Berthold Forssman. „Lettische Grammatik“

REVIEWS | 121 critical releases of individual CN parts, although it is extremely difficult and meticulous work. The remarks made here, sometimes perhaps too subjective, were first of all intended to draw the attention of the editor to what should be clarified in future critical editions, what should be discussed more broadly. And if these remarks are at least slightly useful, then their author has achieved his goal. BiRžiška, V. 1990: Aleksandrynas 1, Vilnius: Sietynas. Clavis Germanico-Lithuana 1997. 17th-century German-- Lithuanian dictionary. Part I: A-E, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. KAVALIŪNAITĖ, G. 2003: Samuel Boguslavas Chylinskis's New Testament translation in relation to the originals. Doctoral dissertation, Vilnius. KReGZDE, J. 1978: Lithuanian Reformed Writing, Chicago: Devenių Cultural Foundation Publication. Lexicon Lithuanicum 1987. German-- Lithuanian dictionary of the 17th century, Vilnius: Mokslas. LukšaiTĖ, I. 1999: The Reformation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuania Minor, Vilnius: White circles. LukšaAiTĖ, I. 2001: The cultural environment of the preparation of the Book of the Church (1653). 1653), a monument of Lithuanian culture of the 17th century, 4-29. Kėdainiai: Kėdainių region museum, NEepokuUPNAS, A. 1994: M. Mažvydo „Katekizmas“ —bylojancio vadovėlio (knygelių) vaizdas istorijos ir kultūros kontekste. Protestantism in Lithuania: History and Present, Vilnius: Apyaušris, 70-77. RuBSys, A. 1995: The Key to the Old Testament 1, Vilnius: Catholic World. Juozas Karaciejus Received 12/12/2004 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva BERTHOLD FORSSMAN LETTISCHE GRAMMATIK Dettelbach: J. H. Roll, 2001, 418 p., ISBN 3-89754-194-7 (Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 20) Berthold Forssman's Grammar of Latvian, as stated in its "Preface", is intended not only for Indo-Europeanists and Baltists, but also for Slavists and other linguists who are interested in both the current written Latvian language and the historical grammar of this language. Despite the late evidence in written sources, the Baltic languages are considered very archaic due to their phonetics and well-preserved flexional system. The author of the grammar also points out that the 1923 edition of the Latvian grammar by Janis Endzelyns was and still is an indispensable exemplary textbook, but it is too detailed, practically difficult to use and has no connections with the current Latvian literary language. Therefore, B. Forssman’s grammar is like a bridge between the current Latvian literary language and its historical treatment, and the synchronous chapters presented can be used as a starting lesson for the Latvian language interested. The author of the grammar also emphasizes that it is necessary for Indo-Europeanists to know the Lithuanian language, therefore in the diachronic sections the Lithuanian language material is used in contrast, but, In contrast to the historical comparative grammar of the Baltic languages, the Latvian language and its data are put in the first place. In the first chapter, “Latvian language- ”, the subjects of ethnogenesis and history of Latvian and Baltic languages are taught, and the place of Baltic languages in the Indo-European language family is described — all this is done with a good knowledge of the subject and a perfect orientation in the rather confusing historical development of individual Indo-European language branches. The author is well acquainted with the latest methods of historical comparative Indo-European linguistics and the results of research (for example, he briefly presents the laryngeal theory) and reasonably does not avoid them to reveal not only the development of the Latvian language, but also of the Baltic languages. The second chapter “Phonetics and phonology” (pp. 67-104) begins with a description of spelling and orthography, describes its change and transition from German to the current spelling system standardized by Mūhlenbach and Endzelynas (pp. 67-72). Next, the general description of Latvian sounds (vowels, consonants) is given (pp. 72-76), illustrated with examples from German that approximately correspond to Latvian sounds, so that the non-native speaker can understand better (e.g., the Latin ū in the word ūdens should be pronounced as the German Uhr [p. 73]). In the larger part of the second chapter, the change and development of Latvian sounds and phonemes is examined by a historical comparative method. Describing the morphological structure of Latvian language, to which the largest section “Morphology” is dedicated (pp. 109-227), the author rightly distinguishes two time periods — synchronous and diachronic (p. 109). The construction of noun roots, the categories of gender, verb and number are explained. It is worth noting the author’s idea that the nouns of the root ė, rightly considered as a Baltic innovation, may be related to the origin of the taxonic root ar ide. -ih, /-idh,, i. e. with s. indy devi “goddess” noun class (p. 110). It would be logical to derive the root of the Baltic languages ė from *-(i)iūper the intermediate stage *-(i)iė-(p. 125). The structure of the verb and its history are also described in detail and consistently. The author argues that the kentum reflexes in the Baltic languages have arisen, among other things, perhaps because of the influence of Germanic languages. In individual cases, of course, this may have been the case. On the other hand, the presence of kentum elements in the Baltic languages (e.g., Lithuanian pekus: s. ind. pašu) should be explained by the peripheral position of the Baltic dialects ide. in the lingual area. In fact, the author of the grammar himself notes this (p. 23). He believes that the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages in ancient times formed a communicational continuum with many isoglosses and probably originated from the same ide. pro-speaking of the northern dialect, correctly emphasizing that the kentum /satam boundary, which separates, first, the Baltic, Slavic, and second, Germanic languages, is a matter of secondary importance (p. 25). Interesting and the author's idea that ide. pro-speech at the end of the word by separating the opposition of intonations (circumflex /akūto). The Baltic and Slavic languages have extended this opposition into the middle of words (p. 27). It is worth adding that the emergence of the opposition of intonations in Baltic and Slavic languages, possibly, was associated with the decline of the opposition of short and long diphthongs (e.g., ai: ai > ai: di). The author maintains the common opinion in Slavistics that de Saussure- 's law has also worked in Slavic languages (p. 28). Of course, this is a controversial statement. Russian language forms nom. sing. pykd (: acc. sing. pyky) crossword jumped to the ending probably for the same reason as in forms gen. sing. pyku, dat. sing. pyké, but hardly because of the limb acute nom. sing. pykd form. B. Forssman quite adequately reveals the local ide of the Baltic languages. in the language family. The reviewed grammar reviews the general phenomena of the accent system, phonetics, morphology, word formation and lexicon and syntax of Baltic and Slavic languages. There are even quite fundamental differences, for example, in the verb morphology. In the opinion of the author, those 123 differences rather indicate that the area of Baltic and Slavic languages did not form a homogeneous block (kein einheitlicher Block); The Baltic and Slavic languages probably originated from the same ide. dialect and formed a continuum in which innovations were born and spread, but not always covering the entire area; most of the individual novelties of these languages have been created over a long period from the breakup of the linguistic union (des Sprachverbandes) to the first written fixations, i.e., until the 9th century (AD) (p. 31-32). In his grammar, B. Forssman repeats K. Buga's thesis that the Baltic tribes, under pressure from the southern invading Slavs, moved from their southeastern territory to the areas near the Baltic Sea. The first ancestors of the Prussians who came to the Baltic were around the 5th century BC, much later (about the 5th century AD) — the Curonians. However, the study of hydronyms of the Baltic inhabited area (W. Schmid and others) and archaeological data suggest otherwise. The hydronyms of the former Prussian land, Lithuania and Latvia are part of the old European hydronyms, so the Finn tribes probably did not live there (p. 46). V. Toporov and O. Trubachev in their famous study came to the conclusion that the Baltic tribes in Upper Transnistria were assimilated in place from the Slavs who came from the south (Toporov, Trubachev 1962). Therefore, apparently, Bezzenberger’s claim that the Eastern Balts lived here since the Bronze Age is still valid. This opinion led to another statement by Forssmann, namely that it is still unclear whether Tacitus’ Aestii actually concern the Balts (ob es sich dabei tatsichlich um Balten gehandelt hat) (p. 18). The prevailing opinion among scholars is that the Aestii of Tacitus were former southern Prussian tribes (for literature see Karaliūnas, Bammesberger 1998). The author prefers to use the term Prufisch to avoid confusion, as the term Altpreufisch may be associated with the term (Ost)preufisch, which is used in German literature to refer to a dialect of German. One more comment on the interpretation of individual things in grammar. "Avestas mana, s. sl. mene, s. lit. mane —gen. sing. ! —considered to have evolved from ide by dissimulation. *meme (p. 33), cf. Vedic gen. sing. Mom. It appears that the opposite was the case — the result of assimilation may have been a form of Vedic language derived from ide. *mene (Szemerényi 1980: 229, Meiser 1998: 157). He's coming. prokalbei, very possible thing, reconstructable leksemas liet. sūnūs, s. sl. see, p. ind. sūnuh; liet. vyras, lat. virs, s. ind. virdh with long vowels at the root, but got. sunus, lot. vir, s. air. fer, s. vok. height. wer short vowels may be the result of abbreviation according to Dyb’s law — vowels ft iri may have been abbreviated in the syllable before the accent, i.e. Italic *uiro-< *uiro (Meiser 1998: 75). It is inaccurate to reconstruct such forms as *žėmija-- (p. 38), *akis (p. 47), *ūkmenes, *avis, *patis (p. 98), *sakau (p. 104), *médiia-(- p. 106) for the proto-Baltic language, because the short vowels under the accent probably were not yet elongated at that time, so it would be more accurate to mark them as *žėmiia, *akis, *akmenes, *avis, *patis, *sakau. The grave indicates the place of the accent and the vowel density, as is accepted in Lithuanian, cf. kitas, buvas, kasti, nėšti). But correctly reconstructed accents and intonation, e.g., Proto-Baltic nom. sing. *deiuas, 3 p. praes. *go (p. 98). The Latvian verbs baudit ‘experience’ (the more precise meaning is “prüfen, versuchen, wagen”) and baūdit would be better described by their equivalents of the same root: lit. baūdėtis (-osi, -ėsi) “to prepare” and baudyti (-o, -ė) “to urge, incite”, but not lit. bausti (p. 88). There are mistakes: lit. medūs gen. plural form is medų, but not *mėdų (p. 51); lit. hegy. gen. plural form is ežią, but not *ėžių (p. 96); -st can't be derived from ide. *-sk-(p. 90). A list of references is given after the overview of each part of the speech, which helps the reader to navigate. The fourth (pp. 229-263) and fifth (pp. 264-340) chapters deal with word formation and syntax. In the appendix (pp. 341-357) we find a list of o-root and athematic verbs with a single-stemmed infinitive. The reader will find a list of abbreviations (p. 124 | RECENZIJOS 359), subject register (p. 389-396) and explanations of special signs (p. 396). The word indexes occupy pp. 360-388, the bibliography —p. 397-418. Having reviewed the grammar under review, it can be stated that Berthold Forssman’s Lettische Grammatik is not only a modern textbook of Latvian language and its history for foreigners, but also a scientific work — a valuable contribution to the historical comparative grammar of the Baltic languages. LITERATŪRA KARALIŪNAS, S., BAMMESBERGER, A. 1998: On the ethnic identity of the Aests. Bammesberger, A., ed., Baltic Studies: Tasks and Methods, Heidelberg: Winter. MEisER, G. 1998: Historical phonology and form theory of the Latin language, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. SZEMERĖNYI [CeMepensu], O. 1980: Beedenue 6 cpaenumenonoe szvikosznanue. Ilepes. E. A6pamMoBa, Mocksa: Ilporpecc. Tonoros, B. H., Teysaues, O. H. 1962: Jluneeucmuueckui ananu3 eudponumos Bepxnezo ITodnenpoeba, Mocksa: Hayka. Simas Karalitinas Received 12/14/2004 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva