Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika)

ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: comparative grammar of the Baltic and other Indo-European languages, Baltic religion and mythology, source studies. MORPHEMIC SEGMENTATION PECULIARITIES OF EASTERN BALTIC PHYTONYMS (THE PROBLEM OF ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION OF WORDS) Morphological segmentation peculiarities of Eastern Baltic phytonyms (issues of the ethnic identification of lexemes) In memory of the Baltist and Indo-Europeanist Professor ALBERTAS ROSINAS (1938–2010): his versatile genius was equally suited to everything, so that you would say he had been born for that one thing, whatever he might undertake (Titus Livius). A B S T R A C T The article analyzes the features of morphemic segmentation—identification of submorphs—in Eastern Baltic phytonyms and discusses their etymological development. Determining the smallest meaningful part of a word is considered an essential factor governing the direction of the etymological analysis of lexemes. Morpheme structure is analyzed using not an atomistic but a reconstructive-pragmatic method. The reconstructed smallest generalized part of a word, or formal alternant, is restored on the basis of the use of the predisposing factor—the value of semantemes. The morphological (or etymological) analysis of the following phytonyms is presented: Lith. pastēnis ‘a plant of the pink family (Malachium)’, Lith. núokana ‘a poisonous plant of the carrot family (Cicuta)’, Lith. KEYWORDS: phytonym, submorph, semanteme, homophone, karmadhāraya compound, associative, appellative. KEYWORDS: phytonym, submorph, semanteme, homophone, karmadhāraya compound, associative, appellative. Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 137 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS padaukas ‘orange-cap boletus (Leccinum aurantiacum)’, Lith. pasienis ‘a plant of the daisy family, cat’s ear (Hypochoeris)’ / Lith. posaūnis ‘cat’s ear (Hypochoeris)’, Lith. póminis ‘fescue (Festuca)’, Lith. pamienis ‘orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)’, Lith. palėpštis / palepštis ‘a perennial ornamental plant of the legume family (Cytisus)’, Lith. dial. paliepa ‘nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus)’, Lith. padraika ‘dodder (Cuscuta), club-moss (Lycopodium), knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare)’, Lith. pãtaisas ‘a spore-bearing perennial forest plant of the club-moss family, with a branched stem and needle-like leaves (Lycopodium)’, Latv. dial. apdzīras / apdziras, apdzires, apdzirenes, apdzīru- / apdzīru-zāles ‘club-moss (Lycopodium)’. ABSTRACT The article deals with the analysis of lexemes’ morphological segmentation peculiarities, i.e. methodology of the submorphs discernment. Also, etymological evaluation of the Eastern Baltic Phytonymes is presented. Determination of the structural verges of morpheme is handled as the essential element, which is of the most importance of the etymological analysis of the words. The morpheme structure is tested in accordance with reconstruction-pragmatic method in opposition to atomistic. Reconstruction of morpheme as formal alternative structural element is based on the semanteme significant value. These phytonyms are analyzed: Lith. pastēnis ‘a plant of a genus decandria digynia (Malachium)’, Lith. núokana ‘cowbane (Cicuta)’, Lith. padaukas ‘orange-cap boletus (Leccinum aurantiacum)’, Lith. pasienis ‘cat’s ear (Hypochoeris)’ / Lith. posaūnis ‘ditto’, Lith. póminis ‘fescue (Festuca)’, Lith. pamienis ‘orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)’, Lith. palēpštis / palepštis ‘broom (Cytisus)’, Lith. dial. paliepa ‘great Indian cress (Tropaeolum majus)’, Lith. padraika ‘dodder (Cuscuta), club-moss (Lycopodium), knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare)’, Lith. pãtaisas ‘club-moss (Lycopodium)’, Latv. dial. apdzīras / apdziras, apdzires, apdzirenes, apdzīru- / apdzīru-zāles ‘club-moss (Lycopodium)’. 0. INTRODUCTION The determination of the ethnic affiliation of words is usually based on the synergetic principle of linguistic research, i.e. it is carried out on the basis of the results of a comparative analysis of formal (establishing the members of a lexical-semantic set in different Indo-European languages) and pragmatic, or derivational (the existence of elements with identical or similar morphological structures), methods. Therefore, when examining lexemes from various morphological-semantic groups (including phytonyms), they are often classified according to a working subclass (primary word, derivative (prefixal, suffixal, inflectional), compound) (see Urbutis 1978: 181–183, 188–194, 249–262, 279–291 for more). Determining the derivational subclass is of decisive importance in establishing a word’s origin (irrespective of the period to whose lexical stratum it belongs), since the morphological and etymological levels are often treated as determinative in some linguistic works (cf. PEŽ III 13; Откупщиков 2006: 216). 138 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Morphological segmentation of Eastern Baltic phytonyms (the problem of ethnic identification of words) Pastaruoju metu publikuota nemaža rašinių (plg. Gliwa 2002, 2009; Gliwa, Stukonis 2008), skirtų baltų fitonimų etimologijai aprašyti, kuriuose leksemų darybinės analizės principai interpretuojami taikant logorėjos principą, mat vietoj detalios struktūrinės žodžio sklaidos pateikiami itin menkai argumentuoti, asociatyvinėmis fonetinių homofonų lyginimo prielaidomis (suponuotomis atomistinio metodo) grįsti lietuvių ir latvių augalų pavadinimų aprašai. 1. LITH. PASTĖNIS ‘PLANT OF THE CARNATION FAMILY (MALACHIUM)’ The phytonym Lith. pastėnis ² ‘plant of the carnation family (Malachium)’ NdŽ, Mt1, LBŽ (LKŽe) is interpreted as a cultural borrowing from the Italic languages and therefore derived from “Late Lat. / It. pasta ‘dough, noodles’” (Gliwa 2009: 87). Such a hypothesis would be entirely acceptable if Italian pasta ‘dough, pasta, pastries; paste; manner, character; (med.) pulp’ reflected a phytonymic connotation. Moreover, Bernd Gliwa’s claim that traces of this borrowing should be sought in Late Latin collections would also be correct if medieval Latin pasta could be linked to the botanical referent in question, but it cannot; cf. Late Lat. pasta (pastum) 108b ‘dough (Pol. cyasto)’ (see Erzepki 1900: 73), ‘dough, mass of dough; paste; stuffed chicken’ (Niermeyer 1976: 770). The denotative value of chickweed (Stellaria) cannot be associated with a customary connotation, since this plant, a member of the carnation-family genus of herbs, is poisonous and has therefore never been used as food (see LTE XII 540; БСЭ IX 422); it is true that it was very rarely used by Eastern Slavs (Russians) (S. graminea) as a medicinal drink for hernia (Анненковъ 1878: 343), yet the name most often refers to poisonous plants: Russian коньский вех (Анненковъ ibd.) ↔ Russian вех ‘water hemlock (Cicuta)’, Russian конобой (← Russian конь ‘horse’ + Russian убой ‘slaughter, cutting’), Russian курья / курячья слѣпота ‘chicken blindness’ (Анненковъ ibd.). The pharmacodynamic effect of this herb is described very clearly in a Russian saying: Уверяют, что коровы траву едят безвредно, пока не коснутся сладкого её корня, от которого одуревают и вскоре околевают Tver (СРНГ IV 207), i.e. They say that the grass does no harm to cows until they taste its sweet root, which makes them delirious and soon causes them to die. The plant’s narcotic effect gave rise to its syntagmatic name Russian пьянная трава ‘intoxicating herb, or narrow-leaved chickweed (S. graminea)’ (Анненковъ ibd.; БСЭ ibd.). 1 The first to record such a botanical term in the work Žolynas. Part II. Dictionary of Lithuanian Plants and Plant Remedies (Vilnius, 1906) was the Kupiškėnai native Povilas Matulionis (for more about him, see LE XVII 527–529); thus, one may suppose that this lexeme could have been used in the Eastern Aukštaitian Kupiškėnai area. Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 139 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Herbs with neurodynamic effects are often named in Lithuanian dialects by compounds of the karmad-hāraya type: in the Lithuanian Kupiškėnai subdialect, dialectal Lith. siùtžolė ‘field mint (Mentha arvensis’² Mt – its preparations were used to calm the nerves and relieve spasms (Gritėnienė 2006: 136), dialectal Lith. pasiùtžolė 1 ‘(bot.) stem-parasitic plant of the dodder family, dodder (Cuscuta)’ J; LBŽ, Lnkv; ‘stem plant of the loosestrife family, purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)’ Mt (LKŽe); ‘galinsoga (Galinsoga (the latter is an introduced plant from the Latin American continent – see Кернеръ фонъ-Марилаунъ II 660; LE VI 495 for more))’ (Gliwa ibd.) (← dialectal Lith. pàsiutas ‘madness, frenzy, wildness’ Pš ↔ dialectal Lith. pasiutỹs 3ᵇ, pasiutìs 3ᵇ ‘same’ Jnšk, Šd, Rm or Lith. siùtas 2 ‘great anger, rage’ NdŽ, Ds, Ps, Vl, Klov, Ll, Žsl, Adm³; ‘fury, frenzy’ Trgn; ‘mischief, romping’ Jd, Kn; ‘great desire’ Slm; ‘rabies’ Ds; ‘a reckless, quick-acting person’ NdŽ, Kp (LKŽe) + Lith. žolė 4 ‘a plant whose above-ground parts are non-woody and die in winter; fodder plants eaten by livestock; plants covering an area, their cover; this plant as a type of fodder; a plant of some practical importance; seeds of various plants; a flower; a weed; medicinal herb; (pl.) infusion or decoction of such medicinal herbs; (pl.) magical remedy; (pl.) plants fit for food; (pl.) plants designated for rituals (LKŽe⁴), whose connotation Aurelia Gritėnienė (2006: 172) apparently interprets incorrectly⁵, since the phytonym’s morphological-semantic structure is motivated not by the functional property ‘a very prolific weed, spreading rapidly and difficult to eradicate’ (Gritėnienė ibd.), but by its pharmacodynamic properties, namely its neurophysiological effect, as livestock became poisoned after eating it (LTE II 250), while a remedy for melancholy was made from small dodder ‘C. epithymum’ (Анненковъ 1878: 118). A phytonym with this morphological structure is also used in the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai area: dialectal Lith. pasiùtžolė ‘a herb resembling a nettle but without stinging hairs; galinsoga (?)’ Guobai (KRŽ II 56). Therefore, one may cautiously suppose that Lith. pastėnis ‘plant of the carnation family (Malachium)’ may be interpreted as a Lithuanian formation derived from *pas-iu-t-enis (with absorption of the root-internal -iu-, cf. dialectal Lith. gyvenà 3ᵃ ‘life, existence’ A 1883, 2 Cf. substantive Lith. siùtžolė 1 ‘(bot.) field mint (Mentha arvensis)’ Mt, NdŽ; ‘henbane (Hyoscyamus)’ rš. (LKŽe). 3 The references to highlighted areal points and written sources (abbreviations) are integral to the distribution of the lexemes under examination within the dialect zone (in terms of localization); that is, words with different morphological structures imply primary and secondary forms in derivational terms. 4 For the determination of the semantic extension of words whose dialectal localization is not informative for the problem under discussion, see LKŽe. 5 Cf. dialectal Lith. p a s i ù t dagis ‘common thornapple (Datura stramonium)’ Krp, p a s i ù t rope ‘same’ Akm; its derivational-semantic structure is determined by the plant’s effect on the human or animal organism; that is, when poisoned by it, “t h e c e n t r a l n e r v o u s s y s t e m i s s t r o n g l y s t i m u l a t e d, a n d t h e p e r s o n b e h a v e s a s i f m a d” (Gritėnienė 2006: 170–171). 140 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) 15, BŽ 142, Ll, Rt, J, Žem; ‘way of life, condition’ Vdk, Up, Pvn, J; ‘life account, biography’ rš. (LKŽe; DünŽ 95) ← Lith. gyvén-sen-a 1 ‘way of life’ BŽ 305, Skd, Šts (LKŽe))⁶ ← Lith. dial. pasiutas ‘madness, frenzy, frolicking’ Pš (↔ Lith. dial. pasiutỹs 3ᵇ, pasiutìs 3ᵇ ‘the same’) + (secondary) suffix *-enjo- (for a fuller discussion of it, see Skardžius I 234–237), and not the name of an Italic pasta—therefore Gliwa’s conjecture of this kind evidently needs fundamental revision. 2. LITH. NÚOKANA ‘(BOT.) A POISONOUS PLANT OF THE UMBELLIFER FAMILY (CICUTA)’ The Lith. niúokana 1 ‘(bot.) a poisonous plant of the Umbellifer family (Cicuta)’ BŽ 99; Mt, rš, LBŽ (LKŽe), the name of a poisonous perennial herb of the Umbellifer family, is mentioned neither in Ernst Fraenkel’s (LEW) nor Wojciech Smoczyński’s (LEŽ) Lithuanian etymological dictionaries; Gliwa (2002: 3) explains it as a derivative of the prefix nuo- and the root -kan-, which, in the conjecture’s author’s view, is implied by the verb Lith. kanóti/kãnōti Brs ‘destroy, kill; torment, torture’ G 89, Arch XVI 395, Jn, J; ‘languish, decline, die’ Pns, Lzd; ‘toil and suffer from hunger and poor clothing’ M, Rmš; ‘eat with appetite, gobble’ Lnkv (LKŽe). The semantic components reconstructed by the hypothesis’s author, *‘what one suffers from’, *‘that which tortures’, are of course semantically plausible as an illustration of the poisonous plant’s connotation. Nevertheless, this conjecture cannot be accepted because it lacks morphological analysis (Gliwa (2002: 3–5) offers as many as three explanations of this phytonym’s origin: 1) prefix nuo- + -kan-; 2) prefix nuo- + -kand- (the latter was proposed following Fraenkel’s particularly unsuccessful attempt (LEW 216) to substantiate the origin of the verb Lith. kanóti (see below)); 3) *nuok- + suffix -an-), which in turn makes the search for a clear etymology of this word necessary). 6 It has hitherto been customary to claim that Lith. dial. gyvenà is a primary deverbal noun derived from the verb Lith. gyvénti ‘to be alive, exist; experience, live through; be in a particular place; have shelter, refuge’ (LKŽe) (see Būga II 68; Skardžius I 229); indeed, Pranas Skardžius (I 548) put forward the weakly supported hypothesis that this verb is a denominative derived from Lith. dial. gyvenà. Such reasoning cannot be accepted for a very simple reason—the extremely limited distribution of Lith. dial. gyvenà versus the very broad area of use of the verb Lith. gyvénti (that is, in all Lithuanian dialects and subdialects (!!!)). It is therefore more reliable to claim that Lith. dial. gyvenà ← Lith. gyvénsena is a reflex of the reflexive form *gyvenā-si (cf. Lith. dial. mùšenos ‘beating oneself’ < *mušenā-si (Skardžius I 229)); the absorbing form Lith. dial. gyvenà cannot in any way be explained as the base of the verb Lith. gyvénti, since the latter is a denominative derived from the adjective Lith. gývas, -à 3 ‘having life, living, not dead; not sleeping, awake, risen’ (LKŽe; for its origin, see LEW 154–155), that is, a denominative sememe ‘to be alive’ must be posited for the verb; compare examples of an identical derivational model: adj. Lith. graudùs, -ì 4 ‘moving, impoverished, sad, pitiful; fierce, angry; unpleasant, stern; cruel’ (LKŽe) → verb Lith. graudénti ‘sadden, impoverish; pity, regret; threaten, intimidate; complain, lament, bewail, regret; threaten; thunder lightly, rumble; harden, make firm’ and so on (see Skardžius I 549). Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 141 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS On the basis of a reconstruction of the working category of the lexeme’s structural base, this noun may be hypothesized to be a verbal abstract (nomen actionis), which over time acquired, through semantic concretization, the characteristic meaning nuance of a nomen abstractum; cf. Lith. dial. kānas 2, 4 ‘one who is miserly, a stingy, greedy person; an end’ (LKŽe) → Lith. nuo-kana *‘that which causes death’ (as in Lith. dial. núo-maras 1 ‘(med.) a nervous disease, epilepsy’ (LKŽe) ↔ Lith. māras 4 ‘a highly contagious epidemic disease (pestis); an epidemic of this disease; d e a t h, d y i n g’ (LKŽe; Skardžius I 442, 454)), that is, the structural component of the derivative, namely the prefix nuo-, determined the shift in its working meaning. The aforementioned noun Lith. kanas ‘end, death’, which gave rise to the noun Lith. kanybà ‘a withered, skinny person’ J II 28 (Skardžius (I 92) was uncertain about its origin), apparently cannot be connected either with the verb Lith. kąsti ‘grasp, press, injure with the teeth; cut; sting; eat, nibble; devour; sting; gnaw’ (LKŽe), or with the verb Lith. kęsti ‘feel, experience pain, discomfort, hardship, suffer; be patient, wait; endure, withstand, bear’ (LKŽe) (LEW 214–215; Gliwa ibid.), since it reflects a defective form with the root -pa- absorbed: noun Lith. kāpas 4 ‘a place where a dead person is buried; a mound of earth heaped up at that place; the top of a pit, a mound’ (LKŽe; for its origin, see PEŽ I 270–271) + suffix -ana- > Lith. dial. kāpana ‘fading, perishing’ Ls (LKŽe) / Lith. dial. kāpanos ‘death, fear’ Rumbonys (Alytus district) (see Skardžius I 228), cf. verb Lith. kâpanoti / kapanóti ‘move one’s arms and legs while lying down in an attempt to free oneself, escape; struggle; work hard; walk with difficulty, dig one’s way; be very ill, be at death’s door; die, perish, expire’ (LKŽe; Skardžius I 505). Thus Lith. núokana (< prefix nuo- + ka-pa-na ‘end, death’) is not a deverbal noun but a denominative, implying the protosememe *‘that which brings about death, i.e. a death plant’. 3. LITH. PADUKAS ‘ORANGE-CAP BOLETE (LECCINUM AURANTIACUM)’ Gliwa (2009: 87) derives the noun Lith. padaukas ‘orange-cap bolete (Leccinum aurantiacum)’ (LBŽ 466) from the verb Lith. padūkti, although he observes: ‘Die Übertragung des Begriffs auf den Pilz ist nicht sonderlich plausibel [...]’. When explaining the origin of late Lithuanian neologisms—such as, evidently, the mushroom name under discussion—one of the factors that should predispose the argumentation is semantic motivation; without it, every conjecture, even the most elaborate, can be treated as an example of casuistic analysis. The name of this fungonym is clearly motivated by its working base, namely Lith. (loanword) padálka (< Pol. podolek, Belarusian надалак) 1 ‘the lower edge of a garment, hem, facing (↔ ‘lower hem’ (Skardžius I 161)); the lower part of an old-style women’s shirt, its skirt; a board attached at a slant to the wall of a building’ (i.e. Lith. 142 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) dial. padálkas 1 ‘the lower edge of a garment, hem, facing’) ↔ *padauka7 (with -al- > -au-; such alternation is particularly characteristic of borrowings, cf. Lith. kalniėrius (< 1e. kol-nierz) 2 [K], J, kalniėrius 1 ‘collar’ ↔ Lith. dial. kauniėrius 2 ‘ditto’ (LKŽe; Zinkevičius 1966: 164) < Balt. кауне́р; Lith. kaldrà (< 1e. kołdra) 4 Krok, 2 NdŽ ‘bedcover, coverlet, blanket’ (resp. kaldra) ↔ Lith. dial. kaudrà ‘cover, quilted blanket’ < Balt. кой́дра, but this also occurs in inherited vocabulary: Lith. alka ‘sacrifice’ / alkas ‘temple, wooded hillock’ ↔ Lith. aukà, aukas ‘ditto’ (for more examples, see Zinkevičius 1966: 102, 164) (for Lith. aukà, see Mažiulis 2008: 92) ↔ adj. Lith. dial. padurkìnis, -ė 2 ‘with a padurkas, lengthened with a padurkas’ K I 608 (LKŽe), subst. Lith. dial. padurkìniai ‘short shirts subsequently lengthened’ Nč (Skardžius I 252), i.e. the form adj. Lith. dial. (borrowed) *padalkinis ‘uneven (wrinkled, because pieced together) like a padurkas’ > subst. Lith. dial. (borrowed) *padaukas ‘a mushroom with an uneven, wrinkled stem’, since the red-capped bolete’s “stem is shaggy” (LTE IX 343). Thus, it can cautiously be conjectured that this phytonym belongs to the lexical group of Slavic borrowings and the derivational group of denominal formations. 4. LITH. PASIENIS ‘(BOT.) A PLANT OF THE COMPOSITE FAMILY, CAT’S-EAR (HYPOCHOERIS)’, LITH. POSAĪNIS ‘(BOT.) CAT’S-EAR (HYPOCHOERIS)’ The attempt to explain the origin of the phytonyms Lith. pasienis, posainis (see Gliwa 2009: 87–88) may be called a linguistic curiosity, since the words are analyzed using an atomistic method of analysis. Consequently, the errors of the LKŽ compilers are not corrected, while casuistic descriptions are provided not only of Baltic but also of Greek lexemes. It is clear even to a non-specialist that 7 Cf. Lith. dial. padaukas ‘footwrap’ (< Lith. dial. padalkas ‘the lower edge of a garment, hem, facing’), which the LKŽ compilers apparently mistakenly linked with Lith. dial. padaukas ‘mischievous person, rascal’ (a deverbal formation from the verb Lith. padūkti ‘to go mad, become enraged’), since it cannot be compared semantically with the latter—the denotative and connotative values of these lexemes do not correspond; the secondary -au- in Lith. dial. padaukas replacing the borrowing’s original -al- is illustrated by the numerous phraseological examples given in LKŽe: į padaukùs eiti ‘to go to ruin, end, disappear’; nè padauko (nebeliko, neberado) ‘not a trace, not a whiff’; padaukais eiti (išeiti, nueiti) ‘to go to ruin’; padaukais nueiti (išeiti) ‘to vanish, go away’; padaukais nunešti ‘to make disappear’; po padaukais ‘(curse) to hell’, i.e. the phrase Lith. dial. padalkais išeiti ‘to become impoverished’ (resp. the synonymous idiom ubagais išeiti) presupposes Lith. dial. padáuka 1 ‘vagrant’ as a derivational-semantic blend of two Lithuanian words: Lith. dial. padalkas ‘footwrap’ or ‘lower part of a garment’ and Lith. dial. padaukas ‘mischievous person, rascal’. Thus, the pejorative connotation of Lith. dial. padáuka 1 ‘vagrant’ is determined not by the characteristics of the referent’s behavior (resp. frolicking, wildness, since someone who frolics is not a vagrant), but by social status, one designatum of which is old, patched clothing. Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 143 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS subst. Lith. pasienis ‘(bot.) a plant of the composite family, cat’s-ear (Hypochoeris)’ LBŽ, Mt (LKŽe), apparently cannot be linked with subst. Lith. pasienis 1, pãsienis 1 ‘a place by a wall inside a room or outdoors; the outskirts, borderland of a country’ (LKŽe), although this is what the LKŽ indicates, since their referential connotations differ: this plant was not a valuable fodder plant, nor succulent, dense, or resembling a mass of densely growing plants (a wall⁸), but rather a dry-forest herb of the composite family (Compositae)—spotted cat’s-ear (H. maculata) or hairy cat’s-ear (H. radicata)—a yellow-flowered plant of upland meadows, woodland edges, and thickets (see LE V 317). Thus, the dry herb apparently cannot be associated with a wall or any object denoting a boundary. The origin of the name of this plant—an associative (for the term, see Bussmann 2006: 101; Crystal 2008: 41, 349)—is apparently not particularly complicated; it is motivated by its hyperonymic phytonym, i.e. subst. Lith. džiugūnė ‘(bot.) a genus of plants of the composite family (Hypochoeris)’ P, LBŽ (LKŽe), which should be derived not from the verb Lith. džiaugtis ‘to feel joy, to rejoice’ and related forms (LKŽe) (resp. Lith. dial. džiūgas ‘one who is quick to rejoice at something’ ↔ džiugà ‘joy; one who is quick to rejoice at something’ (LKŽe)), as Gliwa claims (ibid.), citing as an incorrect semantic-derivational counterpart Greek ὑποχαίρειν ‘to rejoice moderately, be glad’, Greek ὑποχολoίς ‘a plant of the chicory (Cichorium) genus’ (LS 1644), which are not genetically related, contrary to Gliwa’s assertion (see below), but from subst. Lith. dial. džiūgas ‘a Žemaitian zigzag fence made from branched spruce saplings’ (LE V 316) ← Lith. *džiu-ža-gas ‘ditto’ (with absorption of the radical -ža- of the second component; shortening of -ū- following the elimination of -ža-, or semantic-derivational neutralization of the components) < *džiūt-žagas ‘ditto’ (for a derivational counterpart, cf. subst. Lith. mėšla-minỹs ‘horse (that treads much manure)’—see Skardžius I 435) ← verb Lith. džiūti ‘to become dry, dry out; harden through loss of juice; disappear through evaporation; wither, weaken, diminish, die (of plants); become thin, dwindle; suffer from tuberculosis’ (LKŽe) + subst. Lith. žãgas 4 ‘a large heap of hay, straw, or grain stacked outdoors, a stack, rick; (pl.) a large quantity, multitude of something; a roof raised on poles under which hay, straw, etc. are stored; a pile of firewood, rods, etc.; a hayrack; a rick; a jointing of rafters; a thick branch, twig, dry branch; a barrier made of trees and branches; a sizable twig, brushwood’ (LKŽe) (cf. Lith. dial. žãgaras 3ᵇ ‘a leafless small branch, brushwood’ (KRŽ II 524), i.e. Lith. džiugūnė presupposes the sememe ‘dry, dried-up (or prone to drying) herb’ (which is why it is identified as a dry-forest herb, as noted above), not ‘cheerful herb’—precisely the connotation Gliwa assigns to this plant. Thus, it can cautiously be conjectured that Lith. pasienis also reflects the hyperonymic referent and its connotation: *pasie-ty-nis ‘such as a sietynas’ or ‘dry, dried-up herb = džiugūnė’ < pref. pa- + subst. Lith. sietýnas 1 ‘an ornament made of straw; 8 Cf. the semantic extension of Lith. siena 1: ‘a vertical part of a building; its interior or exterior surface; (figurative, plural) a building, institution; a high barrier, partition; the vertical side surface of something; a foundational part; a dense, close row of something; a unit of cloth length (four warp posts); the length of cloth; a sign marking the weaving walls; a boundary ridge, border; the boundary of a state, country, or region’ (LKŽe). 144 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) ‘a herb growing along riverbanks’, implying the connotation of a d r y p l a n t or d r y h e r b, cf. We need, when the river has frozen over, to mow a haystack of s i e t y n a s, then in winter there will be something to spread under the sledges Btrm (LKŽe), i.e. a ‘bedding’ sememe is to be assumed: Lithuanian dial. kél­tuoas 1 ‘cattle, animal’ ↔ kél­tuva 1, keltuõ 3ᵃ ‘cattle, animal’ (sing. collect.) herd of cattle, drove, cattle; working animal; (abusive) animal’ (LKŽe). The noun Lithuanian posainis 2 ‘(bot.) dandelion (Hypochoeris)’ NdŽ; LBŽ (LKŽe) is also an associative form, apparently derivationally and semantically linked to the noun Lithuanian džiugūnė through its hyperonymic referent, the noun Lithuanian dial. džiugas ‘a Žemaitian wattle f e n c e, made by fencing with branched spruce saplings’, i.e. a ‘fencing, weaving’ sememe is to be assumed. Therefore the form *p o - s u - k a i n i s ‘that which is stuck in, woven, fenced’ is to be reconstructed (< prefix po- + Lithuanian dial. verb sukáinoti ‘to tangle, entangle’ Brž, Ppl, J ↔ Lithuanian dial. verb káinioti ‘to stick in, weave, fence (roughly, temporarily, poorly)’ Er, Bsg; ‘to stuff wall crevices with moss, tow, or something else’ BŽ 208; ‘to get tangled, become interwoven’ Brž; ‘to associate, be friendly’ J; ‘to be ill, feel unwell’ Grg (LKŽe) – the derivational connection of this verb with botanical nomenclature is attested in LKŽ, cf. the Lithuanian noun k a i n ė ‘(bot.) Coremium’ Mt (LKŽe), i.e. the fungus-feeding part, formed by a cluster of conidiophores) → *po-sainis ‘the same’ (with -uk- a b s o r p t i o n). Regarding the etymological relationship between Greek ὑποχαίρειν ‘to rejoice moderately, be glad’ and Greek ὑποχοιρίς ‘a plant of the chicory (Cichorium) genus’ (LS 1644), it can be stated that these lexemes have nothing in common except the prefix ὑπο-, since Greek ὑποχοιρίς derives not from the verb Greek χαίρειν ‘to rejoice, be merry; be satisfied’, but from the noun Greek χόιρος ‘pig; piglet’, as livestock are fed with the roots and leaves of chicory (LS 1732) (LE IV 29). Having translated this Greek term morpheme by morpheme, the Slavs use several words that reflect the zoonymic morphological-semantic structure of the phytonym: Russian dial. рыло свиное трава ‘Cichorium Intybus L.’ (Анненковъ 1878: 98); therefore Russian dial. свинникъ, поросятникъ ‘Hypochoeris’ (Анненковъ 1878: 173) should be treated not as conventional, but as hybrid cultural calques reflecting the morphological-semantic structure of Greek ὑποχοιρίς (← prefix ὑπο- ‘to express a possessive connotation’ + Greek χόιρος ‘pig; piglet’). 5. LITH. PÓMINIS ‘(BOT.) FESCUE (FESTUCA)’ Lithuanian póminis 1 ‘(bot.) fescue (Festuca)’ NdŽ; Mt, LBŽ (LKŽe) is explained (Gliwa 2009: 83) as a deverbal (from the Lithuanian verb minti ‘to press with the feet, trample; to set down a foot, stand, support oneself on one’s feet; to separate flax from shives; to process, soften; to press a footboard, treadle; to go, walk’ (DLKŽ⁵), Latvian mīt ‘to tread, trample, stomp’); the meaning ‘p l a n t r e s i s t a n t t o t r a m p l i n g’ is assumed. Gliwa’s explanation would be more convincing if the author of this conjecture supplied examples of phytonyms of the relevant derivation (pre- Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 145 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS fixed verbal derivatives (!!!)), which, based on Skardžius’s analysis of prefixed derivatives (I 442, 446), should reflect one of three semantic types: 1) nomina resultati (acti); 2) nomina actionis; 3) nomina agentia. Unfortunately, the Lithuanian deverbal forms cited by Gliwa as supposedly cognate imply either nomen resultati (acti) with a causative connotation, ‘a plant that is trodden (one that should be trodden on) / trampled, crushed underfoot / softened, etc.’ (cf. Lithuanian mỹnė ‘flax to be trodden’), i.e. the sememe *‘that which should be trampled, softened’ is to be reconstructed; or nomina actionis: Lithuanian mỹnė ‘flax-treading’; linamynis ‘the same’, pa-myna / pamina ‘Holzteil, das die Füße einer Bank verbindet, Schemel, Stufe; Trift, vom Vieh zertrampelte Stelle’), and not the conjecture’s author’s reconstructed sememe with the contrasting connotation *‘a plant resistant to trampling’; that is, the plant should be associated not with the connotatum ‘resistant to trampling’, but with the meaning ‘easily trampled’. Gliwa does not explain at all the origin of the inflectional form –is, which is not so insignificant that it can be left aside. If the explanation of the word’s origin given by the author of the aforementioned conjecture were correct, the stem form would be expected to reflect the connotation of nomina loci, cf. Lithuanian mỹnė ‘bog, Schwingrasen’ (see also Skardžius I 450; for more on the relationship between ē-stems and i̯ō-stems, see Endzelīns 1957: 64–65; Endzelīns 1951: 425–426; PEŽ II 17; Kregždys 2010a: 65). The interpretation of the root vowel raises even more doubts: Gliwa (Gliwa, Stukonis 2008: 66; Gliwa 2009: 83) reconstructs the form *pa-mynis, supposedly with the root *-y- original, in place of a secondary shortened -i-. A shortcoming of Gliwa’s hypothesis is the lack of phonological analysis of South Žemaitian Varniškiai forms with the prefix po- (Laurynas Ivinskis, born in Bimbalų village, Užventis parish, near Klovainiai, was a representative of this dialect zone (LE IX 198)), although Vytautas Vitkauskas has compiled a dictionary of a closely related northeastern dialect of the Žemaitian Dūnininkai dialect area—the Eastern Varniškiai dialect (DūnŽ). This dialect area is characterized by a development opposite to the one claimed by Gliwa, namely, lengthening of the vowel (of the post-prefix radial element po-) in an unstressed position—qualitative defonologization is to be assumed—vowel l e n g t h e n i n g⁹ (X), or the retention of a long (Y) or short (Z) vowel in an unstressed position: Lithuanian dial. (Žem.) pódūkraY ‘stepdaughter’ (DūnŽ 273), cf. the Lithuanian noun pód ukrė ‘stepdaughter’ (DūnŽ ibid.) ↔ Lithuanian dukrà 2/4, dūkrà 2 ‘daughter’, etc. (LKŽe); pópūtisX ‘a person very susceptible to illness, a frail person’ (DūnŽ 275) ← Lithuanian dial. (Žem.) noun pópa ‘wound’ (DūnŽ ibid.) + Lithuanian diminutive suffix -ūtjō- > the Lithuanian noun pópūtis ‘a frail person who quickly gets cold and quickly warms up’ (see Skardžius I 362–363, 451)¹⁰; Lithuanian noun ⁹ Such developments should not be associated with ablaut forms: Lithuanian dial. (Žem.) adjective póbùgštis, -ė ‘somewhat timid, rather fearful’ (DūnŽ 273) ↔ Lithuanian dial. (Žem.) verb baugšténti ‘to frighten’ (DūnŽ 43) ↔ Lithuanian dial. (Žem.) pabūgimas ‘fright, fear’ (DūnŽ 55). ¹⁰ The compilers of LKŽ apparently erroneously treat the form with a long root vowel as primary, listing it first alongside the root-vowel variants with a short vowel, cf. Lithuanian dial. noun pópūtis 1, pópūtis 1, poputỹs 3ᵃ ‘blister, boil; abscess, sore; a frail, sensitive person’ (LKŽe). 146 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) dial. (Samogitian) póbėgisY ‘a quick walk, running, etc.’ (DūnŽ 272) ↔ Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) bė́gimas ‘ditto’ (DūnŽ 44); adj. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) pódrūktis, –ėY ‘rather stout, thick’ (DūnŽ 273) ↔ adj. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) drūktas ‘thick, healthy, strong, etc.’ (DūnŽ 76); adj. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) pógudris, –ėZ ‘rather clever’ (DūnŽ 273) ↔ adj. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) gùdras ‘intelligent, clever’ (DūnŽ 104); adj. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) póilgis, –ėZ ‘rather long (of an object’s length); lasting rather long’ (DūnŽ 273) ↔ subst. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) ilg-liežùvis ‘one who gossips’ (DūnŽ 107); adj. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) pólytotas, –aY ‘rather rainy’ (DūnŽ 274) ↔ adj. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) lýtotas ‘rainy’, subst. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) lytùs ‘rain’ (DūnŽ 179); adj. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) pósūris, –ėY ‘rather salty’ (DūnŽ 276), pósūrokas, –aY ‘ditto’ ↔ subst. Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) sūrimas ‘salty food’ (DūnŽ 359). Thus, it can be concluded that in this dialect zone there is a tendency in post-stressed syllables to lengthen short vowels rather than shorten long ones¹¹. Therefore, the reconstructed proto-form *pamynis proposed by Gliwa (Gliwa, Stukonis 2008: 66; Gliwa 2009: 83) apparently never existed. For this reason, no genetic connections can be discerned with the nominal forms used by the eastern Varniai dialect speakers: mynė ‘flax being trodden; peat being trampled and pressed’, mynėjas, –a ‘one who kneads, tramples (clay); one who treads flax’, mýnimas ‘trampling, treading; breaking (flax)’ and the verb mýnioti ‘to trample’ (DūnŽ 200–201). Because of the mismatch between the derivational and semantic patterns (assuming Gliwa’s hypothesis), these words should apparently be derived not from a verbal proto-form but from a nominal one (see also Kregždys 2010a: 55–56). Nor should we ignore the highly significant physiological fact concerning the perennial grasses of the family Poaceae designated by the phytonym Festuca: these plants thrive only in wet places (LTE III 367 (eračiny- nai (Festucetum sabulosae, Hieracio-Festucetum arenariae and others) are even found on the Lithuanian coast, although they are now very rare (Balevičienė 1995: 52–53))), and do not tolerate drought (БСЭ XVIII 278). Two etymological approaches are possible (the first would explain Ivinskis’s neologism, the second would substantiate an inherited form), although they are genetically related: 1) from the Lithuanian (Samogitian) place name Pomerie (= Pamirinijes) Rt ‘6 localities by the Minija River, west of Žarėnai and north of Rietavas’ (see Būga I 232), i.e. place name *Paminijys ‘locality by the Minija River’ > *Paminys ‘ditto’ (with absorption of –ij–; cf. the Lithuanian hydronym Paneržys < *Pa-ne-ve-ržys (Vanagas 1981: 244); see also Крегждис 2009: 280–281) > Lithuanian dialectal place name (Samogitian) *Pominys; cf. Lithuanian pa-ežerys ‘place by a lake’ ↔ Lithuanian (Samogitian) place name Póžerė ‘village near Tauragė’ (see Otręb ski 1966: 327–328; Zinkevičius 1966: 130; Kregždys 2010: 209) → (common noun) Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) pominis *‘plant growing on a riverbank or in wet places’; 11 The convergent process ǔ:ū or ī:ī in this dialect area took place in the pre-stress syllable (see Zinkevičius 1966: 491). Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 147 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS 2) Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) póminis *‘plant growing in wet places’ < Lithuanian *po-ne-minis ‘ditto’ (with absorption of -ne- owing to the repetition of phonologically identical syllables, i.e. -ne-…-ni-; -i- < -u- through regressive assimilation; cf. the etymology of a hydronym whose origin has so far been considered unclear: Lithuanian Minià river, Skdv, Minija ‘right tributary of the Nemunas’, Minė river, Grg, and others < *Ne-mun-ija (aphaeresis12 due to the repetition of ne…ni (apparently owing to the principle of linguistic economy); -u-…-i- > -i-…-i- (regressive assimilation) < Lithuanian hydronym Nẽmunas river, Kn + Lithuanian suffix -ija (this type of hydronym formation is very common in the Lithuanian area; cf. Káln-ija lake, Ds ← Lithuanian kálnas; Kaltān-ija lake, Klm ← Lithuanian personal name Káltanas, etc. (Bilkis 2008: 204–205))13)14 < subst. Lithuanian *po-ne-munis ‘ditto’ (substantivization) < adj. Baltic *nemuna- ‘characterized by a wet place’ (see PEŽ III 177) > Lithuanian nemùnė 2 Ds, nemunė 3b Pn, Lkm, nẽmunė 1 Gdr, Vdšk; LBŽ ‘(bot.) honey fungus (Anmillaria mellea)’ Grv, Brsl, Pbs, Dglš, Slk, Ut, Ds (LKŽe) ↔ ‘bud fungus growing in wet places’ (PEŽ III 177) (for the semantic motivation, cf. Lithuanian personal names Nẽmunis Vkš, Nemùnis Jnš, Pš, Žg, Nemunis V (LPŽ II: 319) ← Lithuanian hydronym Nẽmunas river, Kn, i.e. the sememe ‘living by the Nemunas’ is to be reconstructed; cf. Lithuanian personal names Nemunėlis Zp / Nemunáitis Luk ‘ditto’ (Butkus 1995: 322)15). It is plausible that the analogical factor may have influenced the emergence of inflectional -is, namely, association with Lithuanian dial. (Samogitian) upìs ‘river’, used in the northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga areas (see Skardžius I 54); the southern Samogitian Varniai area, from which Ivinskis came, borders on the latter. It is precisely to him that Gliwa attributes authorship of this word. Gliwa’s attempt to connect Lithuanian póminis 1 ‘(bot.) fescue (Festuca)’ NdŽ; Mt, LBŽ (LKŽe) with the phytonym Lithuanian pamienis ‘(bot.) orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)’ LBŽ, recorded by Jonas Staugaitis, a Western Highlander (born in Štratai village (also known as Omentiškiai) (LE XXVIII 474–475)), P. Snar (LKŽe), is highly questionable not only because the plants are botanically distinct: fescue grows in very wet places, whereas orchard grass grows only in moderately wet places (see below); that is, these words designate entirely 12 The same change apparently also finds expression in the Lithuanian personal name Vėžinis V <? *Ne-vėžinis ‘one who lived or originated near the Nevėžis’, i.e. it should be treated as a hydronymic common noun (its origin is otherwise explained in LPŽ II 1201); Ulìnskas/Ulìnskas Šl, Alvt, etc. <? *Šia-ulinskas ‘originating from or living in Šiauliai’ (otherwise LPŽ II 1100); Pedìšius Šmn / Pedìšius Skp <? *Klai-pedìšius ‘originating from Klaipėda’, cf. Lithuanian personal name Klaipėdùkas ‘ditto’ (Butkus 1995: 265) 13 Vanagas (1981: 217) offers a wholly different and semantically unmotivated account of this hydronym’s origin. 14 Also compare (progressive assimilation) the Lithuanian personal name Nemenìūnas Snt ↔ Lithuanian personal name Nemanìūnas Šln, Tt (LPŽ II 317–318). 15 Therefore, the Lithuanian personal names Minìotas, Miniótas, Minìotas, Miniotas, etc. (LPŽ II: 251), are apparently of common-noun origin, i.e. they should be associated with the Lithuanian hydronyms Minià river, Skdv, Mìnija, Minė river, Grg, and others (on these, see Vanagas 1981: 217), rather than the Lithuanian verb miñti ‘to bear in mind, think, etc.’ (for further discussion, see LPŽ II 249); cf. also the Lithuanian personal name Giniõtas < Lithuanian hydronym Gin- (-upis river, Gdž), (Prieš-) -ginis river, Kbr (on these, see Vanagas 1981: 116), Gin-auka lake, Dūk. (Bilkis 2008: 252) + Lithuanian suffix -ot- (see Skardžius I 344). 148 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) different species of herbaceous plants, but also because of their etymology—their origins are entirely different: Lith. pamienis ‘orchard grass’ < *pa-ka-mienis (with absorption of radical -ka-, cf. Lith. lajà ‘the entirety of a tree’s branches and leaves, crown’ DŽ, rš, P. Snar (LKŽe) < Lith. la-pi-jà ‘leaves of trees and plants, the totality of leaves’ K; R 213, K I 96, J, rš, Šv, Vrb, V. Piet, ‘a place where there are many leaves’ Tv (LKŽe)—for further discussion, see Kregždys 2009: 120–122; Крэгждис 2009: 280–281; Kregždys 2010b: 100, 106), i.e. pref. pa- + Lith. subst. kamiẽnas 1 ‘trunk or stem of a plant or tree’ Š; M, S. Dauk., Mair., A. Vien., J, Sdk, Vv, BsP IV 143, BsMt I 71; ‘thick end, butt’ J; ‘(anat.) trunk (Truncus arteriosus)’ NdŽ ↔ kamiẽna 1 ‘trunk or stem of a plant or tree’ J; C II 1152, K. Būg (Ds) (LKŽe). Orchard-grass names with identical semantic value are used in East Slavic languages: Russian dialectal купкова ‘Dactylis glomerata L.’ (Анненковъ 1878: 121) <? *куп-ин-кова-я, cf. Russian dialectal ку́пуна ‘a mound overgrown with moss or grass’ Pskov, Smolensk (СРНГ XVI 101); Russian dialectal палочник ‘orchard grass’ (Анненковъ 1878: 122), cf. Russian dialectal па́лочник ‘young woodland cut for sticks and poles’ (СРНГ XXV 175) ↔ Russian dialectal палочная трава ‘orchard grass’ (Анненковъ 1878: 121). The emergence of such connotations was determined by the habitat and symbiotic characteristics of orchard grass—this grass grows only in shady places, at forest margins, in woodland, and in clearings, that is, wherever there are trees (БСЭ XV 486). The hydrolocal origin of this phytonym can be argued for on the basis of East Slavic associative forms, which have not yet been examined or compared with their Baltic-language equivalents (cf. Меркулова 1967; Преображенский I 568; ЭССЯ XX 191–193). Meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis Huds.) ↔ eraičìnas, eraičýnas ‘(bot.) a forage grass of the grass family (Festuca)’ (LKŽe)) was called Russian dialectal мурогъ in the Mogilev region of Russia (Анненковъ 1878: 144). In other Russian dialects the word denotes other plants and botanical objects: Russian dialectal му́рог / муро́г / муро́к ‘knotgrass’ (Polygonum aviculare L.); a plant of the buckwheat family’ Bryansk; мург полевой ‘yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris Mill.)’ (this plant cannot be associated with flax and its processing, since it is a weed growing along roadsides (БСЭ XVIII 278)—for this reason, it was apparently given this name (see below)) Voronezh; муро́к ‘moss used to caulk gaps in huts’ Tambov; муро́к ‘grass’ (cf. Весь мурок пожелтел, все вытоптали) Sverdlovsk; муро́г ‘dense grass growing along the edges of village lanes’ Bryansk; мурог ‘short, fine grass; young grass’ Tobolsk, Bryansk, муро́к ‘lush young grass’ Arkhangelsk; муро́г ‘sod’ Pskov etc., му́рог ‘green meadow’ Bryansk, муро́г ‘the same’ Tyumen, ‘meadowland’ Arkhangelsk, ‘meadow, stubble field’ southern and western regions of Russia (СРНГ XVIII 358). These words are derived from the hydroleXeme noun Balto-Slavic *mãura- ‘mud’ (masculine; Reinhold Trautmann (1923: 172) divides this form into two separate forms, Balto-Slavic *mãura- ‘mud’ and Balto-Slavic *mãurā- ‘grass, sod’)) > Lith. mãuras 3, 1, mãuras 4 ‘(bot.) aquatic plant, duckweed (Lemna); silt, mud’ etc., adjective Lith. mūras, Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 149 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS –à 4 ‘wet, waterlogged’, noun Lith. mùras ‘soaked, waterlogged ground’ (LKŽe), Latvian murît ‘to make muddy, smear’ (ME II 670), Polish muł ‘a slippery, viscous layer of rock and organic remains at the bottom or shore of a body of water; silt; bog’ (SPW XV 173; Brückner 1957: 348) (< West Slavic *maula- (Trautmann ibd.)) < adjective Indo-European dialectal *měu-l / rō- ‘slippery; soaked’ < verb Indo-European *meu- / *meų̯ə- (*mū-) ‘to rub away, wash off (with water)’ (IEW 741–742), which is cognate with the verb Indo-European *mer- / *mṛ- ‘to soak (with water)’ (see PEŽ III 134; IEW 735–736) → verb Indo-European *merk- (with determinative *-k-) ‘the same’ > Balto-Slavic *měŕk- / *mìŕk- ‘the same’ (PEŽ ibd.; IEW 739–740; see also Urbutis 1972: 212; Фасмер III 10–11; ЭССЯ XX 191–193)). Another particularly important example illustrating this hypothesis is Russian dialectal вожец ‘Festuca pratensis’ Arkhangelsk (Анненковъ ibd.) ~ ‘Festuca Fenas Lag.’ (СРНГ V 12) < Russian dialectal *вож-[i]-(н)ец ‘the same’ < adjective Old Church Slavonic воднъ ‘of water, aquatic’ (on this, see Miklosich 1977: 70) + Slavic suffix (noun-forming) -ъу- (on this, see Селищев 1952: 60; Хабургаев 1974: 199–200) (regarding absorption of -n-: Russian dialectal -д- + -и- /i/ + -ец (in accordance with Slavic *di > East Slavic /ж/ (< *d’ž) (see Хабургаев 1974: 153; Пивторак 1988: 134)), cf. adjective Russian dialectal вожанный ‘? watery’ (Вожаный горох. Холодный гороховый суп, разведенный квасом) (СРНГ V 9–10). Thus, it may cautiously be conjectured that the hydronymic associative form, reflecting the plant’s place of growth, is the oldest (an indisputable argument for this hypothesis is Russian dialectal мур ‘mould’ Voronezh (Даль II 359), which presupposes a substratal hydro-foric reference, since mould grows only in very damp places (LE XXII 263)). Other names for this plant subsequently arose, based on its mode of growth, structure, customary value, and other features: Russian dialectal метла ‘broom (Festuca elatior, rubra)’, манна луговая ‘the same’ etc. (for further discussion, see Анненковъ ibd.). 5.1. Semantic and Derivational Motivation of Phytonyms with the Prefix pa- / po- This type of derivation, in which plant names with the prefix pa- / po- are motivated by their location, is common among Lithuanian phytonyms (especially myconyms) (these are not artificial botanical terms, but words used in dialects); it can be divided into two subgroups—primary locational reference (1—the semantic motivation is determined by the primary referent’s place of growth, i.e. a paragenetic association) and associative, or secondary, locational reference (2—the semantic motivation is determined by growth at the primary referent’s place or by its absentive conception): 1) Lith. paálksnė 2 ‘(bot.) woolly milkcap, bearded milkcap (Lactarius torminosus); northern milkcap, grey milkcap (Lactarius trivialis)’ ↔ ‘a place beneath an alder’ (LKŽe); Lith. paąžuolis 2 ‘(bot.) a fungus of the bolete family that grows beneath oaks (Boletus 150 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) luridus); bitter bolete (Boletus felleus); red-capped bolete, red bolete (Boletus versipellus’ (= Lith. paąžuolė 2 ‘the same’), i.e. ‘a bolete growing near an oak’; Lith. pabėržis 1 ‘(bot.) birch bolete (Boletus scaber’ (= Lith. dial. pabėržė 1, paberžė 3b ‘the same; dandelion, russula’), i.e. ‘a mushroom growing alongside birches’; Lith. paliępė 1 ‘(bot.) edible mushroom of the Russula family (Lactarius vellereus)’ (= Lith. dial. paliepis 1 ‘the same’), i.e. ‘a mushroom growing alongside lime trees’; Lith. pakalnutė 2 ‘(bot.) a fragrant, poisonous, medicinal forest and garden flower of the lily family (Convallaria: C. majalis, C. latifolia)’ (LKŽe), i.e. ‘a plant of valleys and edges’ (see BCЭ XIV 146), Lith. pienažolė pajūrinė ‘an herb of the primrose family (Primulaceae), found in wet saline habitats (Glaux maritima)’ (LE XXI 447), cf. Lith. pajūrinis pelėžirnis (Lathyrus maritimus), lie. pajūrinis kadagys (Juniperus conferta) ↔ adj. Lith. pajūrinis, -ė 1, pajūrinis 2 ‘situated, living, growing on the seashore’ (LKŽe); Lith. palazdė 3ᵇ, palazdė 2, pālazdė 1 ‘(bot.) European wild ginger (Asarum europaeum); liverleaf (Anemone hepatica)’ ⇦ Palazdėlės daugiau pakraščiuos (stačiuose šlaituose, atšlaitėse) auga Trgn (LKŽe) ↔ hazel (Corylus), a shrub and tree of the birch family (Betulaceae), growing in ravines (LE XIV 304) or on slopes (see also Gritėnienė 2006: 59); 2) Lith. paalksnė 2 ‘(bot.) a mushroom growing on the cracked bark of an alder trunk, common split gill (Schizophyllum commune)’ (LKŽe); Lith. palazdė ‘toothwort (Lathraea squamaria)’ (KLŽe)—a genus of perennial herbs in the broomrape family, parasitic on the roots of another plant (especially hazel, alder, and lime) (LTE XII 564); ‘sandy bolete (Boletus castaneus)’ (LKŽe) ↔ Lith. smiltė 2 ‘(bot.) a plant of sandy places in the pink family (Arenaria)’ (LKŽe), grows on dry slopes (LE XXVIII 185). The second semantic and derivational type of plant names with the prefix pa- / po- is motivated by formal features—external (physical) properties or conventional (utilitarian) value: 1) lie. pabėržis ‘medlieva (Rhamnus (LTE VII 361 (kaip ir BCЭ X 430) ir LE XVIII 99 šiuo fitonimu (t. y. lie. medlieva) įvardijami skirtingų šeimų augalai, t. y. Amelanchier vulgaris (lie. paprastoji medlieva resp. erškėtinių šeimos krūmų ir neaukštų medžių gentis) ≠ Rhamnus cathartica (lie. dygioji šunobelė resp. šaltekšninių šeimos augalų gentis (LTE XI 15)))’ Mt (= lie. dial. pabėržė ‘t. p.’ Trak); ‘konvalija (Convallaria majalis)’ Rt, pirmasis, matyt, taip vadinamas dėl vienodos abiejų šių medingųjų augalų lapų pigmentacijos (t. y. lapų paviršius tamsus, o apatinė pusė šviesiai balkšvi (žr. BCЭ X 430), o pavasarį medlievos lapai (jei tai Amelanchier vulgaris) būna pasidengę pūkeliais (Кепнеръ фонъ-Марилаунъ I 345), kaip ir beržo (Betula) (LE II 442)) ir labai panašios formos (A. rotundi-folia); gali būti, kad šių augalų sugretinimą lėmė uzualinė vertė (jei medlieva = dygioji šunobelė), mat tiek iš beržo lapų ir pumpurų (LE II 443), tiek iš šunobelės uogų Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 151 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS (Кернеръ фонъ-Марилаунъ II 699); the ‘lily of the valley’ sememe is apparently associated with the arrangement of the inflorescences of this herbaceous plant of the lily family (Liliaceae) (LE XXI 367), or with their vertical inclination, which recalls the drooping of birch branches. Because of this feature, trees of the birch family (Betulaceae) are likened in folk songs to poverty and hardship, with their “drooping, dew-covered twigs” (LE II 443); 2) lie. palėpštis 2 LBŽ, palepštis Mt ‘(bot.) ankštinių šeimos daugiametis dekoratyvinis augalas (Cytisus)’ (LKŽe) < praef. lie. pa- + adj. lie. lėkštas, -à 4 ‘plokščias, plynas, lygus’ (LKŽe) (su p-k- > p-p- dėl tolimesios asimiliacijos), mat šio ankštinių šeimos augalo vaisius – plokščia ankštis (LTE VIII 426); 3) lie. paliepsnis ‘(bot.) toks augalas’ < praef. lie. pa- + subst. lie. liepsnà 4 ‘ugnis, kylanti iš degančio daikto’ ir kt. (LKŽe), plg. lie. liepsnėlė 2 ‘(zool.) nedidelis paukštis giesmininkas raudona krūtine, raudonkrūtinė, raudongurklė (Erithacus rubecula); (bot.) gvaizdikinių šeimos augalas ryškiai spalvotais žiedais, gaisrana (Lychnis)’ (LKŽe; LE XIV 540–541); 4) lie. dial. paliepa ‘(bot.) didžioji nasturtė (Tropaeolum majus)’ (LKŽe), kuris LKŽ sudarytojų klaidingai priskirtas lie. paliepà3b, pãliepa 1 ‘(bot.) atauga, atžala, išauga’ (LKŽe) (< verb. lie. 1. palipti ‘šiek tiek, nedaug lipti; įstengti lipti’; 2. palipti ‘prilipti po apačia’ > subst. lie. liẽptas 2 ‘lenta ar rąstas, perdėtas skersai griovį ar upelį pereiti; prie upės, ežero kranto ant vandens pritaikyta lenta atsistoti, skalbiant ar vandenį semiant’ (LKŽe)) leksiniam semantiniam lizdui: lie. dial. paliepa ‘didžioji nasturtė’ ← *paliep-sn-a (–sn– absorbcija (dėl tokių kitimų plačiau žr. Креждис 2009: 281)) < praef. lie. pa- + subst. lie. liepsnà (žr. ankstesnį tekstą), mat šio augalo žiedai „neretai raudonai šlakuoti, lyg krauju aptaškyti“ (LE XX 23); 5) lie. pósmilgė 1 ‘(bot.) šluotsmilgė (Deschampsia)’; ‘smilguolė (Apera)’; ‘smilgūnė (Eragrostis); lendrūnas (Calamagrostis)’ ↔ pasmilgė ‘(bot.) šluotsmilgė (Deschampsia caespitosa)’ (LKŽe; dar žr. LE XXIII 339; XIV 385–386) < praef. lie. po- (dėl jo žr. Kregždys 2010: 222) + subst. lie. smìlga 1, smilga 4, smilgà 3 ‘(bot.) varpinių šeimos žolė su šluotelės pavidalo žiedynu (Agrostis); kas aukštas ir plonas; miglė (Poa); lendrūnas (Calamagrostis); siauralapė smilga (C. canescens); striepsnė (Melica)’ (LKŽe); 6) Lith. palazdė ‘corydalis (Corydalis cava)’ (LKŽe) ⇦ the fruit of this plant is a capsule (LTE IX: 595), apparently associated with a hazelnut. These examples are also highly important for determining the derivational model of plant names with the prefix pa- / po-—the deadjectival and denominative types are attested, not the deverbal type postulated by Gliwa (!!!), which is illustrated by no examples. This formulation can also be supported by a morphological analysis (see below) of Lithuanian and Latvian phytonymic names that supposedly reflect a verbal derivational base (see Gliwa 2009: 84). 152 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) 6. LITH. PADRAIKA ‘(BOT.) BRANTAS (CUSCUTA); PATAISAS (LYCOPODIUM); RŪGTIS TAKAŽOLĖ (POLYGONUM AVICULARE)’ Lith. padraika ‘(bot.) brantas (Cuscuta); pataisas (Lycopodium); rūgtis takažolė (Polygonum aviculare)’ LBŽ (LKŽe) (substantivization) < prefix Lith. pa- + adjective Lith. draĩkas, -à 4 ‘spread out, slender’ (LKŽe) (like adjective Lith. dialectal (Samogitian) paimlùs, -ì ‘bright-minded, gifted for learning’ (DūnŽ 232) (↔ adjective Lith. imlùs, -ì 4 ‘able to take in, absorb; receptive; capacious’ (LKŽe)), adjective Lith. dialectal (Samogitian) paplókščias, -ia ‘flat’ (DūnŽ 239), etc.), and not directly link it with verb Lith. driė̃kti ‘to extend, pull, drag (something long, pliable, shapeless); to be stretched out; to trail; to fly about scattered; to ruffle, spread; to go, trail along; to strip bark’ or verb Lith. padriė̃kti ‘to spread out; shake; put down untidily, throw down; lie scattered; be stretched out, extend; spread, disseminate; fall and lie down, stretch out; grow, stretch’ (LKŽe), as Gliwa (ibid.) suggests; Lith. šùn-d r a i k a 1, šundraika 1 ‘clubmoss (Lycopodium)’ ↔ šundraikas 1 ‘the same’ was already explained by Kazimieras Būga (RR I 219) as a compound of two nouns (!!). 7. LITH. PĀTAISAS ‘(BOT.) A SPORE-BEARING PERENNIAL FOREST PLANT OF THE CLUBMOSS FAMILY, WITH A BRANCHED STEM AND NEEDLE-LIKE LEAVES (LYCOPODIUM)’ Lith. pãtaisas3ᵇ ‘(bot.) a spore-bearing perennial forest plant of the clubmoss family, with a branched stem and needle-like leaves (Lycopodium)’ Lkm, Kp, Pn, Sv, Brž, Srj, LBŽ, Mlt, Dglš, Trgn, Grl, A. Vien., Ln; ‘(bot.) ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea)’ Jrb, J (LKŽe)¹⁶ has until now been derived from the polysemous verb Lith. tiẽsti17 (cont- 16 Further cf. ō/ā stem alternations (for a fuller discussion of the origins of such morphological variants, see Kregždys 2010: 51–58) the variant noun Lith. pataisà3ᵇ ‘Lycopodium’, used in the area of the Eastern Aukštaitian Utena subdialect. 17 Cf. the semantic range of the verb Lith. tiẽsti: ‘to make straight, straighten, level; pull, lengthen; put, bring closer; give, thrust; make (usually long), lead, lay; make or lead straight, draw; spread, expand, unfold, pull; pull, extend across something, joining two sides; lay on a surface; make, provide bedding, lay (a bed); cover, envelop by spreading out; shake, lay; cover with a layer, lay; extend, stretch’ (cf. (refl.) P a t a i s a i p a r ž e m e t i e s i a s Klt); ‘to be extended, stretched out, lying spread’; soot, carve, chop, cut, strike; lay down, knock over, strike (to the ground); fall, topple, collapse, attack; grow vigorously, shoot up; continue, last; continue, move along; walk, run, drive quickly; work hard, get down to work; pull, tear, sing; be in heat, mate’ (LKŽe). Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 153 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS further—verb Lith. patiẽsti18), as Gliwa (ibid.) claims, although all Lithuanian formations with the root -tais- are derived from a verb with a different ablaut grade, Lith. taisýti19 (see also Smoczyński 2007: 675–676), which posits four sememes capable of accounting for the semantic connotation of the phytonym (see note 19): 1. ‘to treat’, since powder made from the spores of medicinal clubmoss (Lycopodium clavatum) is used to treat diaper rash (see LE XXII 150; also KŠŽ 205); 2. ‘to trail, stretch out’—according to the plant’s morphology, i.e. the sporophyte’s stem runs along the ground, with branches growing upward (LE ibid.); 3. ‘to fall lengthwise, stretch out’ = sememe 2; 4. ‘to adorn, beautify with something’, since the plant is ornamental and used for weaving wreaths (LE ibid.), of which only two (1, 4) are posited for the noun Lith. pãtaisas, since sememes 2 and 3 are not characteristic of the verb Lith. pataisýti20, 18 Cf. the semantic range of the verb Lith. patiẽsti: ‘to make somewhat straighter, straighten; rest after working, stretch oneself, catch one’s breath; stick out, raise, extend; make something long, lay, install; move over, extend across, stretch across something, joining two sides; l a y, s p r e a d o u t, s t r e t c h o u t; put down after spreading out; make a bed; cover, envelop after spreading out; shake, spread out, scatter; become disheveled, spread out; lie over an area, extend, be stretched out; l a y d o w n, knock over, strike down; lie down, flop down, stretch out, collapse; end, kill, murder, shoot, slaughter; stretch, grow; incline, turn, yield’ (LKŽe). 19 Cf. the semantic range of the verb Lith. taisýti: ‘to repair faults, make something usable again; make suitable for driving by removing unevenness; make straight; eliminate gaps and holes, patch; correct errors, inaccuracies, mistakes, irregularities; replace a dialect word with a standard-language word; eradicate, eliminate (evils); improve something poor or impaired; make better, perfect; make more fertile, productive; t r e a t; fill (a tooth); recover, heal; put back in place (a dislocation); massage, rub (the nape); become fatter, gain weight; make orderly, even, fitting; (smooth), clean; comb in a particular way, curl, style the hair; by extension, stretch out, spread; s p r e a d o u t, s t r e t c h o u t; f a l l l e n g t h w i s e, s t r e t c h o u t; manage, maintain; lift onto a wagon what has been loaded; process, clean; secure, install; bind (a book); put on covers, jackets; frame; make (a bed); NdŽ, Brs, Trkn, Žr, Slnt, Mžš, Kair, N 123, LLD III 275 (Grz), Mžš, Rm; ‘dress, clothe; wear; provide with clothing; cover, spread; dress in fine, ornate clothes; a d o r n, b e a u t i f y w i t h s o m e t h i n g; enhance appearance; make, manufacture an object; lay (a road); build (a fence); make, build (a nest, den, etc.); make something a certain shape, form; pile, grow; make a unit out of sounds; build, erect (a structure); do interior fittings; establish, found, arrange; make, provide (food, drink, fodder); make for a job or purpose; make in accordance with an intended goal, try to adapt; try; behave; pretend, appear; devise (jokes, tricks, annoyances, etc.); slander, gossip; prepare (for a trip, activity, event); intend, want, think, plan (to do something); draw near to beginning, manifest perceptible signs of a coming phenomenon; prepare (an implement, tool, or other device) for use; train, exercise; adjust; insert a cartridge into a firearm’s chamber; prepare for sowing, work (the land); attend to, provide; procure, acquire, buy; accumulate, load, put; see to it that someone gets somewhere or is accepted; hold (a wedding, banquet); organize, arrange; gather, assemble; aim (at a target); direct appropriately; approach, intending to do something; draw near, accommodate oneself, attach oneself (to something desirable); appear, manifest, develop (of an illness or pain); eat greedily, devour; hit, beat; destroy; charge dearly, fleece, exploit’ (LKŽe). 20 Cf. the semantic range of the verb Lith. pataisýti: ‘remove faults, make fit for use; make fit for driving by removing unevenness; patch; redo, rework; remove or point out errors, mistakes, irregularities; eliminate evils; improve something impaired or unsuitable; perfect, reform; clear up; t r e a t; f i l l (a t o o t h); r e c o v e r, h e a l; r e p o s i t i o n (a d i s l o c a t i o n); massage thoroughly, rub; fatten by feeding; gain weight; g a i n s t r e n g t h, r e c o v e r; to- 154 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) from which the aforementioned ō-stem formation could be derived (if it is a deverbal formation) (see footnote 20). Nevertheless, the usualization of a therapeutic function would imply reconstructing the hyperonym ‘healing plant’, which is unlikely given the plant’s low pharmacotherapeutic value: that is, it was used to treat only skin disorders of exogenous origin that posed no threat to human biological existence, whereas clubmoss (L. annotinum) was used for nuomaris (LE ibd.). Nevertheless, it is precisely the designation of the latter clubmoss species as Lithuanian šundraika ‘the same’ that suggests the importance of the plant’s morphology (cf. Gritėnienė 2006: 183), rather than its utilitarian connotative value; that is, connotations of ‘creeping, trailing along the ground’ should be assumed, since the main stem of clubmoss (Lycopodium) is a prostrate rhizome (LE XXII 150); cf. Lithuanian dialectal valkata šniūrininkė, which, because of its creeping stem, resembles “[…] clubmoss—a medicinal forest plant with a long, spreading stem” (Gritėnienė ibid.). The reconstruction of uzema ‘ornament’ is also doubtful, since the semantic extension of the lexeme does not reflect such a meaning. The hypothesis that this is an ō-stem deverbal formation from the Lithuanian verb pataisyti (for more on this derivational type, see Skardžius I 26–36) is questionable because of the relationship between this verb’s derivational pattern and its semantic value: what is reflected, that is, are nomen instrumenti names: Lithuanian dialectal pãtaisas ‘tool, device’ (DūnŽ 249) ↔ (a formation with the suffix *-lō-) Lithuanian dialectal pãtaisalas masculine noun (3⁴ᵇ) ‘tool, device’ Trš; ‘(collective) foods prepared and served’ J. Balt. (LKŽŽe). The riddle of the origin of the phytonym under discussion can readily be explained by reference to the aforementioned non-associative Lithuanian dialectal 21 valkata šniūrininkė ‘ground ivy (Glechoma)’, suppo- sedly meaning ‘to arrange neatly, evenly, appropriately; to make straight, straighten; to stretch out lengthwise; to put in order, clean up, plant; to make (a bed); to dress, put on (clothes); to change into something; to decorate; to make an object; to form, come into being; to lay out (a road); to put up (a fence, enclosure, etc.); to twist, build (a nest); to make something into a certain shape, form; to erect (a structure); to equip, install; to establish, found; to prepare, draw up; to prepare (food, drink, fodder, etc.), serve; to make for a particular job or purpose; to do artificially, feigning; to make oneself into something; to pretend to be something, appear to be something, feign; to cause trouble; to happen; to hit, end up somewhere; to occur; to prepare, ready (for an action, activity, event); to resolve, intend (to do something); to put in order, prepare so as to make suitable for use; to prepare for work (an implement, tool, vessel, etc.); to refine; to cultivate (land); to procure, acquire; to select, save; to appoint, specify what someone is to do or be; to hold (a wedding, feast); to cause a phenomenon; to bring about (a misfortune); to direct in a certain course; to take a bite, strike; to beat up; to kill, murder; to seduce, deceive (a girl); to steal; to spend, use up (LKŽŽe). 21 Cf. connotations implied by the plant’s morphological structure: Lithuanian noun drieka 1 ‘a plant part suitable for weaving fabrics, fiber; net-like fabric; a certain (fiber) quantity, a pinch; (bot.) clubmoss, driekana, rietena, šarkakojis (Lycopodium)’ / driekana 1 ‘(bot.) a garden weed that spreads along the ground’, and the previously mentioned Lithuanian padraika ‘(bot.) dodder (Cuscuta); clubmoss (Lycopodium); knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare)’ LBŽ (LKŽŽe), along with their genetic associates: Lithuanian noun padraika 1 ‘promiscuous woman, harlot’ / padráika 1, pãdraika 1 ‘frivolous person, scatterbrain; lanky, gangly person’ (LKŽŽe). Distinguishing these semantic levels is especially important, since some researchers interpret associative forms as primary deverbal formations, although they should be treated as denominatives. Cf. Lithuanian patárška / patérš-ka ‘Briza media’, which Gritėnienė (2006: 61) connects with the sound made by the wind through drooping spikelets (cf. Lithuanian patárška Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 155 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS which represents the second semantic productive type of plant names with the prefix pa- / po-, motivated by formal characteristics—the value of external (physical) properties: the stem of this labiates (Labiatae) herb, creeping ground ivy (G. hederaceae)22 resembles that of clubmoss (Gritėnienė ibid.). That is, the horizontal arrangement of the main above-ground part of the plant and its correspondingly shaped leaves lead to the association of the names of two different plant species, and hence imply parallel semantemes and morphological structures (cf. the adjectival-origin abstract-meaning nomen agentis Lithuanian válkata ‘wanderer’ (Skardžius I 336) ← Lithuanian adjective valkùs, -i 4 ‘stretchy, extensible, soft, viscous, pliable; supple, flexible, resilient, elastic; flexible, limber (usually of a person or body parts); inflexible, tough, hard to split, fibrous; brittle, crumbly; lazy, sluggish; slimy, sticky, thick; strong, durable, enduring (of a person or animal); one that does not dry up for a long time, gives milk well (of a cow)’ (LKŽe) + suffix -at-) forms. Thus, it can confidently be asserted that Lithuanian pãtaisas ‘Lycopodium’ is not a deverbal formation but a denominative, to be treated as a hypernormalism (with root -ai- instead of etymological -ą-; for more on the origin of such forms, see Urbutis 1998: 55–56), and is associated with the Lithuanian plural noun p a t ą s a i b 3 ‘(bot.) a perennial forest plant of the clubmoss family, with a branched stem and needle-like leaves (Lycopodium)’ Švnč, Kli (LKŽe) < [formed from] Lithuanian prefix pa- + Lithuanian dialectal adjective *taisus ‘flexible, pliable’ (hypernormalism) ↔ Lithuanian adjective tąsùs, -i 4 ‘that stretches when pulled, extends, does not break; elastic, pliable, fibrous, hard to split; hard; sticky; long-lasting, continuing’ (LKŽe), or Lithuanian noun tąsà 4 ‘the continuation of the same thing further, continuation; the carrying out, doing, or proceeding of something, its further continuation’ (LKŽe) ~ Lithuanian noun patąsa (collective) 1, patąsà3b ‘wanderer, vagabond, wastrel; lanky, lanky person’ (cf. the phytonymic connotation: Father is patąsa, mother pamplė, children čiūčiurukai (peas) Kos 84) (LKŽe), Lithuanian dialectal noun patąsai plural 2 ‘tow with shives, obtained when scutching flax’ Prng, Dv (LKŽe)23. Thus, the sememe ‘a plant that stretches and extends when pulled’ can be reconstructed. 1 ‘one who talks a lot, chatters’ ↔ patérška 1 ‘same’ (LKŽe)), while Gliwa (2009: 84) explains it both as a verbal derivative from the Lithuanian verb tarškìti ‘to make a rattling sound, rattle; to travel with a rattling sound; to strike, clack; to chatter, prattle; to clink’ and the Lithuanian verb patarkštì ‘to rattle a little, make a clattering sound; to chat a little, prattle’ (LKŽe), and as a denominative from the Lithuanian noun tárška 1 ‘chatterbox, chatterer’ ↔ teršà 4 ‘same’ (LKŽe), although he assigns the lexeme to the deverbal subclass. 22 Cf. Lithuanian noun pataisiniai 2 ‘(bot.) a class of lycophytes (Lycopodineae)’ LBŽ (LKŽe). 23 The latter are deverbal formations from the Lithuanian verb tąsýti ‘to pull or tug at something; to drag about, tug so that something trails or crawls, to haul; to push and make move in a certain direction, shift, shove, pull; to tease, jostle, scratch, torment; to wear out with work; to tug at an object that is firmly attached or difficult to reach; to stretch or lay out by pulling; to carry or lift with difficulty; to transport with difficulty; to prolong, delay, drag out; to continue’ and others (LKŽe) ↔ Lithuanian verb patąsýti ‘to tug or pull at something a little; to milk a little; to shove and scuffle, fight a little; to tug or drag along a little; to push about; to tear apart; to ruin; to spread out or lay down by pulling; to sprawl, become disheveled; to drawl a little; to become covered, to drape oneself’ and others (LKŽe). 156 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) 8. Latvian dialectal APDŽIRAS, APDŽIRAS, APDŽIRES, APDŽIRENES, APDŽIRŲ- / APDŽIRŲ-ŽALĖS ‘clubmoss (LYCOPODIUM)’ Latvian dialectal apdžiras, apdžiras, apdžires, apdžirenes Jaungulbene (410), apdžirų- / apdžirų-žales Lielauce (112) ‘clubmoss (Lycopodium)’ remain unexplained to this day (cf. Gliwa 2009: 83–84). On the basis of the material presented in K. Mühlenbach’s dictionary (ME I 84), one may conjecture that phytonymic (linguistic) panmixia of the plant’s name occurred in Latvian dialects, as is also characteristic of Lithuanian dialects. The Lithuanian equivalent of this lexeme given by Mühlenbach, apgirios ‘hellebore (Veratrum)’, allows us to hypothesize the hyperonymization of names for plants of different species (according to the first working semantic type, localization); cf. Lithuanian dialectal atgirė ‘a kind of forest plant (Lycopodium selago)’ (DūnŽ 34), i.e. ‘woodland or marsh clubmoss’ (LE XXII 150), although the illustrative examples of the lexeme cited by Vitkauskas (DūnŽ ibid.) imply a hellebore (Veratrum) connotation—lice are killed with the juice of this plant (“hellebore water”) (!!!). The mixing of the phytonyms was apparently caused by locational identity, that is, the place of growth: forest (clubmoss), woodland edge (hellebore) (cf. apdžiras aug(u)ot priežu mežuos un esuot lidzigas staipekļiem (ME ibid.), i.e. “hellebore grows at forest edges and is very similar to clubmoss”)—and by their usual value, since both plants are medicinal, though used to treat different ailments. Thus, the etymological analysis of this word is straightforward: Latvian apdžiras ‘*plants of the forest interior or woodland edge, i.e. woodland plants’ < ← Latvian prefix ap- ‘(denoting an object situated around something)’ + Latvian noun dzira (dzīre) ‘forest’ (see ME I 555). Therefore, Gliwa’s claim (ibid.) that this denominal is a verbal derivative should be regarded as an example of folk etymology. 9. SUMMARY On the basis of the brief analysis of the phytonyms reviewed here, we can unreservedly endorse Albertas Rosinas, who formulated the methodological principle of avoiding phantasmagorical interpretations, or casuistic arguments (1997: 73): “[...] when addressing complex questions concerning the development of morphology, one must abandon methods of accidental investigation and ad hoc comparison with other Indo-European languages, whose data, if their internal developmental motivations have not been investigated, can often lead one astray. Each linguistic fact must be examined from the perspective of the systemic relations within that language (or dialect), and its internal motivations for change must be sought within the system of the language (or dialect), in view of the contexts in which it is used and its pragmatics.” Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 157 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS 10. CONCLUSIONS 10.1. The essential factor determining the direction of a lexeme’s etymological analysis is the identification, using the reconstruction-pragmatic method, of the smallest meaningful part of the word. 10.2. The absence of a smallest generalized part of the word, or its formal alternant, is to be reconstructed on the basis of the usage of semanteme values. 10.3. The following morphological (or etymological) development of Lithuanian and Latvian phytonyms has been established: 10.3.1. Lithuanian pastēnis ‘a plant of the carnation family (Malachium)’ ← *pas-iu-t-enis (with absorption of the radial –iu-) ← Lithuanian dialectal pāsiutas ‘frenzy, madness, wildness’ (↔ Lithuanian dialectal pasiutýs, pasiutìs ‘same’) + (secondary) suffix *-eniō-; 10.3.2. Lithuanian núokana ‘a poisonous plant of the carrot family (Cicuta)’ ← prefix nuo- + Lithuanian dialectal noun kãnas ‘end’ (< Lithuanian dialectal kāpana ‘fading, dying’) < ← prefix nuo- + Lithuanian ka-pa-na ‘end, death’ (← *‘that which causes death, i.e. a death plant’); 10.3.3. Lithuanian noun padaukas ‘orange-capped bolete (Leccinum aurantiacum)’ < ← Lithuanian dialectal noun (a loanword) *padaukas ‘a mushroom with an uneven, wrinkled (“shaggy”) stem’ < ← Lithuanian dialectal adjective (a loanword) *padalkinis ‘uneven (wrinkled, because pieced together) like a skirt hem’ ← Lithuanian (loanword) padálka ‘lower edge of a garment, hem, border’ (with –al- > -au-, characteristic of loanwords); 10.3.4. Lithuanian pasienis ‘a plant of the aster family, cat’s-ear (Hypochoeris)’ < ← *pasie-ty-nis ‘like a sieve’ or ‘dry, withered grass = cat’s-ear’ < ← prefix pa- + Lithuanian noun sietýnas ‘straw ornament; a grass growing along riverbanks’; 10.3.5. Lithuanian posainis ‘cat’s-ear (Hypochoeris)’ ← *po-su-kainis ‘one that is stuck in, woven, fenced’ (with absorption of –uk-) < ← prefix po- + Lithuanian dialectal verb sukáinioti ‘tangle, entangle’ ↔ Lithuanian dialectal verb káinioti ‘stick in, weave, fence (haphazardly, temporarily, poorly)’; ‘plug the gaps between wall logs with moss, tow, or something else’, etc. (~ Lithuanian noun kainė ‘(bot.) Coremium, i.e. the fungus-feeding part formed by an accumulation of conidiophores’); 10.3.6. Lithuanian póminis ‘fescue (Festuca)’ ← a) (appellative) Lithuanian dialectal (Samogitian) pominis *‘a plant growing on a riverbank, i.e. in damp places’ < ← toponym, Lithuanian dialectal (Samogitian) *Pominys (< *Paminys ‘same’ (with absorption of –ij- and –a- > -o-, cf. Lithuanian pa-ežerys ‘a place by a lake’ ↔ toponym, Lithuanian (Samogitian) Pó-žerė ‘a village near Tauragė’) < ← toponym *Paminijys ‘an area by the Minija River’ < ← toponym, Lithuanian (Samogitian) Pomenie (= Paminijės) ‘six localities by the Minija River, west of Žarėnai and north of Rietavas’; b) Lithuanian dialectal (Samogitian) póminis *‘a plant growing in damp places’ < ← Lithuanian *po-ne-mìnis ‘same’ (with absorption of –ne- due to the repetition of phonologically identical syllables, i.e. –ne-...-ni-; -i- < -u- through regressive assimilation) < noun 158 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) Lith. *po-ne-munis ‘the same’ (substantivization) < adj. Bl. *nemuna- ‘that which is characterized by a damp place’; 10.3.7. Lith. pamenis ‘orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)’ ← *pa-ka-mienis ‘grass that grows only in shady places, at forest edges, in groves, and in clearings, i.e. where there are trees’ (with absorption of root -ka-) < prefix pa- + Lith. noun kamiėnas ‘trunk, stem of a plant or tree’ etc.; 10.3.8. Lith. palėpštis / palepštis ‘a perennial ornamental plant of the legume family (Cytisus)’ ← *palėkštis ‘a plant that produces flat pods’ (with p-k- > p-p- due to distant assimilation) < prefix Lith. pa- + Lith. adjective lėkštas, -à ‘flat, level, even’; 10.3.9. Lith. dial. paliepa ‘nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus)’ < ← *paliep-sn-a ‘a plant with red-speckled flowers, as if splashed with blood’ (-sn- absorption) < prefix Lith. pa- + Lith. noun liepsnà ‘fire rising from a burning object’ ↔ Lith. liepsnėlė ‘(bot.) a plant of the pink family with brightly colored flowers, catchfly (Lychnis)’; 10.3.10. Lith. padraika ‘dodder (Cuscuta); clubmoss (Lycopodium); knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare)’ < prefix Lith. pa- + Lith. adjective draīkas, -à ‘sprawling, slender’; 10.3.11. Lith. pãtaisas ‘a spore-bearing perennial forest plant of the clubmoss family, with a branched stem and needle-like leaves (Lycopodium)’ – hypercorrection (with root -ai- instead of etymological -ą-), associated with Lith. noun patašai ‘(bot.) a spore-bearing perennial forest plant of the clubmoss family, with a branched stem and needle-like leaves (Lycopodium)’ < prefix Lith. pa- + Lith. dial. adjective *taisus ‘flexible, pliant’ (hypercorrection) ↔ Lith. adjective tąsùs, -ì ‘which stretches when pulled, elongates, does not break; elastic, pliant, tough, not brittle’ etc.; 10.3.12. Latv. dial. apdžiras, apdziras, apdzires, apdzirenes, apdziru-/apdziru-zāles ‘clubmoss (Lycopodium)’ < prefix Latv. ap- ‘(denotes an object situated around something)’ + Latv. noun dzira (dzīre) ‘forest’. ŠALTINIAI Būga I–III – Būga Kazimieras. Rinktiniai raštai 1–3, sudarė Z. Zinkevičius. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1958–1961. DunŽ – Vitkauskas Vytautas. Šiaurės rytų dunininkų šnektų žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. IEW – Pokorny Julius. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2. Bern und München: Francke Verlag, 1959–1969. KRŽ I–II – Pupkis Aldonas. Kazlų Rūdos šnektos žodynas 1–2. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008–2009. Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 159 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS KŠŽ – V i l u t y t ė A n g e l ė. Kaltanėnų šnektos žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008. 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 – F r a e n k e l E r n s t. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1–2. Heidelberg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962–1965. LEŽ – S m o c z y ń s k i W o j c i e c h. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Wilno: Printer Polyglott, 2007. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas (t. 1–20, 1941–2002). Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt. LPŽ I–II – Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 1–2. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985–1989. LS – L i d d e l l H e n r y G e o r g e, S c o t t R o b e r t. A Greek-English lexicon. New York & Cincinnati: American Book Company, 1882 (eighth edition). LTE I–XIII – Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 1–13. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976–1985. ME I–IV – M ū l e n b a c h s K ā r l i s. Latviešu valodas vārdnīca 1–4, red. Jānis Endzelīns. Rīga: Izglītības ministerija (t. 1), Kultūras fonds (t. 2–4), 1923–1932. PEŽ I–IV – M a ž i u l i s V y t a u t a s. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1–4. Vilnius: Moks-las (t. 1), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla (t. 2, 3), Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas (t. 4), 1988–1997. Skardžius I–V – S k a r d ž i u s P r a n a s. Rinktiniai raštai 1–5, parengė Albertas Rosinas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996–1999. SPW XV – Słownik Polszczyzny XVI wieku 15. Wrocław & Łódź: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1984. БСЭ I–XXXI – Большая советская энциклопедия, ред. Б. А. Введенский. Москва: Большая советская энциклопедия, 1969–1981. Даль I–IV – Д а л ь В л а д и м и р. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка 1–4. Москва: Русский язык, 1989–1991. Кернеръ фонъ-Марилаунъ I–II – К е р н е р ъ ф о н ъ - М а р и л а у н ъ А. Жизнь растений. С.-Петербургъ: Просвѣщение, 1896. Преображенский I–IV – П р е о б р а ж е н с к и й А л е к с а н д р Г р и г о р ь е в и ч. Этимологический словарь русского языка. Москва: Типография Г. Лисснера и Д. Совко, 1910–1914 (т. 1–2); Москва & Ленинград: Издательство академии наук СССР, 1949 (т. 3). 160 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) СРНГ I–XLIII – Словарь русских народных говоров 1–43. Ленинград (Санкт Петербург): Наука, 1965–2009. Фасмер I–IV – Фасмер Макс. Этимологический словарь русского языка 1–4. Москва: Прогресс, 1986–1987. ЭССЯ I–XXXII – Этимологический словарь славянских языков 1–32, отв. ред. О. Н. Трубачёв. Москва: Наука, 1974–2005. LITERATŪRA Balevičienė Janina 1995: Flora ir fauna. – Lietuvininkų kraštas. Kaunas: Litterae universitatis, 45–63. Bilkis Laimutis 2008: Lietuvių helonimų daryba. Priesaginiai ir priesagėtieji helonimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Brückner Alexander 1957: Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wiedza powszechna. Bussmann Hadumod 2006: Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge. Butkus Alvydas 1995: Lietuvių pravardės. Kaunas: Æsti. Crystal David 2008: A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Endzelīns Janis 1957: Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Endzelīns Jānis 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība. Erzepki Bolesław 1900: Słownik Łacińsko-Polski Bartłomieja z Bydgoszczy. Poznań: Drukarnia dziennika Poznańskiego. Gliwa Berndas 2002: Nuodingų augalų nuokana ‘Cicuta Virosa L.’ bei nuokanis ‘toks grybas, Lactarius Turpis Weinm.’ pavadinimai lietuvių kalboje. – Onomasiology Online 3, 1–7. Gliwa Bernd 2009: Pflanzennamen mit Präfix pa- und Angrenzendes im Litauischen und Lettischen. – Baltistica 44(1), 77–90. Gliwa Bernd, Stukonis Vaclovas 2008: Etymologisches zu den Namen der Schwingel (Festuca spp.). – Baltu filoloģija 17(1/2), 61–72. Gritėnienė Aurelija 2006: Augalų pavadinimų motyvacija šiaurės panevėžiškių patarmėje. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Kregždys Rolandas 2009: Ide. suff. *-ko- semantinė sklaida baltų kalbose. – Res humanitariae 6, 112–132. Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 161 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Kregždys Rolandas 2010: Baltų kalbų leksinės semantinės gretýbės (paveldėtieji ō/ā kamienų kūno dalių pavadinimai). Vilnius: Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas. Kregždys Rolandas 2010a: M. Stryjkowskio veikalo Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi teonimai: Chaurirari. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 42–43, 50–81. Kregždys Rolandas 2010b: Prūsų dievybė Curche. – Kultūrologija. Istorinės vietos, atmin-tys, tapatumai. Vilnius: Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas, 90–106. Mažulis Vytautas 2008: Dėl kuršių kalbos palikimo. – Baltistica 43(1), 91–99. Miklosich Franz von 1977: Lexicon palaeoslovенico-graeco-latinum. Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen. Niermeyer J. F. 1976: Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Otrębski Jan 1966: Lit. Žārasas, Zarasaĩ (pl.). – Beiträge zur Namenforschung. Band 1, Heft 3. Heidelberg, 327–330. Rosinas Albertas 1997: Dėl Latgalės „giliųjų šnektų“ daugiskaitos kilmininko su -ūs kilmės. – Baltistica 32(1), 71–75. Smoczyński Wojciech 2001: Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Trautmann Reinhold 1923: Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Urbutis Vincas 1972: (rec.) Этимология 1968... – Baltistica 8(2), 207–213. Urbutis Vincas 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija. Vilnius: Mokslas. Urbutis Vincas 1998: Lie. pãšinas ir (trm.) pašãiza – bendrašakniai sinonimai. – Baltistica 33(1), 49–57. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Анненковъ Николай 1878: Ботаническій словарь. Санкт Петербургъ: Типографія императорской академіи наукъ. Креждис 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. Меркулова Валентина Антоновна 1967: Очерки по русской народной номенклатуре растений. Москва: Наука. 162 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Rytų baltų fitonimų morfeminio skaidymo ypatumai (etninės žodžių identifikacijos problematika) Откупщиков Юрий Владимирович 2006: Об этимологии гидронима Ловать. – Индоевропейское языкознание и классическая филология – X. Материалы чтений, посвященных памяти профессора Иосифа Моисеевича Тронского. 19–21 июня 2006 г. Санкт-Петербург: Наука, 215–219. Півторак Г. П. 1988: Формування і діалектна диференціація давньоруської мови. Київ: Наукова думка. Селищев Афанасий Матвеевич 1952: Старославянский язык. Тексты. Словарь. Очерки морфологии. Москва: Государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство министерства просвещения РСФСР. Хабургаев Георгий Александрович 1974: Старославянский язык. Москва: Просвещение. Morphological segmentation peculiarities of Eastern Baltic Phytonymes (ethnical identification topics of the lexemes) S U M M A R Y The article deals with the analysis of lexemes’ morphological segmentation peculiarities, i.e. methodology of the submorphs discernment. Determination of the structural verges of morpheme is handled as the essential element, which is of the most importance of the etymological analysis of the words. The morpheme structure is tested in accordance with reconstruction-pragmatic method in opposition to atomistic. Reconstruction of morpheme as formal alternative structural element is based on the semanteme significant value. Due to the etymological analysis of the Phytonymes, these conclusions are drawn: 1) Lith. pastēnis ‘a plant of a genus decandria digynia (Malachium)’ ← *pas-iu-t-enis (with the absorption of radical -iu-) ← Lith. dial. pāsiutas ‘fury, rabidity, tear’ (↔ Lith. dial. pasiutȳs, pasiutìs ‘ditto’) + (secondary) suff. *-enìō-; 2) Lith. núokana ‘cowbane (Cicuta)’ ← pref. nuo- + subst. Lith. dial. kānas ‘death’ (< Lith. dial. kāpana ‘dying’) < pref. nuo- + ka-pa-na ‘death, passing’ (← *‘that, which fates to die resp. plant of dissolution’); 3) Lith. padaukas ‘orange-cap boletus (Leccinum aurantiacum)’ < subst. Lith. dial. (loan) *padaukas ‘fungus of uneven, crinkly, shabby stipe’ < adj. Lith. dial. (loan) *padaukinis ‘uneven (crinkly be cause of being crappy) as a skirt’ ← Lith. (loan) padálka ‘tuck’ (with the shift of -al- to -au-, which is characteristic feature of borrowings); 4) Lith. pasienis ‘cat’s ear (Hypochoeris)’ < *pasie-ty-nis ‘the same as Lith. sietýnas’ resp. ‘dry, sear grass = cat’s ear’ < pref. pa- + subst. Lith. sietýnas ‘straw decoration; riverbank growing grass’; Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers 163 ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS 5) Lith. posāinis ‘cat’s ear (Hypochoeris)’ ← *po-su-kainis ‘used for wattling, pleatching’ (with the absorption of -ūk-) < pref. po- + v. Lith. dial. sukáin(i)oti ‘tangle, snarl’ ↔ v. Lith. dial. káinioti ‘to pop, fence, wattle (tol-lol; fair-to-middling)’; ‘to caulk interstice of walls with moss, gasket’ etc. (~ subst. Lith. kainė ‘(bot.) Coremium’); 6) Lith. póminis ‘fescue (Festuca)’ ← a) (appellative) Lith. dial. (Samogitian) pominis *‘riverbank and soaks growing plant’ < Toponym Lith. dial. (Samogitian) *Pominys (< *Pam-inys ‘ditto’ (with the absorption of -ij- and -a- shift to -o-, cf. Lith. pa-ežerys ‘lakeside’ ↔ Toponym Lith. dial. (Samogitian) Pó-žerė ‘village near Tauragė’) < Toponym *Pamin-ijys ‘terrene near river Minija’ < Toponym Lith. dial. (Samogitian) Pomenie (= Paminijės) ‘6 terrenes near river Minija (westward from Žarėnai and northward from Rietavas’; b) Lith. dial. (Samogitian) póminis *‘soaks growing plant’ < Lith. *po-ne-minis ‘ditto’ (with absorption of -ne- due to repetition of phonologically identical clusters, i.e. -ne-…-ni-; -i- < -u- by virtue of regressive assimilation) < subst. Lith. *po-ne-munis ‘ditto’ (substantivisation) < adj. Balt. *nemuna- ‘appropriate to soak’; 7) Lith. pamienis ‘orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)’ ← *pa-ka-mienis ‘outskirts, shady places and slash growing grass, i.e. arboreal terrenes plant’ (with absorption of radical -ka-) < pref. pa- + subst. Lith. karnėnas ‘shaft, stem’ etc.; 8) Lith. palėpštis / palepštis ‘bean-trefoil (Cytisus)’ ← *palėkštis ‘legume with a tabular pod’ (with a shift of p-k- to p-p- due to incontiguous assimilation) < pref. Lith. pa- + adj. Lith. lėkštas, -à ‘tabular, smooth, equal’; 9) Lith. dial. paliepa ‘great Indian cress (Tropaeolum majus)’ ← *paliep-sn-a ‘freckled in red (like blood sloppy) blooming plant’ (with absorption of -sn-) < pref. Lith. pa- + subst. Lith. liepsnà ‘blaze’ ↔ Lith. liepsnėlė ‘(bot.) a plant with gaily colored blossom of a genus decandria digynia (Lychnis)’; 10) Lith. padraika ‘dodder (Cuscuta); club-moss (Lycopodium); knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare)’ < pref. Lith. pa- + adj. Lith. draikas, -à ‘sprawling, slender’; 11) Lith. pãtaisās ‘club-moss (Lycopodium)’ is to be interpreted as an atypical formation (with a radical -ai- instead of inherited -ą-), correlative with subst. Lith. patąsai ‘(bot.) club-moss (Lycopodium)’ < pref. Lith. pa- + adj. Lith. dial. *taisus ‘supple, ductile’ (atypical formation) ↔ adj. Lith. tąsus, -ì ‘supple, ductile; resilient, tough’ etc; 12) Latv. dial. apdziras, apdziras, apdzires, apdzirenes, apdzīru- / apdzīru-zāles ‘club-moss (Lycopodium)’ < pref. Latv. ap- ‘(used for denotation ‘to be around of smth.’)’ + subst. Latv. dzīra (dzire) ‘wood’. Įteikta 2011 m. spalio 20 d. ROLANDAS KREGŽDYS Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, Vilnius LT-10308, Lietuva [email protected] 164 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV