„Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas“. 1 tomas: A–B

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LX (2009), 135 – 144 Reviews Reviews Dictionary of Lithuanian Place Names. Volume 1: A–B1. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2009. ISBN 978-9955-704-70-6 (1 tomas), 978-9955-704-71-3 (bendras) After a long silence, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language has published a work worthy of and essential to this research institution—the Dictionary of Lithuanian Place Names, an exhaustive study of place-name lexemes beginning with the letters A and B. Most of the text was written by Dr. L. Bilkis, Dr. M. Razmukaitė, and habilitated Doctor V. Maciejauskienė. A large group of distinguished scholars from around the world was involved in the work; they were not specialists in Lithuanian studies, although they had done much work in the field of philology. The compilers prepared a dictionary of significant toponymic material and respectfully included Prof. A. Vanagas’s introduction to the dictionary, its English translation, and other material. For almost a hundred years, several generations enthusiastically collected data; now they have sought to bring it together with due care. The late Prof. habil. Dr. A. Vanagas had already inspired everyone with his scholarly ideas and encouraged them to work and create. At a time when the Institute’s research in Lithuanian studies has waned, such a major, comprehensive undertaking—the explanation of the history and origins of proper names—deserves great praise and delight. Perhaps the embers of scholarly research will flare up again; perhaps the unpublished material of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽ) will also be brought to light and shine in a new way, its 450,000-card index file put to use along untrodden paths. This dictionary of place names offers many thoughts and hopes. As you read the names of all sorts of places, you see your nation’s sense of humor and poetic sensibility, as well as the words of the farmer, the nation’s provider, whose brow has been moistened by rough, salty sweat, and the occasional unexpected formation. The editors seek to explain the origin of every word or provide examples from Lithuanian and other Indo-European languages, drawing on K. Būga, J. Balčikonis, J. Gerullis, Z. Zinkevičius, other Balticists, and especially Slavicists. This enhances the work’s significance, though some explanations follow a decidedly Slavicist line. Nevertheless, as soon as one starts reading the dictionary, much is unclear, because many things are left unexplained, line after line—for example, why similar wording is repeated for a given piece of data, 1 The compilers and authors are not identified on the title page (editor’s note). 135 Recenzijos why it is so difficult to find a cross-reference (“see the word”) across several pages in an entry for a place name that is not arranged alphabetically, why several entries are given for the same words, and so on. How did it happen that Avižlys and words derived from it ended up belonging to the new, 40-year-old town of Vnt, to the factory-owning Sirutavičiai’s Kairiškiai, and finally to Pp (p. 245); óza from the vicinity of Ignalina was turned into aizà (cf. A. Salio RRₙ 580); the famous village of Ažiėrkų in Gardinas district, destroyed in Belarus, was not found at all (pp. 249–250); Ąžlupys (and the stream on the slope) in Btg is something unheard of—the name Ąžlupio I could not find in the dictionary (is it Ąžuolo lupys?—what kind of derivation is that?); Ąžpurviai, Ašpurviai (p. 256) are not generally Curonian, but belong to Latvians who moved from Courland; the eastern prefix Až- is not characteristic of Drž (p. 256), so this is something else; Bakšėnai is a famous village, and LKŽ has a wealth of material on it, all assigned to Slm, whereas here it is Alz; Bakšėneliai in Slm, even the abbreviation Bkš from the Ivadas is forgotten; even the slang term Bakūras is a delight for place-name scholars—perhaps someone thinks otherwise—p. 315; keliūtė in Blnk, transcribed as keliūtė because of vowel lengthening? (p. 339); the source for Baltagalvinė is not stated (p. 341); in Krž it is Balgalvinė, not Baltagalvinė (p. 345); the famous roadside inn Baltóji near Krš is missing; Baltāšiškės, a part of the town of Druskininkai (p. 343); Lk has only Barborėlė, not Barborėlę (p. 368); and Sd does not pronounce the lake’s diminutive either, only ežerėlį (p. 383); in Škn you would search in vain even to the point of exhaustion for liėkno; it has only liėkną (p. 388); Bártininkai in Grdm (Gardamo??) sounds like a miracle—perhaps it should be Grdn?—p. 389; in Rdn there was only Bartkėvyčios dvaras, and I myself saw Bartkėvyčią before it was carted away; everyone in Rdn and Krš called it that—p. 390; Bartkuški was barely found in the Bartkaus entry—p. 390; Barziai in Blt, Barzūnai in Vlkš, Barzūpė in Pgg—they are linked by zd > z (p. 395); Baukštė / Baukštininkai in Klp is only a pronunciation; the spelling is—p. 403; Bauškuralės krūmai is merely a Germanized form; it is Bauğštininkai, p. 404—will other Germanizing influences begin to pour in too (p. 404); Bãzė in Bl—there was a radio base there (is this a place name?). The authors of the text are clearly well qualified in all matters concerning the Lithuanian language, although nearly all members of the editorial board are autodidacts in Lithuanian linguistics; they could hardly have corrected much, but they ought to have said that dirvōnas (p. XCIX) is attested only by F. Kuršaitis, who vacillated in placing the stress correctly; prūdas was unexpectedly given an accent on p. 269; abbreviations in the orthographic vocabulary have acquired more loanwords than ever: prd. = prūdas (p. CLXVIII), rv. (= ravas, although there is also griovys), in one place revà, elsewhere dialectal rieva (ibid.); there are various inconsistencies and matters requiring explanation. The pronunciation of identical or assimilated consonants is not characteristic of Lithuanian, yet in the dictionary it is often treated as a development or expansion, when it is probably simply spelling that reflects pronunciation: Abriès-kelis (< *Abriėsk-kelis)—p. 8; and the pronunciation feature Ąžuolupys is made into a phenomenon of Lithuanian historical grammar, < *Ąžuollupis (p. 273); perhaps the second element is -upys (?). There are quite a number of such cross-references. These are not matters of linguistic development, but of pronunciation (in part also informal “local” spellings in districts, former local administrative areas, and elderships). 136 Recenzijos Nežinia, kaip čia pasidarė, kad Įvade parašytas Bbr (Babrūngas) — p. CLXX, vėliau pasidarė Bābrungas (ir Babrungas) — p. 286 — kaip šitaip, nors tikrinta, ir girdėta vien Babrūngas, taip teigia ir netoli tos upės gimęs prof. A. Salys (žr. jo raštų II 499, taip pat NdŽ paskutinio sąsiuvinio p. 202); atkreiptinas dėmesys babr — šaknies dariniai kaip ir lietuviški, o jau Babraunīkai (-ykai), Babroniškė prie Kaniavõs slaviškiausi nuo strujų (p. 287); kirčiuojama Bābrungenai ir Babrungēnai (p. 288) — tikrinant šitaip neteko girdėti, tiktai -ēnai; ir kitur vinguriuojama: rašoma Babrungēnų kelias Plt, liepiama žr. Babrungēnai, Babrūngo prūdas siunčiamas tik į Babrūngą, kurio pirmoji forma esanti Bābrungas (p. 288); Bacianāi Dkšt, Bacēniškė Dkšt esantys (ar buvę) žadiniai, iš ten turi kitus balsius (p. 289); Bādros bemaž iš vienų tik dadininkų (Pnd, Šmn (kaip tas Klr prikibo?) — p. 294 yra aiškios Bēdros (plg. Bēdre (-ės Pnd) p. 411. Ktč (ten pat); Āntšvenčiai / Ántšvenčiai Všvl = Ántšvenčiai (ten pat), liko netranskribuotų formų: Anžuolė End (?), Anžuolija Skdv, Šll (tai Pdv, Padie v yčio k.), Anžuolynė Šln, Trg, Anžuolytė Šln, Anžuolkelmis Klm, Anžuolo kakta Varn, Anžuolyt-ravis Klm (Grimzdžių k.) — p. 140 — tai visur yra šaknies ąžuol- dariniai iš nosinius balsius išlaikiusių šaknų būrio; yra variantas Ažūorytravis Knr, nors tariama anžu·lītravīs (p. 272), kelių kilometrų upeliukas su dviem variantais; ãpgraužos Klm (ne kartojamas), bet ten *r̥i prieš au > rau dažniausiai, todėl girdėta ãpgraužas ~ āpgraužos, p. 144; kur bus daug įvardžiuotinių formų (pvz., apskritasis, -oji (-oja)), tai čia šnektų morfologija vienodinta, kas naudositės, būkite atsargūs: ž. apskritasis, rytiečių apskritasiai, -ója ir pan. (p. 156); apstabamóji Lk taisytina į apstābamoji (kaip ir žinomoji) — p. 158; apstatēlis Tvr = apstatēlis (ten pat); aptvarēlis ir aptvarālis Jdr ar ne ta pati dr. (p. 161–162); Apuōlė ir apuolūs skirtingos šaknys: apūolė ir āpuolos, t.y. Apuōlė ir apuolūs (p. 162); Apušrotynēlis Vkš turi priesagą -ēlis (p. 167); didžiai įtartina forma tyrēlis: daiktavardis yra Týrėlis Krš, Rdn, Trš, Pp ir kitur, miestelėnai Šiauliuose, Kuršėnuose, Šaukėnuose ir kt. taria ti.rė.lis, reikėjo su giminiu bro lenais bartis — kad čia nebūtų taip (p. 165); Ātaka, Atakā yra tik rašyba — tai Āttaka, Attaka, Atteka, susijusi su atitekėti — p. 201; prie Trš kaimas àtuōnė, upelis àtuōni:s, o transkribuoti reiktų Atuonys, Atuoniai pagal tarimą — p. 201; ašymas greičiau bus iš Atvašymo, nes žemaičių šnektos čia įnirtingai meta šalin v (p. 202); Bagdāniškė Aps = Bagdõniškė (p. 296 — iš žadininkų šnektos); Bēltė SmlB — tokio kirčiavimo lietuvių šnektose apskritai nėra (p. 423). The etymological entries are also inconsistent: when they do not follow K. Būga, J. Balčikonis, and others, they first reach for Slavic and Germanic territory rather than their own Baltic ground. The appellative ābrē is certainly Baltic, yet Ābramas rst Dbk, Abramynė, and others are entered under an entry of this kind (p. 7). 137 Recenzijos The dictionary’s authors paid no attention at all to the valuable work by J. Gerullis and Chr. Stang, “The Lithuanian Fishermen’s Dialect in Prussia” (1933); consequently, we will not find the village of Agilas near Labiau (pp. VII–VIII, 96), where Lithuanian was still spoken, Beižgiosas “a branch of the Gilija” (p. 96), Beržynė (p. 96), Akmina (dial. akmėna), the Aukštaitians (p. 96), and so on. We will learn nothing from this dictionary about “The Gazetteer of the Map of Lithuania,” compiled by A. Salys, Boston, Lithuanian Encyclopedia Publishing House, 1956, pp. 12–46. In Vilnius district there is a river Airūpė; the district’s scarcely literate officials named it Európa (p. 27), and this is stated as fact twice, although the dictionary’s introduction (p. CLXIII) cites Europa as the authentic form. Antapunė JrgA (p. 118) derives from Pūnia, not from Punėlė—that would be an entirely different form; the pronominal adjective aštrójo Švnčl derives from á.štrasai, not from aštrùsis (p. 119); if Kl has Ánties kalvále (p. 123), then, judging by the pronunciation ộ.ñtes pẽ.ìke in Lk, Užv, Žr, the form is already Ánties pélkė (ibid.); Židikų ántmolis is ántmolis (p. 128); phonemically, galelėliai from Kur cannot derive from the most archaic form galéjis (p. 133). The entire system for presenting place names has been reorganized. LKŽ and all editions of “The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” followed the important towns, former district centers, and parish locations, where dialect features were also stable. Now the system seems to be based on the boundaries of elderships, and even on their changes. Many such elderships have been abolished, so their abundance cannot help determine the distribution of dialect features. One gets tired even leafing through that list of abbreviations to identify dialect features. Some sort of abbreviation leaflet would be needed; the inclusion and variation of collective farms and brigades should be abandoned, since one village (e.g., Bakšėnai and others) has several abbreviations. We linguists all know by heart the LKŽ abbreviations for all historically established locations (counties, districts, parishes), whereas here much has been changed and mixed up. Perhaps this is because even the late Prof. A. Vanagas’s introduction on the transcription of dialectal place names discusses dialects in very vague and naive terms, whereas there is a scientific requirement: transcription must follow the correspondences dictated by dialectal phonetic laws in the standard language (cf. pp. XXI–XXII, XXIII (on Sūbačiai, Karsaškiškis, etc.). Omissions are evident in this case too, for example, Aluošià in the standard language (i.e., in the written standard language), Apūšvangis in the written standard language, and so on. Wherever pitch accent is distinguished in Lithuania (even in Kp), people say liėknas (2, 4), whereas liėknas comes from dialects that do not distinguish pitch accent (this begins on p. 3, and often two forms are given throughout the dictionary). The appellative ablingà does not exist in the language (it was investigated but not found); the meaning was invented by K. Būga from the place name Ablingà. My grandparents’ land was Abromáitiškė, not Abromaitiškė (p. 6); let us acknowledge the surnames Abromãvyčia, Kasparãvyčia, Silvestrãvyčia, hence there were Abromãvyčios ganyklos in Rdn (p. 9). Abromavyčynė, a pasture, is Kv (ibid.), not Abromavičinė. The same intolerance toward Samogitians is evident in the rendering of Antanãvyčios as Antanavičius (p. 117). 138 Recenzijos In Čiulėnai, near Molėtai, there are Aigelaĩ; in editor L. Bilkis’s opinion, these are Eigėlaĩ. There is no need to apply eastern phonemes to Samogitian pronunciation (Kln, Trg, Krtv akuopų) on the grounds that they arose from borrowings and the standard language: Samogitians render every stressed *a > in stems and endings as >uo. The question of the word-initial al- and el- remains as though unresolved. In the dictionary, p. 8, Aldija ‖ Áldija occurs across all dialects, where e- > a-; will the true form ever be explained (in many places Éldija)—p. 55, although alongside Áldos ald ← eld is tentatively indicated (p. 55). The same problem of reconstructing a- ‖ e- arises with the forms Aleną, Aleninė, and so on (p. 60); all dialects here have e- > a-. It is even conjectured that these should be linked to alėti, “to make flow”; Alkėrius mš Dkš (near Skuodas) are late Slavic borrowings containing ie, and are simply left as they are (surely not miestas, slėsorius, etc.)—p. 67; can Lithuanians really pronounce Alk-kalis, Alk-kapis, with not even a brief note (p. 67)? Anything is possible, but could the complete Slavic character of Ālojos not seem strange when Ālovė is right there, as are aln-, alt- and other roots; compare Latvian Elėja and others—p. 76; Amėrika in Lž, Als, and elsewhere is merely the regular dialectal lengthening of a short-stressed vowel (p. 85); wherever t ir d meet, only one consonant, d, is pronounced—is this really what should be asserted (what then of An Duõkiškį everywhere, and the many other names that are not place names at all, as people explain roads throughout their lives: ọn_telšūn, ọn_daubios, etc. (from p. 97 onward). Bagalìnės pievoms, Bāgaliui in Vž cannot be clarified even by the Polish surnames Bagal, Bagalski (p. 294)—this is clearly the particle be- (replaced by ne-, te- in Telšiai and Varniai dialects through the broadening of e-sequences into ba-, na-, ta-), as the old weeders said, ordered by the authorities to weed vast stretches of land: sanš.m žmogų tuokes bagalėnes vã.gas Šv, ba gā.la varā er d.šis ešuokst ba gā.la vārkštọ.nt Jdr; as for Vž bagal-, many spears have been broken over it, and many Polish and other examples found, whereas here only begal- is clearly attested (pp. 294–295); the form Bagdāniškė, recorded in Āpso in the Žadininkai dialect, should be restored as Bagdōniškė (p. 296); I have seen all sorts of things, but relocating a Dzūkian town to Žemaitija is too much: Bėižionys is in Trakai District, not Telšiai!!! (p. 418), and besides, the whole form is borrowed from Polish; Beižionių kalnas has now been moved back to its original location; Beldauskaičių sōdas in Ššt is Baldauskaičių sōdas (p. 421), owing to reduction of the al diphthong; Bėlmontas reveals the full extent of our convolutions (p. 423); history shows this: A. Salys, J. Balčikonis, even P. Skardžius and others did not want the ol diphthong in Lithuanian words of the standard language, so Ndž, in A. Salys’s writings, has only Bėlmantas; leaf through them, do not conceal this—why conceal something that can be hidden completely? Whoever wants to will find it and shrug (cf. p. 423); LKŽ I 738 belà from Rt reflects mispronunciation of a foreign word; should we really link it to Italian? Bendróvės Ob = Bendróvės (p. 430); Benekainys is preserved in the standard language by the old Lithuanians; comparison with Belarusian is prescribed, with the distorted form Benekonis (p. 432); in Trg Bènškiškė is impossible (p. 434), only Beñškiškė; klõnė; Rtn = klõnė (p. 436); and Biržytė also appeared (p. 49), although throughout the text 139 Recenzijos mostly Biržytė; bišyti, -ija, -ijo J ‘to call someone a devil’ is a word invented by one autodidact (LKŽ I² 853), as are the “regular” city “miestas,” vikas “viėkas,” etc., coined by VPU students; even Prof. V. Grinaveckis was taken in—only biešyti exists; K. Klv’s Pakenė is Pakinė (p. 507), like Kinė, not the polonized Kenà, which is not even given by the leading Polish linguists J. Otrębskis, W. Smoczyński, and others; for LUEV we relied on K. Būga. Jo apparently had not assimilated the truth, and the author of these lines was verbally criticized by J. Balčikonis; Bliovokas and Blivokas Žl (p. 516) may indicate the later spread of the sound change ú > i; the replacement of Blūdinėlis = Blūdinėlis is necessary (p. 518); Bosisuvka (p. 539), a recent historical development, is characteristic of the residents of Pakaunė who have been blowing the “dúdas” as they become Slavicized; the question of the confusing roots Bož- and Buož-: for example, in Grk we pronounce buožė.li, transcribed as Boželė (p. 546); I do not know the pronunciation of Božiu in Babrūngo village; according to the transcription it should be pronounced búožė (p. 542), but its area of use is unknown, since it is an insignificant village with only a few ordinary farmers; the town of Breslaujá in a formerly Lithuanian parish, Broslavas Lake, while the other synonyms belong to people who have become Slavicized (pp. 360–361); Briánkio swamp Smn is only an orthographic form = Brénkio r. (p. 561); I know nothing about the origin of Briédvaišis Lake, but in Tt I heard of a brîvaišė lake (p. 567); Tárpkojis Krtv is tarpkuojis (p. 567); Brunavà (p. 575) was a Lithuanian parish, exchanged for Šventoji; there were Lithuanians there, a few lived near Papilė, one was the mother of Associate Professor Ancevičius. I remember the pronunciation brũ.nava; I did not hear the other two, and all have died out—K. Garšva did not find them either and wrote nothing about them in his book; cf. Brūniškis near Rùsnė, Brūnupis River near Všv; Bruožiai, Bruoželiai, etc. (p. 576) Blk, since the Lithuanians of Belarus and Pažemaitė replace the vowel o with the diphthong uo (in Erž, all o > uo); in the Krš area there was only būdas ~ Būdos (p. 589), not Būdai; in Rdn there was only Bugáiliškė (p. 599); I have written down much material about Bugáila’s life, especially that she was a particularly energetic housekeeper; why has the circumflex accent been substituted here? Bukantės path was invented only by teachers; the local people did not know it (p. 605); Bukantiškė Stk = Bukantė, for those who do not speak Polish (p. 605); in Smn there was only Būkūnykai (p. 607); Būkonto meadows, as pronounced by an immigrant according to the church records = Būkanto p. (p. 609); Bulikų kunkulynė (p. 613) is poorly transcribed; it should only be Bulikų kankolynė—a LKŽ error, with an > un regularly; Bulkšos homestead Rdn = Bulkšo life (p. 614). These are the doubts and uncertainties that arose while reading, and after reading, the entire volume. The dialectal pronominal forms are very confused. In eastern Lithuania there is ãklasai (-iai), -ója, so you find it in all sorts of forms (there are area maps indicated in scholarly works by habil. dr. A. Valeckienė in 1985: the forms are written in various ways here, apparently as the collectors reported them). Aklàsis Kv, Lž, Nt, but there they say á.klasis; in Markutiškis, Jonava district, there are no pronominal forms at all, hence Aklasis Ežeras (with a capital letter, as orthographers around 1980 wanted to write Pirtis, Pelkė, Vidurinė Mokykla, Bažnyčia, etc.). Beyond Krš everyone widely uses the form Upýna (around Dirvonėnai); they do not even know Akmenõs (p. 38). The speech of the people of Tilžė around Rambynas Hill 140 Recenzijos could not possibly be pronounced akmenbalė (at least akmenbalė)—p. 41, whereas in Krš there is only ākmino dirvōnas (ibid.); in Tl it is pronounced akmenōute, as in Ub and Šts (ibid.); among themselves, people in Plt say kūliarežis, whereas Akmeniės rėžis is only for newcomers (ibid.). The pronominal place names Akranglioja Rait, Akranglioji Lp, and Akruglioji Dg (p. 49) are fictitious, whereas the form by Akruglės is perfectly regular (ibid.); once again, the standard-language form Aukštasis has appeared instead of Áukštastiai—p. 232; on pp. 242–243 the Samogitian forms Avėtymo, Avėčios and other forms have been omitted; Baltōsios várnos raistėlis = Baltōsios várnos raistėlis (p. 346); Baltūlis Mtz is a stop near Valkininkai, replacing the other Lithuanians’ baltāsis (p. 348); Lzd does not have the form Akmenuotasis, only Akmenuotas (at least they add tusāi, whereas Škt and the standard language have akmenuōtasis (p. 47)). It is debatable whether the names of homesteads belonging to landowners are place names. Some Aleksandráitis manor in Trš is entirely forgotten, as is Alejūno vienkiemis Rdn (a similar form also in Rt)—p. 58; do landowners’ surnames determine a place name if no one now associates the landowners with it (p. 133)? The result of pronunciation and spelling is the doubling of many forms or a change in pitch accent: Ánt sieniai Plt (pronounced ánčėinė), Ántsietuvis Nmk = Ántsietuvis (pronounced únčítuvis), Ántsakiai ir Ánčakiai Rs = Ántsakiai (p. 135). Ántšyšiai, Ántšyšiai, Ántšyšių pievos Ktč = Ántšyšiai, -ių pievos (ibid.) = Ántšyšiai. The Lithuanian language has no rule for pronouncing identical or assimilated consonants. This is often treated as development or expansion, but is perhaps merely spelling based on pronunciation: Abriès-kelis (< *Abriesk-kelis)—p. 8, etc. There are quite a few such references. These are not matters of development, but of spoken language (partly also the unofficial spelling of “local” forms in districts, former local administrative units, and elderships). Among the rare deviations in stress, Lìeptas “stream” is perhaps said to derive from liéptas (p. 43) = liėptas; nowhere in the dialects is Aleksėikos Grnd stressed that way (p. 59), or Aleksėikos ar Alekseikos (p. 59), and the spelling is not ours; could Akūlovo vienkiemis Rdn come from the Old Believer village of Dubiniai dating back to Stolypin’s time (p. 51)? Akūotninkai had already appeared in the “Dictionary of the Vilnius Region”; the Lithuanian linguist J. Vosylius, who worked at a bus station in Vilnius after returning from Siberia, heard it and rejoiced in 1961 (he had heard Okuótnikai); there is no need to doubt it (p. 52); how Aliksnynai came from the eastern dialects to Skdv is unclear; everywhere there, they told me, it is Alksnynai (even alksninai)—p. 63; Alijōsis Vp from Alijōsius, when in the dialect ’u > i; Alyvà has nearly two stress patterns throughout Lithuania, but here it has become a first-pattern form. Alyvinis, Alyvos sódas (especially sōdnas, only Alyvų)—p. 66; in Lenkimai, it turns out, liėknas is actually Lėknas (sorry, liėknas—why not check it?)—and that liėknas has disappeared altogether—p. 68; one woman from Kartena told me only 141 Recenzijos Kūlupis esąs, ne Aklūlupis (p. 75); priešdėlio ant- (prieš p, b tariami am-) dariniai žodžiuose kirčiuojami tvirtagališkai: Ámbrastve Vkš, ne Ámbrastvė (p. 83); kokio kalbėsenos stiliaus tarimo junginiai An Bōbriškį, An Bareikiūs (p. 89) ir kitur tariama, nežinia; Vakarų aukštaičių Šātrija (p. 95) išmokta tarti iš mūsų mokyklų prastos kalbos vos ne visoje Lietuvoje, nes buvo nuo amžių taisyklės -ija formos savi yra 2 kirčiuotės, o tarptautiniai žodžiai komūnija, litānija, Graīkija, jei neturi kokio lietuvių prisidėjimo, kūrimo Vokietijā, Prancūzijā ir kt.; Angeliškis Užv iš naujai išmokto ā.nūola kažin ar turi e (p. 99); į Angerklio keitimą Ingerkliu labai gerai pastebėta, bet neatkreiptas dėmesys (p. 99), nes ir Anturkės / Inturkės klausimo nekelta, nes minima tik Inturkė (p. CLCXXII) viena forma, o žodynai kiek teikė — net neminimas čia NdŽ ir LKŽ ir t.t., rytiečių ant- ir int- santykiavimas ilgai truko, įsigalėjo int-, bet buvę tarta ir ūnturk’e. Āntupio lenkimai iš Žlg, nesamo kaimo ar miestelio tai Krg, Krt, tikriausiai kolūkio, nes ānt- žodžio ar kokio trumpinio neturi — p. 137; Žemaičiuose pakeistas vietovardis Āntagluonis Trg (Vaīdlai) vietoj humoristinio Minkštapaūčiai, bet tai nepaveldėta (p. 113); Ateistų kapaī tiktai nuo 1975 metų, kai kilo antireliginė isterika, dabar beveik nebežinoma (p. 204); vėl atsirado, kaip „tikras“ faktas Trgn sūduvā „klampynė“ (p. 219) — tai iš fantazijos srities; Aukščioja ilg ame straipsnyje (p. 221–226) įvardžiuotinių formų nelabai sutvarkyta iš A. Valeckienės nurodytų Vidurio Lietuvos ir pietų aukštaičių šnektų; Rsn iš sakytojo Deivilaičio girdėta 1958 m. Aūkšt Ši:sà (t + š = č taip skambėjo man tada = Aukšta Šyšā (p. 228 — Aukšt Šyšos pievos; Aukštakalnis Mlt (Čiulėnų k.) pramanas, neišgirsta tvirtagalė priegaidė (p. 227), taip esą ir Dglš, apslavejusiuose po Joninių žudynių Dbg (p. 227); iš Varn tarimo Aukštāpė.Įkė nukeltinis kirtis skiemenyje ė.l palaikytas pagrindiniu (p. 229); įtartinas Nv, Kv, Pp Aūkštdvaris; Mlt (tuose Čiulėnuose). Atrodo, kad daug kas yra fonetikos reiškinių plotų nesuvokimas; iš Lz yra Babrėnai (p. 287) ir Bebrėnai (p. 410), o kilmės pavardės bemaž tos pačios surašytos (Babrāitis, Babrānskas, Babbravičius — p. 287 ir Bēbris, Bebravičius, Bebrun- — p. 410); Bedinikei Užv siunčiamosios Bedinės niekaip neradau (p. 413), čia gali būti Bēdinikė, nes ē išliktų į Bgs santrumpą iš LKŽ lyg ir čia nusinešęs, nes čia jau nespjauta į valsčiaus Glv trumpinį (p. 295); Bajorėlis Žlb yra tik Bajorēlis (p. 308); sukirčiuota plyniā, net *plynià, plýnė (p. 309); Bālvis ež. Trš yra prie Pabalvės k., dabar stumiantis senąjį vardą iš gyvenimo (p. 351); dvejopos Bambl- ir Bumb- šaknys iš tų pat vietų: Bambalynės kūlynai Stp (Joniškis didysis) — p. 354 ir Bumbalinė K lov, Pušalotas p. 615; Bāmbėnai Int[urkė] Mlt ir Bùmbalis / Bumbalýs Jon — p. 615; kodėl Rdn bumbeikė (? bọmbė.k.lė) aiškinama žodžiu bumbėtti, o ten yra tik bọ.mb = bámba iš bọmbėte, p. 615; 354; Bambinai (Paš) = Skd (p. 354) ir Bùmbinai (Il) p. 616 — teisus A. Vanagas; Bambliāi su visu lizdu p. 142 Recenzijos 354–355, and Bumbliȧi likewise with its whole word family—the first family is quite good and was transposed very sensibly, whereas most of the second was not transposed (except Stlg, Rait, and the form žvyrduobė =žvyrduobė, accented three times, which is maddening); the same applies to other Bamb-Bumb alternations: one needed to examine bamb- > bumb- and the Suvalkija dialect form bumbėti, that is, the issue of onomatopoeia; are there two lakes in Lkm: Bandinis—p. 356, and Bundinis—p. 618 (clearly something has been overlooked); an old prayer... Having got into the habit of creating abbreviations, they also invent some and leave them out of the list, e.g., Pšk (2*) — p. 474, Bijūtiškis always belonged to Mlt, and an excellent East Aukštaitian dialect was demonstrated—not the language of VU lecturers longing for the Polish of the szlachta (p. 475; how, in the Vn kolkhoz office, Bikavos up. (p. 476) could become Plnk (since no such village exists) and then Bikavà (p. 475) is hard to understand; they even redirect that Bikavą to the supposedly more authentic form Bikavà (ibid.); what the authors failed to understand here is bilijišo (Ant, Mlt)—this is a word for a great jubilee: the commemorations of 1900 as a jubilee year at the Šatrija, Girnikai, and Medvėgalis hillforts and elsewhere were likewise called and referred to this way; Lithuanian studies also began there (p. 479); Bimbalìnė was jokingly called by the common noun kumetynas (p. 481); Bliorkis Bsg is in fact presumably (p. 516) Bliurkės (Bliùrkis (p. 520), Bsg, since io has been broadened (short ’o from ’u); but why repeat this? Bliūdìnėlis ež. Ign and the three bliūdìnėliai Klt are forms with the suffix -ėlis (p. 518); Blazài Kin = Blazāi—the vowel a and consonant z arose from Latvian-speaking Kursenieki (p. 522); Bobutės Išimtinė means ‘old-age pension’ (a common, ordinary word), in the Vkš dialect (p. 531); Bolševikas is a pejorative word in nj. (p. 536); Botāgas, pv. Krš = Vatā.ga (p. 541); the crux of Blėnda (p. 512) and Blinda (p. 514–515) is the distribution of the diphthong en in the dialects; pronunciation varies in many places, but it should at least be related to the area where en is retained >: retention of en is indicated by Krž, Rg, Btrm, Rtn, Grdn, Jkn, Msn (if this is accurate), whereas it is not supported by Auk, Kltn, Pkn, Čk, Rsn, Jsv, etc.; this means there is variation, or perhaps uncertainty in recording and imprecision in the rules of transposition. Blérbalė is merely an orthographic form (p. 512; > *Blerbbalė is an unsuitable spelling); Bliatkiškė Trk is an entirely unsuitable spelling or transposition; Blindalėlis Žlb (p. 515) is over-literarized—with the suffix -ėlis and the like. Bumbalinė is Bambalinė because of am > um (p. 615); likewise, Bumbalynė Pšl will also be Bambalinė (am > um, while stressed i is lengthened (ibid.); Bùmbalis / Bumbahýs Jon (Berž) likewise reflects am > um (ibid.); not to mention Rdn bọ.mb–bámba, bambėti, not bumbėti (p. 619): it is the Bumbeikė, Bumbeikės spring, not a springlet (p. 615); Bumbinai II = Bambinai reflects am > om; the um reading is supported—A. Vanagas is probably right (p. 616); Buojis has substantial supporting evidence (p. 620), whereas Bojinės Štk has been over-transposed as a word of foreign origin (p. 534); Krš had a manor Bùrbos (named after its owner’s surname), 143 Recenzijos After their father’s death, three daughters remained, called Burbikėmis, who had studied at Western universities. One, having made her way to Poland, became a renowned scientist and chemist, Burbo, unrelated to the surname *Burbikis; from Burbikiai and that former manor, everyone in Krš calls the place Burbikės, and young people hold dances in Burbikės, and so on (p. 623); and when the Kvotkėliai manor was divided among volunteers in Krš, its name was ‘Lithuanianized’ as Bijūnėliai, so the surname Bijūnėlis is fictitious (p. 475); why Burkštinas is associated with a ram, when it means amber—that should at least have been mentioned (p. 628); Bušeika’s Pants L1 is Mušeika’s Pants (p. 636); Šatrija was brought to Plt by teachers, just as some party leader spreads the writer’s nickname (p. 640). A small group of onomasticians took on a difficult task, without the support of the editorial team or of scholarly figures familiar with Lithuanian studies only from a distance. If the history of place names, the system of phonetic laws and their distribution, and accentuation facts remain unknown, there will be more mistakes, and we will mislead the whole of linguistics. I have not written down everything; some teachers will find things out for themselves—it is only necessary to want to understand the essence. Nowadays, wherever one looks (in Samogitian), something always catches one’s eye. In such an important work, I would be more cautious about including facts of no importance (the forest Būnkėriai), or objects of jokes involving the names of countries or parts of the world—Lithuanians are making the jokes. For example, the Samogitians of Kuršėnai once had a Jeruzolimas on the land of the Gruževskis manor; that was long ago—25 years have passed since it was forgotten; they had their laugh and dropped it. Vytautas Antanas Vitkauskas Institute of the Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva 144