Mažmožiai 9–13

Pastabos Kymenow (Selected Writings 3, 136), so Kymėnai could also be a Lithuanianized name for a village of Yotvingians who had resettled there because of the threat of war. Vladas Žulys Completed 2006 10 09 Tako g. 1–7 LT-53356 Akademija, Kauno raj., Lietuva Mažmožis 9 During the 1926 land reform, its special Board did not want to officially release the Slavicized names imposed by landowners for use. One such Lithuanianized village was in Žalioji rural district, Vilkaviškis County, near the village of Augalai: Sūdava (it was not even marked for stress in the place-name index [files]). It took hold; only later was the form Sūduvà recognized and accented as a place name of accent class 3a by analogy (cf. Igluvà, Lietuvà, Šaukùva, etc.). Simas Karaliūnas is probably unaware of this history; he has not consulted the files containing place names and the Land Reform Board’s notes. Therefore, Sūdava, which he cites in the book The Baltic Past in Historical Sources, vol. II, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2005, p. 267, as a fact of great value and antiquity, is in fact a creation of the 1926 land surveyors. Through a certain analogy in written records it became Sūdava; in standard language, following the usage of many place names with the suffix -uvà, it is Sūdùvà (3a). Apparently this form did not exist in spoken usage and was recorded by no one, although it is correctly formed; it has no historical sources. Mažmožis 10 In Žemaitija, in the Venta River basin, there was a large marsh called Debėšnos (pronounced d'e'b'e.s-nas, d'e'b'e.snu, può d'e'b'esnàs in Pavandenė and Užventis; Žemaitė even wrote it this way in her works). This form was successfully propagated even in Aldonas Pupkis’s book Dictionary of Place Names, 2003, p. 79. Unexpectedly, Simas Karaliūnas adopts and disseminates the implausible, ahistorical form De-besną; see The Baltic Past in Historical Sources I 67, III 27, 59 (from Old Russian, following Spruogis and O. Trubačiov, Дебесна ibid. II 302). 102 Pastabos Mažmožis 11 In the so-called Dzūkian (Southern Aukštaitian and Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnian) dialects, the following rule of regressive consonant assimilation operates: -šti- > -šči- (not -šč-). Ignoring this rule led Saulius Ambrazas, in his article “On the Origin of Adjectives with the Suffix -intelis (-ė)” (Baltistica 39 (1), p. 71) to give the form tuščytėlis (from OG 261 tušč't'el'el'is), overlooking the fact that LKŽxvii 186 had already transcribed tuštytėlis, and forgetting the regressive consonant assimilation mentioned above. There are also other words from the Southern Aukštaitian (and Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnian) dialects that have been transcribed in various ways. The pronunciations džūr.žas, tšl̄r.štas, tširštūmas are reported (distant regressive assimilation). These are recent pronunciation facts, heard and published in Elžbieta Mikalauskaitė’s research; see Mikalauskaitė, Lietuvių kalbos fonetikos darbai, 1975 (prepared by Antanas Pakerys), p. 115, where tširštšimai ~ tirštūmai, kaip ir m'inkštimas ~ minkštimas, vai·ki·štšis ~ vaikystis and others are transcribed. The transcribed forms čīrštas, čiurštas, čiurštumà presented on p. 187 of the monumental work Baltų praeitis istoriniuose šaltiniuose II (2005) by Simas Karaliūnas cannot demonstrate any antiquity or the authenticity of the facts. Mažmožis 12 Antanas Juška collected a great deal of dialect vocabulary, but, as a self-taught scholar, he also coined some forms incorrectly. He thought that bakūžė, kumelė and samana were derived with certain suffixes, and so he created “suffixless” words in his manuscript: baka ‘bakūžė’ (JI 184, ed. F. Fortunatovas), kùmė ‘kumelė’ (LKŽvi 866, also attested in Kos 161!), samà ‘samaną’ (LKŽxii). These are unsuccessful formations; many have known this for a long time. Yet in S. Karaliūnas’s prestigious work Baltų praeitis istoriniuose šaltiniuose, samà ‘samaną’ from J (I 67) is cited as an authentic datum. This is, of course, not a linguistic fact at all; it has no basis whatsoever in the Lithuanian language. Mažmožis 13 In her interesting book Lietuvių kalbos liaudies etimologija ir artimi reiškiniai (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998), the young scholar Birutė Kabašinskaitė gives the previously unattested form piršys on p. 82, meaning ‘horse’s chest’, because in many parts of Lithua- 103 Pastabos tuvoje yra piršys sf. pl. (1) net prie Varnių (LKŽₓ 26 teikia?piršis). Arkliais rūpinosi paprastai vyrai, kurie plačiai sako esant piršys, piršims, tai piršys sm. sing. nežinia iš kur žinoma. Knygoje dar ir nemažai kirčio klaidų: bruõžas = brúožas, ruõžas = rúožas, rašliavà = rašliava, Ežerūnà = Ežerūna, tù lýdžiu = tuõ lydžiu, skėtra = skėtra (1) scom. ir skėtrà sf. (4), aržuolas = áržuolas, ž. puõkai = puokai ž. Vytautas Antanas Vitkauskas Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 P. Vileišio Street LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania Once Again on the Classification of Syntactic Relations In 2006, the fourth, revised edition of The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian was published. Since the chief editor of this grammar recently (Ambrazas 2005: 168) acknowledged that in earlier editions of DLKG the “... morphologized opposition between government and adjacency proved to be of little value for the study of the Lithuanian syntactic system and its development,” we were curious to see how types of syntactic attachment are defined in the new, revised edition. It turns out that this edition, too, continues to distinguish the same three relations: agreement, government, and adjacency. We will quote their definitions in turn: “Agreement is the selection of the morphological form (case, number, gender) of the dependent word according to the head word...” (DLKG4, p. 480); “Government is the selection of a dependent word determined by the valency of the head word. The governed word is most often a noun or pronoun in a particular case [...]. It can also be an uninflected word form” (ibid., 480). “Adjacency is the selection of the form of a dependent word according to its meaning, not determined by the valency of the head word” (ibid., 481). For convenience, let us compare the definitions quoted here with those given in earlier editions. The definition of agreement has not changed compared with earlier editions, but the definitions of government and adjacency were previously worded as follows: “Government is the selection of the case form of a dependent word, determined by the valency of the head word.” (DLKG1, 480). 104