Ramaškonių šnektos priebalsinio kamieno daiktavardžių kaityba

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVII (2002), 89-102 The article deals with the principal factors contributing to the process of change and decline of the peripheral Lithuanian dialect of Ramaškonys (Voronovo District, Belorussia). It is a South Lithuanian dialect strongly affected by the influence of the neighbouring Slavonic languages. The socially predominant language is now a Belorussian dialect which developed on a Lithuanian substratum. The basic phonetic, morphological and lexical features of the Lithuanian dialect have remained unaffected in the speech of the older generations, but that of the younger generations shows a considerable degree of instability. In the article, the development of consonantal stems is presented as an illustration of ongoing processes. The inflectional paradigms of two generations are compared. Shifts in the articulatory base and simplification tendencies are among the factors contributing to change. There are many variant forms, and some case forms have been replaced by prepositional phrases. The influence of the standard language is noticeable in the language of the older generations. 1. SOCIOLINGUISTICAL STUDY OF LIETUVOS PADETI Contemporary linguistic studies show an active interest in the marginal Lithuanian dialects. Attention is drawn to the complex processes of interaction between dialects, the results of dialect and language contacts. Methodology is sought to show the peculiarities of speech changes, causes, variations of various kinds, nuances of pronunciation and the mechanism of gradual change. However, the current situation of isolated speakers of Lithuanian in Belarus, who have separated themselves from the large Lithuanian-speaking area, the stages of change and disappearance, the influence of external factors and the issues related to the withdrawal of one language have not been studied and described in more detail. The conditions for researching the problems of Baltic and Slavic linguistic relations become more complicated almost every year: obstacles of state borders, special methods of working with informants, their search and selection. The last and best representatives of the living Lithuanian schnapps are over 60 years old. The possibilities to record valuable facts for the history of the language are decreasing every year. The current linguistic situation of the Lithuanian-Belarusian border has changed beyond recognition. That half a century ago, in the Dieveniškiai area between the Dieveniškiai promontory and the Lithuanian border, the Lithuanian language was regaining its prestige: the areas of use were expanding quite rapidly, compared with the situation of the Lithuanian language beyond the state border, where a few abandoned foci remained only in Ruse, although 60 years ago the linguistic situation in those territories was very similar. 90 | NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ The Benekainių ir Varanavo (Gardino sritis, Varanavo r.), Geranainių* (Vijos r.) apylinworks of famous Lithuanian and foreign linguists, folklorists, historians show the living islands of Lithuanian dialects in the past to the researchers of the modern generation. At present, traces of the existence of some Lithuanian dialects of the parishes of Armėniškiai, Varanavi, Rodūniai have to be sought in the local Slavic languages: Belarusian dialects are rich in words of Lithuanian origin (see Grinaveckienė, Mackevič 1988: 123-131; Grinaveckienė, Mackevič 1990: 165-173; 1993: 113-133; 1997: 185-195 and others), non-Slavic use of nouns and pronouns (see Grinaveckienė, Mackevič 1988: 123-131; Grinaveckienė, Mackevič 1990: 165-173; 1993: 113-133; 1997: 185-195 and others). Sudnik 1972: 19-22; Jonaitytė, Sudnik 1973: 75-77 and others. ). A large part of the villages of the region, having completely lost contact with other Lithuanian dialects and Lithuanian cultural life in the post-war years, were quickly assimilated. The Lithuanian language and Lithuanianness have lost their value. The elder generation of the population also experienced a painful process of forced glorification. The conscious transition to the Slavic languages was strongly driven by the instinct of self-defence of the Polish nationality (moreover, people of Polish nationality were given some privileges: they did not have to go to the army, they could go to Poland, i.e. to escape from Stalinist terror, kolkhozes). The younger generation, after the fading of the sense of national self-awareness, the weakening or even total disappearance of social control (the opinion of neighbors, etc.; see Gaučas 1993: 42-101 for more details), gradually assimilated, naturally switching to Lithuanian-Slavic bilingualism at first, and later to Slavic languages alone. The need of the younger generation of local inhabitants of the eastern part of Varanasi district for Lithuanianness and Lithuanian language has completely disappeared. It should be noted that the Lithuanian language itself, although rapidly denationalized by Lithuanians (the continuous denationalization ends in three or four generations), changed relatively slowly, * In the publication “Lithuanian traditional place names” (Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 2002) the name of this historical town is spelled strongly, but from the local Lithuanian stories of Ramaškoniai neighborhood this place name is also written with the strong suffix Geranainys. 3 Here it is necessary to explain somewhat more extensively the relationship of the local people with the literary variant of Belarusian language and some things related to nationality. According to A. Vidugiris, with the delay in Belarusian national self-awareness, the Belarusian language was not spoken by the local population and is not now associated with Belarusian as a separate nationality. It is still called neutrally — simple, local language (this term also refers to the Belarusian dialect of Vilnius, Šalčininkai, Eišiškės districts, which, compared to the studied region, more resembles the local Polish dialect). This Belarusian dialect is still actively used by rural people. During the period of deportation and russification of the population, it played the role of a mediator: the literary version of Belarusian, which the older generations do not know, is still not very appreciated in the villages. Russian and Polish are considered more prestigious. The majority of the local population now considers themselves Polish. Since the middle of the 19th century, the task of the Polish-run church was not so much to spread faith as to encourage worship. In contrast to the Eastern Slavic Orthodoxy, Catholic faith was called Polish faith (“polska wiara”), and Catholics were regarded as Poles (see Vidugiris 1988: 21—36) (until today, the former Lithuanians, who remained in the villages one or two, do not dare to regain their natural nationality). However, the Polish language is not firmly established in the ethnic Lithuanian lands (especially strongly promoted and supported through the church). Therefore, the local inhabitants consciously distinguish the official names Belarusian, Belarusian language from the unofficial gudas, Gudi language. In their understanding, Belarusian should be called the more official common Belarusian language, which is not characteristic of the surroundings (with a lot of Russian admixtures used by the local administration). When they say Belarusian, they often mean someone of another faith (Orthodox), a non-native person. Thus, the older Lithuanian name is gudas — "local inhabitant, Catholic", Gudi language — "local Belarusian dialect". The official name of the language is Belarusian, which is traditionally accepted in Lithuanian linguistics. The name is derived from the ancient name of the local people, the Gutas. 91 consecutive nouns. Difficult, unfavorable conditions for the Lithuanian language existed in the Balatnds* region for several centuries. In this small territory, we can say, the various stages of the once unified linguistic situation are combined: from the complete extinction of the language, when only a few names of household objects are remembered in Lithuanian, to bilingualism, which was preserved only by the old inhabitants. Nevertheless, in the villages of the eastern part of the Varanasi district live Lithuanians”, who still speak perfectly the native Dzūkų dialect (for more on the local Lithuanians see Vaišnytė 2002: 545-556). Almost all of them are the oldest local people who, besides Lithuanian, speak well, fluently and actively other languages characteristic of the region: the local Belarusian dialect (they call it the Gūdų language, foreigners — prosty jazyk, prosta mova), Polish and a little less — Russian. It should be noted that in 1953, the surroundings of the district were studied by Belarusian linguists who collected material for the Belarusian dialectology atlas (DABM 59-147). It was not noticed then that there were excellent speakers of Lithuanian in the region. This shows the very old knowledge and use of these two languages by the local population at the same time (for more information on the functioning of languages in the studied area, see Čekmonas 1988: 37-54). Now in many villages of this island inhabited by Lithuanians: Biliuosė, Biliūnai, Stanišai, Tūsamonys, Dainavojė, Ramaškonysė, Navasėdžiai, Dafžininkai, ArmoniSkese, Parubiškės — one or two people who speak and communicate in Lithuanian are left. The most active Lithuanian schnekt tradition is currently preserved in Ramaškonys, so the linguistic material from the Lithuanians of this village has been collected the most: several dozen hours of stringed schnekt texts have been recorded, specially interviewed, accentuated paradigms of noun conjugation. The local inhabitants of the Varanasi area have spoken several languages (often in one narrative, discourse), as already mentioned, since ancient times, since this territory was mixed with Lithuanian and Slavic inhabitants from about the 9th century (see Zinkevičius 1989: 4-11; Garšva 1989: 28-32). Therefore, the conditions for the formation of new language phenomena, which are constantly increasing, were created here quite early. The Lithuanian language itself has lost its prestige as an equal means of communication in the Balatna region more than 80 years ago. In this small district, gradually from fluctuating bilingualism (in some places — multilingualism) was moved to monolingualism (see Grumadienė 1994: 84) — the region is mostly communicated in the local Belarusian (see footnote 2) dialect in almost all areas of life (the areas of use of Polish and Russian are comparatively much narrower). The gradual change of isolated Lithuanian dialects has brought not only quantitative but also qualitative changes, which are unevenly distributed in the various dialects.4 The local people use the old name Balatna instead of the newer name Varanavas for the district centre. 5 Almost all of them are listed as Poles in their passports, and the nationality of their parents and grandparents is not recorded in the documents – there is usually a dash, although the oldest generation considers themselves Lithuanians. Interviewed according to the morphology questionnaire of the “Lithuanian language dialects and their interaction research program” (compiled by D. Mikulėnienė, K. Morkūnas). Linguists refer to the change of language in a bilingual or multilingual environment as code shift — often referring not only to the change of codes between different languages, but also between variants of the same language. In 1996, the author read a paper on this subject at the LKI scientific conference “Lithuanian language: researchers and researches” (for more on code change see Grumadienė 1996, Urnėžiūtė 1998). 92 | NIJOLĖ Take it to mind. Perhaps the greatest and most easily noticeable influence is in the fields of phonetics and lexis. Changes are also noticeable in the more resistant morphology of the snake. Thus, the peripheral Ramaškoniai dialect belonging to the Southern Highlanders, having withdrawn from public life, could no longer avoid the great influence of the prevailing language. At the present time, with the disruption of the function of full-fledged language, there remains only one style of its use — domestic. A stronger tradition is still maintained in the family environment, among close people. The Lithuanian dialect of Ramaškoniū microarea® was forced to change in various ways by the contacts of languages and cultures and the inevitably resulting multifaceted interaction (Grumadienė 2001: 41). Due to the geographical position, historical conditions unfavorable to Lithuanians, self-defense instinct forced a significant part of the villagers of the Varanasi region to speak the simple language, i.e., Gudhi with each other in families and with children. However, the Lithuanian language survived for a long time and is still used locally by neighbors and relatives. The national self-concept, especially now, of the people of the same villages, who can speak both Lithuanian and Gudi, is conditional and has no great significance. However, the changed community brought more or less changes to all the languages spoken in the region. 2. THE CURRENT STATUS OF SNORING. For linguists, the speech of this greatly reduced community may be interesting for several reasons: a) due to the archaic nature and uniqueness of the šnekta, it is a peripheral šnekta (see Morkūnas 1993: 4—7); b) due to the specific mechanism of its change, the nature of its diversity, its interaction with other languages; c) this may be another example of the decline, degeneration and death of the šnekta (as happened with the Lazūnų, Zietelos Lithuanian island dialects, see Vidugiris 1959: 195-213; 1985; 1998). In recent years, for various reasons, there is less and less interest in the language of this island inhabited by Lithuanians. Until now, we have read studies of peripheral dialects, which state the diversity of the language, its non-uniformity, but there is a lack of detailed analysis, internal motives: what changes first, why. Usually, what is not systematic, which is not a part of the Lithuanian language system, is rejected, and forms that are no longer recorded in conversation are often reconstructed, restored according to dialect characteristics. However, studies of dialect material recorded in recent years have shown that if some features are no longer recorded in the living language, they are usually no longer used. On the other hand, they vary or have changed, for example, nouns belonging to the same conjugation type may be conjugated or pronounced differently. 8 This term was first used by V. Čekmon (1988: 37-54). By the way, the range of Ramaškoniai described in his article is much wider. The Schneckt data were collected during a comprehensive expedition in 1983-1986. The villages of Pereigoniū (b. Ileparanuusr), Benekainiai (b. Bensxoni) and Varanavo (b. Bopanaa) were investigated in detail. The material used in this work was collected almost ten years later —1991— 1999. During this period, the number of Lithuanian-- speaking people in the villages decreased twice, so the area of the description also narrowed considerably. i It has been proven that very few of the local inhabitants of the investigated neighbourhoods are of foreign origin. Therefore, when collecting material and studying the local Snektas, attention must be paid not only to the abstract patterns of language system change, but also to the speakers themselves, the relationships of the language and its sociocultural environment. In the described case, language change is also an indicator of the lifestyle and behaviour of the people of ethnic Lithuanian lands, since the language of the representatives of the same schnekta in the villages located next to each other may differ. It can be said that the state of the Ramaškoniai schnekta itself is multifaceted, multilayered, directly dependent on the memory of its representatives, the need to communicate with it. The language is spoken, i.e., full of everyday words and phrases, intonation. There are many non-normative genders and otherwise individual phenomena, which at first glance are used sporadically, chaotically. The first detailed description of the Ramaškoniai snake was made by J. Šukys in 1960. While discussing the main characteristics of the snak, the author also mentions that at that time there were already differences between the language of the older and younger generations. nežymiai, tad plačiau darbe neaptariama. Galima prielaida, kad beveik prieš penkis Apparently, the language differed for decades in the Ramaškoniai village surroundings studied by the principle of selection of the best informants, which is applied in the study of large and strong dialects. Now it is not possible to apply it — all informants are questioned, as many as they are found and interviewed. The older (over 80 years old) and younger (about 60 years old) generations have different needs for the use of Lithuanian language, and therefore the various consonants of the language have changed differently. Comparison of two generations of representatives shows specific changes, it is possible to determine how much and where the condition of the schneck has progressed. The speech of the oldest informants is natural, quite stable and lively, because the representatives of this generation, while speaking Lithuanian, also try to think in the same language. In addition to adapting to the interlocutor, they often switch to the common Lithuanian word forms and pronunciation. If a foreigner is involved in the conversation, then Lithuanian is easily replaced by Belarusian. However, Belarusian sentences are often Lithuanian constructions, some words have non-Slavic forms, etc. The younger generation of representatives behaves almost exactly the opposite: although they speak Lithuanian fairly well, they think in Belarusian, and when they speak, they often translate their thoughts literally into Lithuanian. Belarusian is already the first language of this generation. In order to adapt to the interlocutor, they use the forgotten words in their forms according to the analogy of more commonly used Lithuanian or Belarusian words. For the youth of Varanasi region and children, as already mentioned, attending local Belarusian-Russian schools, Lithuanian language is already worthless. 3. PARADIGMA OF SCHNETZ SUBSTANTIVE NOUNS AT THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURY Changes in language are usually noticed first and more easily in the fields of phonetics and lexis. However, if they are recorded in the fields of morphology, syntax, it shows the unstable state of the language in general. In this thesis several morphological features of the extinct schnekta are discussed, specifically the consonant conjugation type of nouns. The multi-layered paradigms of this strain, which is sparse and has changed significantly, are compared, consisting of two generations of speakers: the older (more than 80 years) 94 | NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ and younger (about 60 years)". In order to show the effects of language interaction as accurately as possible and to record the current situation, a suitable method was sought. Since the presentation of non-systematic, but authentic, lively word forms, the historical comparative-reconstructive method was not suitable in this case. The laws of language variation and change formulated by W. Labov allow us to evaluate the result of language change over a longer period of time, to formulate its causes and, in our case, to predict the possible effect of those changes on the dialectal inflection system. According to W. Labov, the language is studied in real, observable time: i.e., the Lithuanian language of several generations of bilingual people living in the surroundings of Varanasi. The roots of nouns, inherited from ancient times, have changed very early in both Lithuanian dialects and common Lithuanian for various phonetic and morphological reasons. The greatest mutual interaction is observed between stems that are adjacent or close to each other in the language system (Girdenis, Rosinas 2000: 51; Rinkauskienė 2002: 10). 1997: 71). The resistance of the paradigm depends on the number of nouns of individual dialect stems and their frequency of use. The consonant stem began to decay even earlier in various Indo-European languages (Kazlauskas 2000: 242), so there are few nouns left that would have retained their consonant conjugation paradigm. In the Ramaškoniai dialect, as in the dialects of the larger Lithuanian area, this type of conjugation is very sparse and has been considerably decreased — losing many of its true forms — they have been replaced by forms of productive stems. Only the remains of it are found in Snæfellsnes. The reasons are not solely internal, because the words of the Ramaškoniai dialect, which is already very small, are still changed by Belarusian borrowed words. According to the frequency of use, the words belonging to the studied type of conjugation, e.g. juosmuo, liemuo, raumud, rémuo, stomudé are no longer heard in the living Ramaškoniai language and have been replaced by other words, often Slavic. Each noun of this type, both masculine and feminine, has its own evolutionary path, which has not yet been studied in detail. Here is a paradigm of a decomposed consonant stem, consisting of the masculine and feminine forms used by both generations of the speakers: akmud, piemuo, suo, sesud (the occurring consonant forms are discussed in more detail in the comments): 0 Equal distribution to form opposition to the senior generation of representatives. There are no people under 60 years of age speaking Dzūkų dialect in Ramaškoniai neighborhood. 95 1. TABLE. 1999. "The 1000-year-old castle in the mountains of Lithuania: a history of the castles, the castles, vyresnioji karta jaunesnioji karta V. the castles, the castles, the castles, the castles, the castles." | sisters * K. akmen'o, pi.men'o, šū.n'0, SESETrĖs a-kmen'o, pi.men'o, šū.n'o, seesceré.s | sa sceras N. akmen'u, pi.men'u, Sun'u, sa scerai del _pi.meen'- o, del'_siun'- o, del _scesceré.s G. akmeni, pi.meni, šū.ni“, sa-seers a-kmeni-, pL.meni-, šū.ni“, sascers. a-kmen'u, pi.men'u, šun'ū, s@ scerx akmen'u, pi.men'u, šun'ū, se seerx. akmeni (i), van'dent- -(i) | van'deni-- jé akmeni (i), van'dent-(i) It. van'denin., mé-nasin van'denin. / in_vd.n'deni-, mé-nasin / in_mé-nasipi- (718 IN , .mū., suvė, sesuvė pi.menis, suvė., seesuvė. | sisters 2. TABLE. PRIEBALSINIO KAMIENO DAIKTAVARDŽIŲ DAUGISKAITOS PARADIGMA vyresnioji karta jaunesnioji karta akmenai, V. pi.menai, šū.nes, akmenai, pi.meenat, šū.nes, sdė:saeras sce-seru.s | sdė-saeras K. akmeni, pi.meni, Suni, sesarū akmeeniv, pi.meenit, Suni, seseris + . 3 w 3 * . a w m N. akmend.- m, pi.mena.- m, šunim, seserūm del pimenū:, del _sunii 0 p $ . = L oN a ja § - v 3 vs G. akmenis, pi.menis, šunis | Sunces, a-kmenis, pi.menis, dogs | Sunces, sa@-scerus | sa-seras s@ seers | sa-seeras In. akmeenais., pi.meenad.s, šunimū, akmenat.s, pi.menal.s, Sunimi, seseramit scesaersumil 11 12 As we know, in the southern Altay n dialects the stem words vns. the ending of the denominator is -uo, in the southern edge of the dialect the ši ending is pronounced adjectively. su The Ramaškonių dialect is characterized by a very frequent monophthongation of the diphthongs uo, ie (in almost all positions), e.g.: in the accented position -ie > i, I, i.; uo > ū.,ū.,ū., not pronounced t, >i.,uo > u. In the su non-syllabic speech, cases are no longer recorded. In the entire area of the southern Altay dialect, only isolated non-systematic cases of univocal ie are recorded. The first form is uo more common in the younger language. 96 | 2013 In. akmeni-sa | akmeni:sa, van'deni-sa vyresnioji karta jaunesnioji karta | akment sx, van'dent-- sx van'deni-sx Il. akmeni sna, van'deni-snx akmeni-sna, van'deni-snx 5 pi.menal., Sunces, sdė-seras | s@ seru.s pimenai., Sunces, s@-seeras | S@ scer.s 4. PROPERTIES OF THE LINEAR END 4.1 A considerable amount of linguistic work has also been devoted to examining the reasons for the early replacement of nouns of the consonant root in marginal dialects with other roots and their decay. Archaic stem remains have been described in Indo-European languages, Lithuanian dialects (Senkus 1959: 167-175; Kardelytė 1959: 175-176; Grinaveckienė 1960: 173— 175; Vidugiris 1969: 178-182; Zinkevičius 1966: 256-267; Morkūnas 1969: 114— 115, 1989: 96-97; Girdenis, Rosinas 2000: 50-62; Kazlauskas 2000: 242-286 and others). In the Baltic languages, as in the Slavic languages, the singular and plural forms of the consonant and i stems did not differ from old, e.g. in our case: vns. a-ki-, pi.meni-, dgs. adjective akis, pi.menis and in Belarusian conversation: vns. galininkas z'vér, kamen’, dgs. The backman z'verd, kamen'a. Since there were significantly fewer consonant root nouns than i-root nouns, they began to be transformed into the i conjugation type by analogy in all Lithuanian dialects (see Zinkevičius 1980: 224, 244; Kazlauskas 2000: 245, 246). In the paradigm of the i stem itself, depending on the noun genus, the forms of the consonant stem were replaced by the forms of the productive (i)o, (i)a, ė stems (Zinkevičius 1966: 260-267). The paradigms of the extinct schnekta substantively extended consonant stem presented by IS" shows that the singular noun forms of both masculine and feminine nouns (in the living language, in the author's encrypted texts) vary: 1) in the language of the older generation representatives a lot of consonant stem forms are registered: akmui., pi. Me, Vandy, Tessa. ; 2) the younger ones almost completely moved to the (i)o stem ends: @-kmenis /xkmeni-s, vd.n'denis, mé-nasis, riv.denis, pl.menis | pi.meni-s, t@-§'menis. The first case with -u.(-u6) is a common feature of the Southern Highlanders (spread in the middle of Lithuania), preserved in the Ramaškoniai dialect of the oldest representatives. The common Lithuanian language may also have influenced this. The hypothesis is confirmed by examples, written from them 4 Paradigma tried to show which forms are used most frequently in the language of one and another generation. The examples presented alternate in the texts of the schnekt: in the stories of the younger generation, in particular, there are adjacent variants of the same word. 97 languages with the perfectly iStart ending -uo: akmué, rudué, shepherd, sister, tesmuo, water **. Other io-kamienés endings -is, -ys are also recorded in separate places of the southern Highlands (LKA 1991: 34), in the adjacent Dievėniškiai dialect (Lipskienė, Vidugiris 1967: 195; Mikulėnienė, Morkūnas 1997: 18), in the western Highlands dialects (Senkus 1959: 169; Zinkevičius 1966: 260-262; LKA 1991: 34-36), the younger generations of Ramaškoniai are used quite consistently, almost without other concomitant forms. In the conversation of masculine nouns (all types of conjugation) the endings tend to be generalized: -(i)as, -is, -ys, less often -(i)us. In addition, the Belarusian language has no analogy with the Lithuanian consonant stem endings. Therefore, in Lithuanian speech, the productive, easier to pronounce, more similar to everyday Belarusian schnets is chosen in that it varies little when alternating (or varies as in Belarusian, because in the speaker’s consciousness the endings of certain vowels of Lithuanian and Belarusian languages are linked by morphological analogy), cf.: br. kdmen' —lie. I'm sorry, sir. mėnec —lie. mé-nasis, br. vadd —lie. vd.n'denis. There is also a tendency to simplify the language. In the language of the most ancient peoples, the phonetically altered consonant consonant type ending -uva occurs as an adjacent ending. Two nouns are currently used with it: šuvė /Suva, seesuvė | sesuva. Younger people often say i in the form of the stem: seeseerėts | seseris. Especially widespread in the Altai and Žemaičių dialects is the two-syllabic form Suva ‘Suo’ (Zinkevičius 1966: 256-257; Morkūnas 1969: 114; 1989: 96; LKA 1991: 34-35, maps 27, 28, 30, 31; Grumadienė 1994: 101 and others) due to the tendency to avoid the one-syllabic form of the UNIQUE NOME (Kazlauskas 2000: 270). The forms vanduva, akmuva (see Markevičienė 1999: 32) recorded by linguists in the Southern Highland dialect are no longer used in the Ramaškoniai microarea’®. The word month in colloquial has two meanings: a time interval and a celestial body. In the first sense, the members of the studied schnekt conjugated it as the adverbial nouns: mé-nasis, mé-nas'o, mé-nas'u(- i), mé-nasi, mé-nas'u, me -nasi-i, mé-nasin, me-nasis. The senior representatives use vns in the second meaning. noun form mé-nas — -skamieno remnant, used in southern Highland dialects, recorded in Zietela (see Kazlauskas 2000: 284—286). Only two words have preserved the ancient forms of the PLURIPLE NOME with the vowel e before -s: Sunces, sdė:seras. Other nouns are used only with the endings of the vowel stems: eg.menai., teSmeenai., van deenai.. 4.2. female nouns daughter, sister UNIVERSAL KILMININKAS has retained the old endings of the consonant stem —dūkteras, sa sceras /seescerés, only the pronunciation and pronunciation varies. In addition to the phrases "and" and "and" in the text, there are other phrases in the text. He said that he was trying to "make it right". Although the pronunciation of bivowels ie, uo in the dialect is still optional and depends on the age of the dialect speakers (e.g. in the neighbouring Rēdūnija, Pelesds dialects they are usually pronounced whole), in the Ramaškoniai area the tendency to monophonising is evident. This phenomenon was observed and described by J. Šukys in 1960. One of the reasons for this phenomenon is the absence of analogues ie, uo in Belarusian dialect. 5 For the conjugation of nouns with u, iu roots, see Tuomienė (2001: 156–170). 1 The oldest inhabitants remembered the use of these forms in the neighbourhood (see picture of villages p. 89).