Mažmožiai 14, 15

Pastabos Van Langendonck, W. 2007: Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Žukauskaitė, J. 1961: Kaip vartojimas jungiamuoju žodžiu ir jungtuku. In: Kazlauskas, Laigonaitė & Urbutis, red., 1961, 217–278. Rolandas Mikulskas Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 P. Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania Miscellany 14 Dialect-text glossaries are strange nowadays. I say this after looking at the glossary in A. Leskauskaitė’s book Texts from the Kučiūnai Region (2006, pp. 401–425). We all know that dialects and local varieties now exist alongside the standard language (school, radio, television, government offices), bilingualism (even multilingualism), and slang—the speech of young people, pupils, and office workers. For scholarship, word etymology, and the history of dialects, inherited vocabulary is what matters most; innovations are of interest only sociologically. Distortions of international words are temporary; on closer examination, there are no longer such forms as anàlìzas, garnizònas, fabrìkė, kantòra (1!), karasėlė (2), liminãdas, litinántas ‘lieutenant’, nãrvas ‘nerve’, pìlstùkas, rãdija, šakmãtai, šoferis, šoferiauti, šoferiukas (what unheard-of Dzūkian words!), trìperis (?), vìtirinõrius ‘veterinarian’ (due to the reduction of unstressed e). The Kučiūnai region was part of the completely Polonized parish of Bérznik (rendered by the author as Béržininkai), which had fought against Lithuania; accordingly, there are many loanwords, now even ridiculed, spread by former Soviet partisans and other figures (especially merchants): bajãvas, -à, blestvà (in the text blę.stva—p. 158, which means the foreign word is simply repeated), basanõškė (in the text basanõšku—p. 366), burtãkas (heard in Lp, Drsk; among young people bòrdą.kas!), cielkà (2) ‘a girl who has preserved her virginity’ (in the text cielkos, p. 388—a foreign word repeated again, Lithuanianized by the author), bufãikė ‘padded jacket’, dačià (?) (the bilingual speakers of Švendubrė say dã. ča), davãi ‘fingernail’, dũryti ‘to fool’ (from President Brazauskas’s election campaign), centrafũga (!), fãinas ‘excellent’, lapkà (in the text lã.pka, p. 262—which means it is a purely foreign word), načiãlnykas (a purely Russian word), pašlòvica (!) ‘proverb’, põdlas ‘vile’, pratìbnas ‘nauseating, repellent’, tùžolas ‘heavy’, zakõnas ‘law’, zastãvas (from the Polish word for ‘guard’), and so on. As long ago as his review of the first fascicles of K. Būga’s Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the great Latvian scholar J. Endzelīns taught that the bare loanwords used by multilingual people— 155 Pastabos —are not part of dialect history, but merely a reflection of speech (that is why J. Otrebski also listed separately the Slavic words used in Tverečius, unadapted to the dialect and in their bare form, concerning the provision of government, teaching, and so on). Sometimes the author omits native words from the glossary—šūniažolė ‘such a weed’, tùs, tó ‘that one, that one [feminine]’, etc.—while even all the foreign diminutives and various pronunciation quirks (kolkozas, etc.) are listed, listed! Neither the Institute’s council nor its dialectologists notice even the distortions: dasėkti cannot yield dàsiekia, dàsiėkė; the Dzūkian form is only žiūro, not žiūri; in the text, diėgu· (p. 380), but diėgas (3); iškėsti, but iškėte—this is a new development in Lithuanian accentuation; in the text I found the form véntėris, dictionary form veñteris (wherever I have been among the Dzūkians, fishermen have said only véntėris); rántauti = réntauti (with a hardened r), and so on. The reduction of ai, a, which has occurred since Chylinski, is unheard of among the Dzūkians; it was already warned against in Professor J. Balčikonis’s time, and later by the philosopher A. Griška of Armóniškės, and so on. Hence maišãčis = maišàtis and the like were not understood. Village communities that helped preserve the lexical, phonetic, and morphological systems of dialects are gone; spoken Lithuanian is becoming variegated, we do not follow developments in dialect lexicography (for example, F. Filin’s theory, German lexicography, or Latvian lexicography), and we publish even unexplained features of local speech (after all, even báldai are emphasized in this way—the Žemaitian báldai (2), coming into local speech from shops; this should be noted as such, rather than asserted as data that has existed from time immemorial. We shall see what sort of jumble the dialect dictionary of all the Dzūkians by the same author will be (with repeated foreign-language and slang material) (after all, here it is unclear whether nebaščikas is nebaščikas at all). This book should be used with greater caution: it was prepared uncritically, and its purpose and reliability are unclear. 15. A Trifle It seemed, and still seems, that our standard language has an almost perfectly organized set of place names, recorded from living speech (dialects), thanks to the efforts and research of K. Būga, J. Balčikonis, K. Alminas, A. Salys, A. Vanagas, V. Maciejauskienė, and other linguists. I pick up and read the book by K. Garšva, head of the LKI place-name section (formerly department), Lietuvių kalbos paribio šnektos (habilitation thesis), and find place names distorted, not taken from living speech. The Lithuanians of Rodūnia said only Plikiai, -ių (4), not Plikiai (2)—p. 26; is it necessary to call ancient Bérznyką Beržininkais (p. 31)? Šlynakiemis will presumably be Šlynakiemis (p. 33); Radžiūčiai (p. 33) = Radžiūčiai, to Telšiai 156 Pastabos (p. 46, entirely new in linguistics) = into Télšius (3), Skúodą (p. 46) = Skúodą, Dūkšto (pp. 59, 291) (sg. gen.) = Dūkšto, Brūnaviškis (p. 102) = Brūnava (1). And accents fluctuate considerably in general, for example: tėvas (2x, p. 35) = tėvas (3), tuoj (p. 41) = tuõj, kyla (p. 50) = kýla, valgíui (p. 54) = valgìui, šėlti (p. 54) = šėlti, plienas (p. 56) = pliēnas, pūota (p. 56) = puõta, kiemas (p. 56) = kiēmas, bū́ra (p. 66) = býra, negiėst (p. 101) = negiėsta, i.e. ‘does not sing,’ aviėts (p. 101) = avietės (retracted stress), tū-kart (p. 106) = tãkart, salýkla (p. 106) = salýkla, valnìste. = valnìste. (p. 122), bėkt (p. 274) = bėgt, bėg’ō—p. 281 (= b’ė˙g’ō), žiēmō—p. 281 (= ž’iemō). Understandably, we were also taught by Prof. J. Balčikonis that eastern Lithuanians have difficulty distinguishing pitch accents when the diphthongs ie, uo and the long vowels e, o, i, u bear primary stress, so this is hardly surprising; and the scientific editor L. Grumadienė (now Kalėdienė) does not hear them, is entirely without a dialect, even with a hint of jargon. Such is the state of our linguistics today. In the past, in J. Balčikonis’s time, people without a dialect were generally not accepted into the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language or the Institute. Perhaps that is why in K. Vosylytė’s Kupiškis Dialect Dictionary only stress location is marked in this instance (though there are questionable points as well). A novelty in our dialectology is the reported hardening of the future tense singular first-person ending -siu: dūosu, nešižanysu—p. 274 (or is this another work-forming suffix here, according to Academician Z. Zinkevičius?)—this is a genuine issue; it is heard in Zt, Brt, Pjv, was heard in PrL, Tóvė, near Labguvós, across large areas of the Samogitian dialect, and elsewhere. The book lacks care, whatever one may do, though it is very much needed: outside Lithuania, Lithuanians left on their own, forgotten by Lithuania, are rapidly assimilating into other ethnic groups (it is good that Dr. M. Sivickienė recorded much vocabulary from Málkava, Litvinka, and other places). These marks will remain in the history of the language. Vytautas Antanas Vitkauskas Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva What is this obscure lake name Vazbys? A rather small lake, covering 5.6 ha, named Vazbys1, is in Utena eldership, 7 km from Utena, on the right-hand side of the road to Kuktiškės, south of the village of Kymėnai and west of Galinava. I once told the linguist Aleksandras Vanagas that such a spelling- 1 Gazetteer of the names of rivers and lakes of the Lithuanian SSR. Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature, 1963, 188. 157