‘sparrow’. Some of these nouns may be direct imitative formations, while others may derive from verbs of imitative origin. The words most reliably regarded as direct imitative formations are those formed by reduplication (penpalo ‘quail’, werwirsis ‘skylark’, weware ‘squirrel’, and so on). Some examples may be considered deverbal, e.g.: spurgļis ‘sparrow’: Lithuanian spur̃gti, -ia ‘to dart off, hurry’ and ‘to flutter or whir with one’s wings’ (examples in LKŽ—from Lithuania Minor

Straipsniai / Articles

33

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

(Mitl50, NdŽ, KŽ)), Latvian spurgt, -dzu ‘(of birds) to fly about, flutter’. Unfortunately, the derived forms do not allow us to infer the structure of the underlying verbs. In any case, these examples show that imitative words certainly existed in Prussian.

Given the nature of the text, one would hardly expect a wealth of imitative words in the catechisms. Imitative words are not characteristic of every kind of text. They are entirely foreign to scientific language, which is far removed from both emotion and expressiveness; nor can there be many in the serious religious texts of the catechisms.

There are quite a number of imitative verbs in the East Baltic languages, so it is likely that they were also present in spoken Prussian. The aim of this study is to search for imitative verbs in the Prussian language monuments. It seeks to identify all Prussian examples that could be considered imitative or of imitative origin, and to survey their morphological structure by comparing them with imitative verbs in the East Baltic languages.

SELECTION OF EXAMPLES

The analysis seeks first and foremost to select those verbs whose imitative character is least doubtful—that is, those in which the connection between semantics and morphophonological structure is unmistakable. Unfortunately, there are very few such examples.

Therefore, all verbs that bear even some resemblance to imitative words are discussed, especially those with sound-related meanings. In addition, examples that have cognates of an imitative type in other languages are also surveyed, e.g.: Prussian stēn- / stin- ‘to suffer’: East Baltic *sten- ‘to groan, moan’ (the meaning became abstract in Prussian) – Lithuanian stenėti, stēna, -ėjo, Latvian stenēt, stenu, -ēju. Although the imitative origin of such verbs can be reconstructed fairly readily, it has nevertheless become obscured. Verbs whose sound-related meaning is not reflected in their phonological structure, and whose sound structure can no longer be reconstructed on the basis of other languages, have been excluded.

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether a word associated with sound is indeed imitative. Between imitative words and words with neutral meanings lie verbs denoting speaking or singing. Some verbs of speaking are clear imitative words, their phonological structure reflecting the process of speaking, while the meaning ‘to speak’ arose differently in others. The imitative origin of many verbs of speaking can be readily reconstructed. There are quite a few such examples in standard Lithuanian and its dialects. They have lost their expressive coloring and now mean only ‘to speak’, e.g.: kalba, šneka, dudėna, niūkia. Such verbs often have a negative, disparaging emotional coloring, cf. Lithuanian tarškia, trāta³. In other languages, too, the meaning ‘to speak’ quite often develops from a sound-related meaning, cf. German.

³ Fine examples of this type can be found in Kristijonas Donelaitis’s Metai:

You know well how much pliušket womenfolk can chatter,

That they, at their feasts, about household affairs vapa.

34

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

sprechen, English speak (German spreb- ‘to speak’ from ‘to crackle, shout’). The following prefixed verbs also have onomatopoeic roots: Russian говорить, Old Russian (from Old Church Slavonic) глаго-лuть. Prussian billīt ‘to speak’ could also be one such verb: Lithuanian bylóti or Latvian (at)bildēt ‘to (re)ply’: Lithuanian bildėti. Verbs of this type (i.e. of imitative origin) are surveyed in this article. However, there are also verbs denoting speaking (or singing) that cannot be considered imitative either synchronically or diachronically (etymologically), for example: Lithuanian giesdóti, sakýti, Latvian dziedāt ‘to sing’, sacīt ‘to say’, Russian немъ ‘ditto’. The roots of these words are not historically related to sounds; they are of a different origin. There are verbs of this kind in Prussian as well, cf. gerbt ‘to speak’, waitiāt ‘to speak’, gerdaut ‘to say’. They are not considered imitative and are excluded from the analysis.

ORDER OF ANALYSIS

Imitatives in Lithuanian and Latvian share certain morphological and morphophonological features. They can be both root verbs and prefixed verbs. Accordingly, the Prussian material is also analyzed in search of specific structural features. First, root (unprefixed) verbs in Prussian are discussed, followed by prefixed verbs, grouped according to their prefixes.

1. ROOT (NON-DERIVED) VERBS

Root imitatives in the East Baltic languages have certain characteristic structures. The structural types of Lithuanian root imitatives are as follows: ia-stem verbs (biržgia, burbia, žyžia, ziržia, zvīmbia), infixed or sta-stem verbs (pur̄psta, pāmpsta, kvęšta). Mixed-type a-stems with the suffix -ėti (bùrzga, burzgėti; dùnda, dundėti, blìzga, blizgėti) should also be considered non-derived. Verbs of a similar type are quite numerous in Latvian, so some imitatives or their structural types can be regarded as common to the East Baltic languages. Some have already been studied and described: Jūratė Lubienė has written about imitative (onomatopoeic) ia-stem verbs (Lubienė 2005: 161–171)⁴, while Erdvilas Jakulis has written about imitative a-stem verbs with the suffix -ėti (Jakulis 1996: 8–17; 2005). In Prussian, apparently, a verb-

⁴ There are far fewer root imitatives in Latvian than in Lithuanian, and they are almost entirely absent from the Slavic languages (examples such as Old Church Slavonic zvegą, zvęsti ‘announce’, Russian (Church Slavonic) звязу, звязать ‘to sing, chatter’, Russian dialect звязу, звячь ‘to bark’: Lithuanian žvengti, žvangėti, Latvian zviēgt ‘to neigh’ are very rare; their root is extended from Indo-European *ǵhuen- ‘to sound’ (Pokorny 1959: 490–491, Vasmer II 88).

Straipsniai / Articles

35

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

…a structural type corresponding to Lithuanian and Latvian a-stem verbs with the suffix *-ē- (these are remodeled root verbs, formed by generalizing the preterite stem-final *-ē to the infinitive and some other forms; in Lithuanian and Latvian, the preterite stem vowel ē became the infinitive and preterite suffix, and the verb ceased to be a root verb; for more on this, see Jakulis 2004). It is therefore important to find etymological counterparts of this structural type among Prussian verbs.

There are about 70 root verbs in the Prussian texts. Their roots have varied structures, many of them quite complex, with numerous consonants, diphthongs, and diphthongal combinations⁵. This suggests that they may have included imitatives, which are characterized by complex roots. Although no entirely reliable imitatives have been found, several examples are worth discussing here: *trenk- / *trink- ‘to strike’, grīm- (grēm-?) ‘to sing’ and sten- / stin- ‘to suffer’.

*trenk- / *trink- ‘to strike’

The Prussian verb derives from the Baltic root *trenk- / *trink-, which means ‘to strike’, ‘to hit with a sound’. It is attested in two forms: trencke MBS ‘strike’ and pertrincktan III ‘hardened (stubborn)’.

Pr. trencke MBS ‘strike’ can be compared with East Baltic *trenk- / *trink- ‘to beat, strike’, cf. Lith. treñkti, -ia, -ė, Latv. triekt (iê), -cu, -cu ‘to hit, strike; to drive, herd’, trènkt (ê), tręncu, trencu ‘the same’. The oldest meaning may be considered to have been sound-related. Some words with this root have only a sound-related meaning, cf. the verbs Lith. trinkėti, trìnka ‘to rumble’, trink­sėti, Latv. (Curonian?) trinkš(k)ēt, -u, -ēju ‘to clatter, ring, jingle’, or the nouns Lith. treñksmas, Latv. truoksnis ‘noise’.

The meaning of the root tends to undergo modification. In addition to the meaning ‘to strike’, other, even quite distant meanings developed in the East Baltic languages: ‘to drive, herd’, ‘to wash’, etc. With the meaning ‘to drive, herd’, besides the Latvian forms already mentioned, triekt (iê) ‘(to hit, strike) drive, herd’, trènkt (ê) ‘the same’, cf. also Latv. trinkt, tręncu, trinku ‘to drive’. The meaning ‘to wash’ is found in Lith. triñkti, trèñka (|| treñkia), triñko || triñkė ‘to wash (the head, hair)’, figuratively ‘to wet, soak in heavy rain; colloquially, to scold, revile’, and with prefixes also ‘to beat, thrash’ (for semantic connections, cf. also Lith. pérti ‘to beat’ and ‘to wash, thrash (in a bathhouse)’). Latv. trīcēt ‘to tremble, shake’ with a prefix also has a distinctive meaning.

In the East Baltic languages, the imitative character of the root *trenk- / *trink- is clearly perceptible, but it is difficult to say whether this was also the case in Prussian, since the available examples have meanings—

⁵ Prussian root verbs have diverse morphonological structures: 20 closed diphthongal roots have been found in Prussian monuments (8 CeRC, 5 CaRC, 5 CiRC, and 2 CuRC); there are relatively few verbs with diphthongal roots—9 lexemes have been found, forming two subgroups (7 with the diphthong ei (CeiC, CaiC, CiC) and 2 with au (CauC, CuC)); 15 open diphthongal roots (CēR, CīR, CūR, CaR) have been found (5 with the sonorant m, 4 with n, 3 with r, and 3 with l). Few open diphthongal roots have been found in Prussian monuments—only 8 roots (three ending in the diphthong ei or vowel ī, and five having au or ū in the final position). In addition, 18 verbs with vocalic roots have been found in Prussian monuments (5 with open and 13 with closed roots). See also Kaukienė 2011: 30 on this.

36

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

ings are fairly emotionally neutral. In addition to trencke MBS ‘strike’, which denotes hitting, there is also one prefixed example from the III catechism: Almechtiger Ewiger GOt+ / der du haft [...] den verflockten Pharao / mit allen den feinen im Roten Meer erfreufft – Wiffemufingis prābutkas deiws / kas tuo (= tou) affai [...] stan pertrincktan Pharao / fen wilfan fwaieis / en urminan iūrin aufkan=dinnons ‘Almighty eternal God, who you have [...] that astonished Pharaoh, together with all his own, drowned in the Red Sea’ III 119/15. In this case the meaning has become abstract, shifting into the sphere of mental activity—pertrincktan ‘hardened (stubborn)’, that is, *‘astonished, stunned’; cf. also Lith. pritrenkti ‘to astonish’.

grīm- (grēm-?) ‘to sing a hymn’

It is possible that the verb grīm- (or grēm-⁶) can also be regarded as an imitativum; one active participle form is attested: grīmons (grīmikan grī-mons ‘having sung a hymn’. Admittedly, verbs meaning ‘to sing a hymn or sing’ are not necessarily imitatived. However, if we reconstruct the verbal root Pr. *grēm- ‘to sing a hymn, sing’ and compare it with East Baltic *grēm- / *gram- ‘to sound (loudly and dully)’ (Latv. gremt, gremju, grēmu ‘to mutter’, Lith. graméti ‘to fall noisily’: Russ. греметь), the verb under discussion may also be of imitative origin. Of course, Pr. grīmons ‘having sung a hymn’ no longer means rumbling or muttering, so its imitative character has faded.

stēn- / stin- ‘to suffer’

Pr. stēn- / stin- ‘to suffer’: East Baltic *sten- ‘to groan, moan’ is a root verb: three past participle forms have been found, stenuns, styienuns, stīnons ‘having suffered’, and the abstract noun stinsennien⁷ ‘suffering’.

The East Baltic verbs Lithuanian stenėti, stēna, –ėjo, Latvian stenēt, stenu, stenēju are highly expressive and can be considered imitative. Similar are the cognates in other related languages (many of them are also primary verbs): Old English stenan ‘to wail, groan’, Middle High German stenen ‘to moan’; Old Church Slavonic stenati (from *stenti), stenįję ‘to wail, groan’, Russian стена́ть, –аю ‘to wail, groan’, Greek στένω ‘I groan, lament’ < and Indo-European *sten- ‘(loudly)

⁶ The root’s ī is interpreted differently—as ī or ē. Most researchers reconstructed ī in the root (the relationship between *grim- and *grīm- is interpreted as Lithuanian gyrà: gìrti; cf. Trautmann 1910: 343, Leskien 1884: 327, Endzelīns IV 181, Toporov II 308; cf. William Schmalstieg’s reconstruction /grī́muns/ (Schmalstieg 1974: 219)). Vytautas Mažiulis (see Mažiulis I 410, 411), however, derives it from ē, reconstructing *grēm- (*grē-muns, *grēmikā ‘song’). See also Kaukienė 2011: 65 on this word.

⁷ In the participle forms, *stēn- with long ē should be reconstructed (cf. Mažiulis IV 157). This is marked as e (stenuns I) in the First Catechism; the Third reflects a diphthong with a narrowing ē > ī (stīnons III), while the example in the Second Catechism (styienuns II) can be read either way. The noun stinsennien has in in the root (Mažiulis reconstructs *stinsen'an, and on that basis the infinitive *stintvei ‘to suffer’. See also Kaukienė 2011: 68–69 on this word).

Straipsniai / Articles

37

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

‘to groan, lament’. An even older meaning is simply ‘to make a sound’; cf. Latin tonāre ‘to thunder, rumble’, from which the meanings ‘to groan, lament’ may also have developed; cf. Sanskrit stānati ‘thunders, rumbles’ and the participle stanant ‘groaning’ (see also Mažiulis IV 157–158, Karulis 1992: 293 and the literature cited therein).

However, the Prussian verb stēn- / stin- ‘to suffer’ has neither expressivity nor an acoustic seme; its meaning has become abstract, shifting into the sphere of physical or mental activity (state).

2. SUFFIXAL VERBS

In East Baltic languages, most suffixal verbs are derivatives. Derivatives from imitative forms—onomatopoeic words, interjections, or imitative verbs—are highly expressive, especially those with the suffixes -čioti, -sėti, -telėti, for example: aikčioti, čiaukšėti (from čiaukš-sėti), pūrptelėti. Nevertheless, suffixal verbs may be not only derivatives but also direct formations, for example Lithuanian biñdzinti, rėplinti, čiurlénti, kukúoti, bubénti, bu-bināt ‘to giggle, snort (of horses); to grumble, mutter’. It is not always easy to distinguish suffixal derivatives from direct formations. This is somewhat easier in a living language, whereas a dead language with few written monuments often leaves such questions unresolved.

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

2.1. The suffix -in-

Most Baltic verbs with the suffix -in- (Latvian -inā-) are derivatives—deverbatives (or denominatives)—and have a causative meaning, cf. Baltic *aug-in(ā)- ‘to raise’ (Lithuanian auginti, Latvian aûdzinât, Prussian auginnons ‘having raised’) from Baltic *aug- ‘to grow’ (Lithuanian áugti, Latvian aûgt).

In the East Baltic languages, direct imitative forms with the suffix -in- also occur; they are not always easy to distinguish from derivatives of root verbs of imitative origin, cf. Lithuanian liurlinti or čirškinti. In Lithuanian, “Quite a few verbs with the suffix -inti are derived from sound verbs or simply formed by imitating sounds” (LKG II 264). There are such verbs in Latvian as well: “[...] verbs in -inât that reproduce sounds”: bubinât, purpinât ‘to gurgle’ [...], cf. Lithuanian equivalents bùbinti, bubénti” (Endzelīns 1951: 842–843).

In the monuments of the Prussian language, verbs with the suffix -in- make up the largest group of suffixed verbs—almost 50 (they cannot always be distinguished from verbs with the suffix -ī-, since some examples may have two forms, one with each suffix⁹). Two Prussian examples could be considered imitative forms: *klum-st-in- ‘to knock’ and *zwaikst-in-/ī- (or *swaikst-in-/ī-) ‘to shine’.

*klum-st-in- ‘to knock’

We have a pair of forms: klumstinai ‘he knocks’, klumstinaitai ‘knock!’: öffne die Thür {der oder die} dem / der da anklopffet – etwer=reis stan wartin {adder stieisiei quai} stesmu kas stwi klumstinai “open the door {or that one} to whoever knocks here” III 119/1–2; Klopfet an / so wirdt euch auffgethan – klumstinaitai tijt wīrst iou=mus etwiriuns “knock, and it will be opened to you” III 117/26.

It is difficult to say whether Prussian klumstint ‘to knock’ is a direct formation or a derivative from an interjection or some root verb.

If klumstint is a deverbal formation, one should assume that Prussian had a root imitative form (cf. *klump- or *klumb-; see Mažiulis II 224–225).

The reconstruction of the suffix also depends on the derivational interpretation. The element -st- may belong to the underlying interjection¹⁰ (-st-in-) or form part of the verbal suffix (the suffix -stin- may be a remodeled Baltic iterative suffix -stī-).

*zwaikst-in-/ī- (or *swaikst-in-/ī-) ‘to shine’ (er- ‘around, over’, po- ‘along’)

There are three prefixed forms: erschwāigstinai ‘illuminates’, poswāigstinai ‘(may) shine upon’ and erschwāistjuns ‘having illuminated’: Gleich wie er die gantze Christenheit / auff

⁹ The co-occurrence of these suffixes is found in all Baltic languages; cf. Baltic *māk-ī-/-in- ‘to teach’: Lithuanian mókyti, móko and mokinti, Latvian mācît, mācu, mācīju ‘to teach’ and mācinât, Prussian mukint (*mākint) ‘to teach’, mukints ‘taught’.

¹⁰ The underlying interjection may occur either with the element st or without it; cf. Lithuanian klùm or klum ‘a thud, a bang’ (Klùm klùm klùm someone thudded and stumbled.), ‘to thump’ (I just hear someone going klum klum klum and stumbling along the windowsills.) or klùmst ‘with a clatter’ (And the third clatter—klumst klumst, paklabošk.).

Straipsniai / Articles

39

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

Erden berufft / famlet / erleucht / heiliget – Ainawijdei kādi (= kāgi) tans ſtan poſtippin Chriſtiani=ſkan / noſemmien preiwacke ſenrīnka / erſchwāigſti=nai / ſwin-tina „Vienokiai, kaip jis tą ištisą krikščioniją ant žemės pašaukia, surenka, apšviečia, šventina“ III 45/16–17; Der HERR erleuchte ſein Angeſichte ober euch und ſey euch gnedig – Stas Rikijs poſwaigſtinai ſwaian Proſnan kirſchewans / bhe boūse ioūmas etnijwings „Tas Viešpats (te)pašviečia savą veidą ant jūsų ir tebūna jums maloningas“ III 133/14; der Heylige Geyst hat mich durchs Euangelion be=ruffen / mit seinen Gaben erleuchtet – stas Swints Noseilis ast mien praſtan Euangelion perwūka=uns / ſen ſwaians Dāians erſchwāiſtiuns „ta šventa dvasia yra mane per tą evangeliją pašaukusi, su savomis dovanomis apšvietusi“ III 45/13.

The etymological (and derivational) interpretation depends on how we read the root consonants. The root-initial consonant may be reconstructed as either s (Mažiulis I 287) or z (Trautmann 1910: 442, Toporov II 84–85). If we see s at the beginning of the root, the verb may be related to Lithuanian šviẽsti, Old Church Slavonic světъ ‘light’, Sanskrit śvetaḥ ‘white’. If we assume z at the beginning of the root, the verb (and the related nouns swaikstan ‘light’, Suaixțix ‘illuminator’) may be related to Lithuanian žvaigždė, Latvian zvaigzne, zvaigzna, zwāigzde, zwaizde (cf. Trautmann 1910: 442, Schmalstieg 1974: 193). If we reconstruct the Prussian verb *swaikst-in-, then the underlying word could be the abstract noun *swaikstan ‘light’ (Mažiulis I 287).

Įvairūs šviesos dievo užrašymai šaltiniuose (žr. Balsys 2010: 239–242) leidžia atstatyti ir Švaistiką, ir Svaikstiką, ir Žvaigždiką.

Thus, considerable uncertainty remains both about its origin and its derivation. Nevertheless, it seems more plausible that the underlying word could have been not an abstract noun but a verb *zweigz(d)- or *sweis- ‘to shine’. In most forms of the verb under discussion, g is written at the end of the root (except in erschwāistiuns). Therefore, comparison with Latvian zvaigstīties ‘to glitter’ (with the suffix -st-ī) seems very appealing. Perhaps in the Prussian verb *zwaik-st-in-/-ī- too, the element st- is an extension of the suffix. In that case, both verbs with the suffix -in- (*klum-st-in- ‘to knock’ and *zwaik-st-in-/-ī- ‘to shine’) have -st- between the root and the suffix. If this element belongs to the suffix, the Prussian suffixes -st-in- or -st-ī- might be comparable with the East Baltic iterative suffix -st-ī- (especially since the suffixes -in- and -ī- are historically very closely related). Indeed, the verb itself *zwaikst-in-/-ī- has both suffix variants, -in- || -ī-: the present-tense forms erschwāigstinai and poswāigstinai have -in-, whereas the participle erschwāistiuns has only -ī-.

2.2. The suffix –ī–

In the monuments of the Prussian language, there is a fairly large group of verbs with the suffix –ī–, which alternates with –ē– or –ā–, e.g.: klausīton ‘to listen’, klausēmai ‘we listen’; billīt-wei ‘to speak, to say’, billē / billā ‘he/she speaks, says’, billēmai ‘we speak, say’, billai, billāts,

40

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

bille ‘spoke, said’. However, counting them precisely is not so simple. First, as already mentioned, the suffix -ī- is closely related to -in- (see 2.1); there are verbs that have forms with both one and the other suffix. Moreover, verbs with the suffix -ī- can be confused with verbs bearing the suffix -ē- (long ē narrows in the dialects of the catechism and is often marked as long ī). The alternating suffix -ē- / -i- is very rare in Prussian. Many old i-stem verbs with the suffix -ē- in Prussian have been remodeled into the type with the suffix -ī- / -ē- / -ā-; only a very few remain (Kaukienė 2004: 204–206). We recognize them by their i-stem present-tense forms. An unequivocal example of this type is turrettwey, turryetwei (turrītwei, turīt, turrit with ī < ē) ‘to have’, present tense 1st sg. turri, 2nd sg. tur 20x, turri 10x, turei 6x, 3rd sg. turri 28x, turei 10x, turrei, ture, 1st pl. turrimai 20x, 2nd pl. turriti 3x. The present tense of verbs with the suffix -ī- / -ē- / -ā- looks different; cf. milijt ‘to love’, millē ‘he/she loves’. Finally, if we do not have an infinitive or other informative forms, we cannot know for certain whether a verb has the alternating suffix -ī- / -ā- / -ē- or the invariable -ā-. These suffixes may be historically related; cf. Prussian *bil-ī- ‘to speak’ and Lithuanian bylōti (with generalized suffix *-ā). Despite all these uncertainties, more than 50 verbs with the suffix -ī- can be counted in the monuments of the Prussian language.

In the East Baltic languages, the structure and functions of the corresponding suffixes vary considerably. In Lithuanian, there seem to be no direct imitative verbs with the invariable suffix -ī- (-o-, -ė-). There may, however, be some with the invariable suffix -i- / -ij-; cf. džėžyti ‘to chop, beat, rain’, etc. (“There are also verbs with the suffix -yti that are formed by imitation of sounds and denote a continuous or repeated intensive action associated with a sound” (LKG II 262)). Imitative verbs with the suffix -ē- are likewise atypical. Most are deverbal verbs denoting a state, e.g.: sėdėti, gulėti and so on. However, imitative in character, though not direct formal imitative formations, are onomatopoeic-origin verbs with the suffix -sē-: purpsėti, čiepsėti and so on. In Latvian, these suffixes have changed substantially, so comparison would require more careful historical analysis.

Genuine imitative verbs with the suffix -ī- are difficult to find in the monuments of the Prussian language. Two examples are analyzed as imitative in character or of imitative origin: *bil-ī- ‘to speak’, *kal(t)s-ī- ‘to sound, ring’.

*bil-ī- ‘to speak’

The verb has many forms that clearly indicate its affiliation with the structural class -ī- / -ē- / -ā-: the infinitive has the suffix -ī- (billītwei ‘to speak, say’), present-tense forms have -ē- or -ā- (billē, billā ‘speaks, says’, billēmai ‘we speak, say’), and the past tense has -ē- or -ā- (billai ‘I spoke, said’, billāts ‘he/she spoke, said’, bille ‘called’ etc.):

Ich bitte euch / wollet meine Beicht hören / und mir die Vergebung sprechen – as madli wans / Quoi=tīlaiti maian Grikauſnan kirdītwei / bhe mennei ſtan etwerpſennien billīt „I beg you, be willing to hear my confession and say that absolution to me“

Straipsniai / Articles

41

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

III 67/16; Darauff foll der Beichtiger ſagen – Noſtan turri stas Klauſi=8winks billit-wei „Ant to tūri tas nuodēmklauſys byloti“ III 71/8; Was sagt nun Gott von diesen Gebotten – Ka billā tēnti Deiws esse wis=sans schins Pallaipsans? „Ką byloja dabar Dievas apie visus šiuos paliepimus?“ III 37/8; Da vnser Herr Christus spricht Marci am letzten – Kāigi nouson Rikijs Christus billē Marci en pansdaumannien „Kaip mūsų viešpats Kristus byloja Morkaus paskutiniame“ III 61/9; Wir sagen dir Lob vnd Danck – Mes billēmai tebbei pogirsnan bhe dinckun „Mes bylojame tau pagyrimą ir dėką“ III 131/15; [...] von dem Baum / dauon Jch dir gebot / vnd ſprach: Du ſolt nicht dauon Eſſen – [...] eſſe ſteſmu garrin / Esse kawīdsmu as tebbei laipinna / bhe billai / Tu niturei eſſe ſteſmu iſt „[...] nuo to medžio, nuo kokio aš tau liepiau bei bylojau: Tu neturi nuo to valgyti“ III 105/9; Nam er das Brodt / dancket / vnnd brachs / vnnd gabs ſeinen Jüngern vnnd ſprach / Nemet hin / Eſſet – imma tans ſtan=geitin dīnkauts bhe līmauts / bhe dai ſwaimans / maldaiſimans / bhe billāts / immaiti ſwen / īdeiti „ėmė jis tą duoną, dėkojo ir dėkojo ir laužė bei davė saviems mokiniams ir bylojo: Imkite ten, valgykite“ III 75/4; Wie Sara Abraham gehoſam war / vnd hies jn Herr – kai Sara Abraham po=klūſmai bhe / bebille/ din Rikijs „kaip Sara Abraomui paklusni buvo bei vadino jį viešpačiu“ III 93/14; Nim [...] jn auff HErr / vnd wie du geſagt haſt – immaīs [...] ſten enſai Rikijs / kāi=gi tu affai billūns „imk [...] jį ant viešpaties, kaip tu esi bylojęs“ III 117/24.

The root of the Prussian verb *bil-ī- ‘to speak’, like that of Lithuanian bylóti, could be derived from an onomatopoeic word: Baltic *bil- / *bel- or *bal- ‘to speak, say’, from *‘to clatter, rumble, resound’ (cf. Mažiulis I 142) < Indo-European *bhel- ‘to resound, clatter’; cf. Old Icelandic bylja ‘to rumble, clatter’. The root is often extended, in which case both meanings (onomatopoeic and speech-related) may occur side by side, for example Lithuanian bildėti and Latvian (at)bildēt ‘(to) say’. Despite its imitative origin, the expressive meaning of the Prussian verb under discussion has faded completely. The verb *bil-ī- translates various forms of verbs in the German original: sprechen ‘to speak’, sagen ‘to say’, hies ‘called’; however, in none of the cases is there any imitative nuance of meaning. Thus, the verb can no longer be considered imitative. Incidentally, the Prussian billīt equivalent Lithuanian bylóti not only lacks any pejorative meaning associated with sound, but also has a pronounced seme of solemnity.

*kal(t)s-ī- ‘to sound’

Very similar to an imitative (or a derivative from an imitative) is the verb *kalts-ī- ‘to sound (lauten)’. We have two recorded present-tense forms kaltzā¹¹ and kelsai¹² (*kalsā) ‘sounds’: Wie die Wort vnnd Verheÿſſunge Gottes lauten – kāigi ſtai wirdai

¹¹ The insertion of the consonant t, if this is not a spelling error, may reflect a phonetically inserted t. between l and s.

¹² The -i written at the end of a word does not necessarily indicate a shortened suffix -āja (as Mažiulis and some other researchers suppose; see Mažiulis III 99 and the literature cited there), since in Old Prussian monuments i. is very often written at the end of a word after a vowel (especially a long one).

42

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

bhe preibillīnai Deiw as kelfai “how those words and divine sayings sound” III 61/6; Der hat fie fagen und wie fie lauten – tans kan ftai billē / bhe kāigi ftai kaltzā “he has what they say and how they sound” III 77/7.

The present-tense form *kalsa allows the verb to be interpreted structurally in two ways: one may identify either an invariable suffix -ā- or an alternating suffix -ī- / -ē- / -ā-. The verb is most often reconstructed with the suffix -ā- (the infinitive would be *kals-ā-t(wei); cf. Trautmann 1910: 361, Endzelīns IV 139, Mažiulis III 99–100, Schmalstieg 1974: 206). However, as the derivative kalsīwingiskan shows, the infinitive could also have had the suffix -ī- (*kals-ī-t(wei)¹³.

The verb has the ancient imitative root *kal- / *kel- ‘to make a sound’, cf. Latvian kaļûôt ‘to chatter’, Slavic reduplicated kol-kolъ > колокол ‘bell’, Old High German hellan ‘to sound’, Greek χέλαδος ‘noise’; many languages have verbs from this root meaning ‘to call’: Latin calāre, Greek χαλεῖν, Hittite kaleš-, and so on (see also Mažiulis III 99–100, Schmalstieg 1974: 206 and the literature cited there). It is therefore necessary to determine whether -s- belongs to the root or to the suffix. If it were a root extension, Old Prussian *kal(t)s-ī- could be compared with Lithuanian kalbėti¹⁴, that is, in both cases the root *kal- is extended (by the consonants -s- or -b-). If the consonant -s- is a suffix extension, it would be similar to -s- in Lithuanian verbs of imitative origin, in the iterative suffix -s-ėti or the stative suffix -s-oti. Many of the researchers mentioned above identify the suffix -sā- and compare the verb in question with Lithuanian dilbsóti, murksóti, and so on. Only Vytautas Mažiulis (Mažiulis III 99–100), alongside Lithuanian examples with the suffix -soti, also cites their cognates in -sėti: linksóti and linksėti, and so on. If we suppose that the infinitive should be reconstructed not as *kal(t)s-ā- but as *kal(t)s-ī-, the alternating suffix -ī- / -ē- / -ā- may have arisen in place of the disappearing -ē- / -i-, in which case Lithuanian iteratives with the suffix -sėti would be closer (see also 2.3).

2.3. The suffix -ā-

In the East Baltic languages there may be imitative verbs, including direct formal counterparts with the suffix -ā-, for example: Lithuanian baubóti (: baũbti), mauróti, maumóti ‘to eat ravenously, to gobble; to bleat, to roar; to speak indistinctly or nasally’, Latvian brēkāt ‘to scream, to bleat’ (: brekt ‘ditto’), trankāt ar trenkāt ‘to chase, to drive along’ (: trēnkt ‘ditto’). Admittedly, these are somewhat less frequent in Latvian and are generally deverbal formations with an intensive meaning, whereas Lithuanian has quite a few direct formal counterparts (“Very many verbs are formed with the suffix -(i)oti, tending-

13 Adjectives with the suffix -īwing- are generally formed from verbs with the suffix -ī-; see also Kaukienė 2004: 102.

14 The meaning ‘to speak’ could easily have developed from the meaning ‘to call’, but the expressive meaning of the Lithuanian verb has faded, and it can no longer be considered an imitative.

Straipsniai / Articles

43

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

“...imitating sounds or images” (LKG II 255)). However, among the Prussian language monuments there is not a single one of the 19 verbs with the suffix *-ā- that could be considered an imitative or be of imitative origin. Only if, alongside the present-tense form *kalsā ‘resounding’, we were to posit an infinitive *kalsāt(wei), would this constitute the sole example—though not with the suffix *-ā-, but with *-sā-. Comparing the possible Prussian suffix *-sā- with Lithuanian -soti is not so straightforward: derivatives of onomatopoeic origin with the suffix -soti (e.g., dunksóti, burbsóti) denote a state associated with bodily posture, while their sound-related meaning remains only a shadow (cf. sound-denoting verbs with the suffix -sėti, such as dunksėti, burbsėti).

2.4. The suffix -au-

In the East Baltic languages, verbs with the suffix -au- (or the historically related suffix -uo-)¹⁵ are usually denominal. Lithuanian also has deverbal formations—iterative derivatives from root imitative verbs, cf. Lithuanian stáugti – stūgauti (for more examples, see LKG II 249, 253). However, there are also direct, i.e. underived, verbs formed with the suffix -au- / -uo-, e.g., Lithuanian kukuóti, Latvian kukuot ‘to cuckoo’¹⁶ (cf. also Russian куковать ‘to cuckoo’—the Slavic suffix -ова- corresponds to Baltic -au-), Lithuanian krū́pauti ‘to startle’, šiūrúoti, Latvian bauruot ‘to bellow’, and so on. In Lithuanian, direct formations more often have the suffix -uo-, whereas deverbal formations with iterative meaning are more frequent with the suffix -au-.

The Prussian language monuments contain 16 verbs with the suffix -au-. Among them are a pair of examples that could be considered imitative: *mur-au- ‘to mutter’ and *wūk-au- ‘to call, shout’, although linguists disagree about their origin.

*mur-au- ‘to mutter’

Prussian *mur-au- ‘to mutter’ has one attested form—the active past participle murrawuns ‘having muttered’: Habe mit meines gleichen gezürnet / Wider meine Frawe gemurret vnd gefluchet – Aſmai ſen mailei polligun ernertūns / Pri=ki maian waipattin murrawuns bhe klantiwūns “I have been angry with my equal, have muttered against my mistress and cursed” III 69/5.

This Prussian verb is generally considered a borrowing from German murr-en ‘to grumble, mutter’ (Trautmann 1910: 380, Endzelīns IV 263, Mažiulis III 160). Mutter-

¹⁵ In Latvian, only traces of the suffix -au- remain, so verbs are in all cases formed with the suffix -uot, -uoju, -uoju.

¹⁶ Janis Endzelīns has also observed this: “Again, or -uoju, there are some verbs that reproduce sounds, e.g., cuckoo (= Latvian cuckoo)”; see Endzelīns 1951: 811.

44

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

The sound is expressed by words with the root mur- in many languages: Latin murmur ‘murmuring’, Greek μομύρω ‘I murmur’, Lithuanian murmėti, Latvian murmēt, and so on (the root may be regarded as imitative—lautnachahmend (Fraenkel 473)). It is true that all these imitative forms have a reduplicated root, which is presumably why the Prussian verb is considered a Germanism. The non-reduplicated root mur-, ending in a sonorant, is not characteristic of root imitative forms in the Baltic languages. In Lithuanian, root imitative verbs with an ia stem generally have closed roots. If the root contains a long vowel, a diphthong, or a mixed diphthong, it is usually augmented by repeating the initial consonant of the root (reduplication), by adding the formant šk (sk, zg, žg), or simply by adding a consonant—most often k; for example: baũ-b-ia, čĩr-šk-ia, mur-k-ia, dū-zg-ia, ū-k-ia, mū-kia, and so on. The same applies to a-stem verbs with the suffix -ėti: dárda, čérška, birzga, etc. However, direct imitative forms with secondary suffixes after a sonorant may also have an unclosed root, for example: čirénti, džirinti džyruoti. It is therefore entirely possible to regard the suffixed Prussian verb murrawuns as an indigenous word.

*wūk-au- ‘to invite, call’

The Prussian verb is attested in two forms—the unprefixed wūkawi ‘he/she calls’ and the prefixed perwūkauns ‘having called’: Denn das Wort (Für Euch) fordert eitel Glaübige hertzen – Beggi sfas wirds (Per wans) wū=kawi wiffans druwingins firans “for this word (For you) calls all believing hearts” III 77/18–19; der Heylige Geyft hat mich durchs Euangelion be=ruffen / mit seinen Gaben erleuchtet – stas Swints Nosēilis ast mien praftan Euangelion perwūka=uns / ſen ſwaians Dāians erſchwāſtiuns “the Holy Spirit has called me through that Gospel and enlightened me with his gifts” III 45/12–13.

Researchers explain the origin of this verb in various ways. It may be regarded as a denominative and derived from the noun wackis (Trautmann 1910: 466, Endzelīns IV 341). However, associating *wūk-au- with the noun is not very convincing. Mažiulis also reached this conclusion: discussing perwūkauns, he traditionally treated it as a denominative (Mažiulis III 276), but later, writing about the unprefixed form wūkawi ‘calls, summons’, he abandoned this view, proposing instead that the verb under discussion is a deverbal and deriving wūkawi from the verb wackītwei ‘to call, summon’ (Mažiulis IV 267). Williams Schmalstieg likewise views the origin of this verb in a similar way (Schmalstieg 1974: 172, 196). Nevertheless, both the denominative and deverbal explanations encounter one difficulty—in either case, vowel ablaut a: ā would have to be reconstructed in the root (after the sound change ū). Yet ablaut is not characteristic of denominatives, and deverbal verbs with the suffix -au- show no quantitative alternation a: ā in any of the Baltic languages.

The origin of the verb *wūk-au- ‘to invite, call’ could be explained differently if the root vowel ū were considered ancient and not derived from *ā. In that case, this verb

Straipsniai / Articles

45

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

could be compared with Lithuanian ūkauti¹⁷. The suffixed verb ūkauti is an intensive formed from the root verb ūkti, -ia¹⁸, which is of onomatopoeic origin. Such onomatopoeic deverbal verbs are very numerous in Lithuanian, for example: čiŕskauti: čiŕkšti, šūkauti: šaukti, švilpauti: švilpti, and so on. Both semantically (iterative-intensifying meaning) and structurally, they closely resemble other deverbal verbs. One might suppose that Prussian *wūk-au- was formed similarly, in which case it too would be deverbal. However, root imitative verbs are numerous only in Lithuanian; there are very few in Latvian, and none have been found in monuments of the Prussian language. Therefore, the deverbal origin of the verb under discussion is also doubtful.

Thus, most likely, Prussian *wūk-au- is not a deverbal, but rather a direct derivative of onomatopoeic origin. It may have arisen from the onomatopoeia ū-ū. Very similar in both structure and meaning to Prussian *wūk-au- or Lithuanian ūkauti are the verbs Lithuanian ūbauti (: ūbti, -ia, -ė) and Latvian ūbuot ‘to hoot’. They mean to call out ū-ū, with k or b inserted before the suffix vowel. Latvian ūjināt ‘to call loudly ū-ū’ may also be added here; this time j is inserted before the vowel of the suffix -in-ā-. The meaning ‘to invite’ can readily develop from the sound-related meaning ‘to call’.

CONCLUSIONS

The study has shown that onomatopoeic verbs did indeed exist in Prussian. Although texts of religious content do not lead one to expect them to be numerous, the available material nevertheless allows us to draw conclusions about their character and structural features.

It is unlikely that classes of root imitative verbs as productive as those in the East Baltic languages had developed in Prussian. Although Lithuanian root imitative verbs with an ia stem are very numerous, they are considerably less common in Latvian. Therefore, it is very difficult

17 Its primary (and older) meaning is auditory: the verb denotes a particular sound made by living beings (such as owls, eagle-owls, foxes, squirrels, mole crickets, small children, etc.) or even inanimate things (wind, a train). However, it may also mean ‘to call, summon, communicate by calling’ (compare these examples from LKŽ: The children are hooting in the forest, wanting to call one another. We got lost in the forest one by one, and then we hooted. Hoot in the forest so you don’t get lost. The hillside is full of rye, the garden of apples; the father called and hooted for his daughter, etc.).

18 In addition to its usual meanings, the verb ūkti, -ia, -ė in LKŽ—1. ‘to call, hoot (of an owl, eagle-owl, hare, etc.)’; 4. ‘to echo resonantly, boom, ring, whirr, buzz’; 5. ‘to emit a shrill sound, whistle (of a locomotive or ship’s siren)’, and so on (compare also DŽ ūkti, ūkia, ūkė: 1. ‘to boom, echo’; 2. ‘to call (of an owl, hare)’), may also mean: 2. ‘to call, shout, hoot (especially to communicate)’ (We’ve just started hooting. He [the lad] kept crunching and crunching as he went under the eaves to the corner, then began descending. Frightened themselves, they would begin hooting, murmuring, rummaging, and knocking along the wall. 3. intransitive ‘to speak indistinctly, mutter’ (My child is very good; left alone, he just hoots to himself).

46

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

to expect them to have existed in Prussian, where ia-stem verbs were not very numerous. It is all the harder to expect infixed or sta-stem imitative verbs (these are Lithuanian neologisms). Since no such structural-semantic opposition causativa / resultativa as in the East Baltic languages developed in Prussian, neither did so many ia-stem or infixed, or sta-stem verbs develop. Moreover, Prussian probably lacked verbs structurally corresponding to East Baltic a-stems with the secondary suffix -ėti. Of course, the spoken Prussian language may have had root verbs of imitative origin, but their morphological and morphophonological structures did not resemble those of Lithuanian or Latvian verbs. The root examples discussed, although of imitative origin, have lost their expressive meaning. Their meanings are fairly neutral, and their expressive semes are no longer perceptible.

Suffixal imitative verbs may have been much more numerous in Prussian. This is indicated by the examples discussed with the suffixes -in-, -ī-, -au- (some suffixes may have had extensions -s- or -st-).

Spoken Prussian may have had more and more varied direct suffixal imitative verbs. It is difficult to say whether there were derivatives from imitative verbs, especially deverbal derivatives. This depends on whether root imitative verbs existed. If there were few of them, there could not have been many derivatives either.

Many Prussian imitative verbs were apparently directly formed. In this respect they are close to the Slavic languages and differ from the East Baltic languages, which have many suffixal derivatives from root imitative verbs. The structural types of Prussian verbs also differ considerably from Lithuanian and Latvian ones.

LITERATŪRA

Balsys Rimantas 2010: Lietuvių ir prūsų dievai, dievės, dvasios: nuo apeigos iki prietaro. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

DŽ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, elektroninis variantas, vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: http://dz.lki.lt.

Endzelīns Jānis I–IV: Darbu izlase 1–4. Rīga: Zinātne, 1971–1982.

Endzelīns Jānis 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīgā: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.

Fraenkel Ernst. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962.

Jakulis Erdvilas 1996: Tekėti, teka, tekėjo tipo veiksmažodžiai baltų kalbose. – Vakarų baltų kalbos ir kultūros reliktai. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 8–17.

Jakulis Erdvilas 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tekėti, teka tipo veiksmažodžiai. – Baltistica 38(1–2), 5–306.

Straipsniai / Articles

47

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

Jakulis Erdvilas 2005: Lietuvių ir latvių tekėti, teka tipo veiksmažodžiai. – Baltai ir jų giminaičiai (Tiltai, priedas Nr. 26). Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 93–110.

Karulis Konstantīns 1992: Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca 2, Rīga: Avots.

Kaukienė Audronė 2004: Prūsų kalbos tyrinėjimai. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

Kaukienė Audronė 2005: Žodžių, jų dalių bei formų sudarymo būdai. Terminai. — Baltai ir jų giminaičiai (Tiltai, priedas Nr. 26). Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 133–138.

Kaukienė Audronė 2011: Prūsų kalbos tyrinėjimai 2. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

Leskien Adalbert: Der Ablaut der Wurzelsilben im Litauischen. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1884.

LKG I–II – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1–2, vyr. red. Kazys Ulvydas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1965–1971.

LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, elektroninis variantas, redaktorių kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

Lubienė Jūratė 2005: Gyvūnų garsus reiškiantys šakniniai veiksmažodžiai lietuvių ir latvių kalbose. – Baltai ir jų giminaičiai (Tiltai, priedas Nr. 26). Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 161–171.

Mažiulis I–IV – Mažiulis Vytautas. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1–4. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988–1997.

Pokorny Julius 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.

Prūsų kalbos paminklai 1–2, par. Vytautas Mažiulis. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1966–1981.

Schmalstieg William 1974: An old Prussian Grammar. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Toporov I–V – Топоров Владимир. Прусский язык 1–5. Москва: Наука, 1975–.

Trautmann Reinhold 1910: Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.

Vasmer I–IV: Фасмер Макс. Этимологический словарь русского языка 1–4, изд. 2. Москва: Прогресс, 1986–1987.

Kiti straipsnio sutrumpinimai – kaip Vytauto Mažiulio Prūsų kalbos paminkluose.

48

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV

Imitatyvinės kilmės veiksmažodžiai prūsų kalboje

The Origin of Verbs of Imitation in Prussian

S U M M A R Y

Imitation-based words can be recognized by the evident relationship between their sound structure and their specific semantic features. Those words are of iconic nature. Words of imitation-based origin are frequently referred to as vocalizations (lautnachahmend in German; звукоподражательные in Russian) but this term is not precise enough. Though the greatest majority of those words are used to imitate sounds, they can also denote movement and images (varvėti ‘dribble’, tvīksti ‘flash’, blizgėti ‘glitter’, etc.).

Imitation-based words can belong to different parts of speech. As a rule, those words are interjections and onomatopoeic interjections. However, verbs can also have their imitation-specific character, and this is true of some directly – formed verbs, not only of the derivatives from parts of speech with a strong emotional and expressive meaning component in them. Imitation-based words can be also found among nominal parts of speech, especially in nouns, though their number in those parts of speech is not large. The present article is aimed at finding out the specific imitation-based verbs in Prussian recorded sources.

Imitation-based words of verbal character are abundant in the East Baltic languages. This fact enhances the credibility that words of the same character could exist in Prussian as well. An attempt was made to select all possible examples from the recorded Prussian sources that could ‘lend themselves’ to the study of imitation-based verbs. The very character of text-specificity in Prussian records does not suggest a great abundance of imitation-based words in those texts. Thus, all verbs that appear to have the slightest resemblance to imitation-based words were studied, especially the ones with strong features of vocalization. Besides, the words that have connection with some other related words with imitation-based meanings in other languages were also examined.

The morphological and morpho-phonological structure of imitation-based words in Lithuanian and Latvian has much in common. Those words are both root verbs and derived verbs. Specific structure-related features were searched for in the Prussian sources as well. First of all, a study of Prussian root-verbs (suffix-free verbs) was carried out, and then derivative verbs were analysed on the pattern of grouping them into certain categories according to difference in their suffixes.

About seventy root-verbs in Prussian can be identified. They can be characterized by roots of different structure, in many cases this structure is quite complex, with multiple consonant and diphthong combinations. This fact is an indication of a possible imitation-based word formation, whose typical feature is complex root. However, we did not succeed in identifying fully convincing imitation-based words, and we focused our attention on the verbs that have a strong likelihood of being related to imitation-based verbs: *trenk-/ *trink- ‘hit’, grim- (grēm-?) ‘sing’ and stēn-/stin- ‘suffer’.

There are about 140 suffixal verbs in Prussian recorded sources with the suffixes (–in-, –ī-, –e, –ā- and –au-). The numbers of verbs with one or another suffix vary. Most of those verbs

Straipsniai / Articles

49

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

have the closely related suffixes -in- and -ī-. A considerably smaller number of verbs have the suffixes -ā- and -au-. Thus, the verbs were analysed according to the word formation characteristics of the suffixes with reference to their possible imitation-based derivatives.

Verbs with the suffix -in- in Prussian make up one of the biggest suffixal groups – up to 50 of them can be identified (though they are not always easy to distinguish from verbs with the suffix -ī- as some of the words have double forms, with one suffix or the other). These two Prussian verbs could be said to belong to imitation-bases words: *klum-st-in- ‘knock’ and *zwaikst-in-/-ī- (or *swaikst-in-/-ī-) ‘shine’.

Verbs with the suffix -ī- are quite numerous, the suffix -ī- in them is often used interchangeably with the suffixes -ē- and -ā-, and it is not an easy matter to count them exactly. As it was already mentioned, the suffix -ī- is closely related to -in-. Besides, verbs with the suffix -ī- can be easily confused with the verbs having the suffix -ē- (when the long ē is narrowed and it is marked as a long ī). Despite these complications, it is possible to count more than 50 verbs with the suffix -ī- in Prussian though pure imitation-based words are hard to identify. Three examples were analysed as having imitation-based origin: *bil-ī- ‘speak’, *kalts-ī- ‘ring’ and *wak-ī- ‘invite’, ‘call’.

There are also 16 verbs with the suffix -an- in Prussian records. Two among them can be treated as imitation-based words: *mur-au- ‘murmur’ and *wuk-au- ‘invite’, ‘call’ though linguists’ opinion of their origin differ.

Research data show that imitation-based verbs really existed in Prussian. However, root-verbs among those Prussian words could not have been as abundant as in East Baltic languages, especially in Lithuanian. In turn, the number of suffixal imitation-based words in Prussian must have been much greater. The already discussed examples with the suffixes -in-, -ī-, -au- all give evidence of that; besides some of the suffixes could have contained the extending part -s- or -st- in them.

The majority of Prussian imitation-based verbs are likely to have been directly formed words. This feature brings them close to Slavic languages and makes them different from East Baltic languages, which are characterized by abundant suffixed derivatives from imitation-based root-words. Structural types of Prussian verbs also differ considerably from those in Lithuanian and Latvian.

Įteikta 2011 rugsėjo 6 d.

AUDRONĖ KAUKIENĖ

Klaipėdos universitetas

Kretingos g. 41-30, LT-92303 Klaipėda, Lietuva

[email protected]

50

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV