Lithuanian “žiaurùs” : “žvėrìs”

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVII (2002), 109-115 Lithuanian žiaurūs : žvėris STEVEN YOUNG University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD Lith. žiaurūs ‘grausam’ is linked by Fraenkel to the word nest ziaudus “Žiaurus [oft bei Daukantas]’, ziudrus ‘rauh, uneben’, ziudréti ‘rauh, uneben werden’; these are associated in turn with either Lith. žūti ‘zugrunde gehen’, žudyti ‘umbringen’ or Russ. xyna ‘Entsetzen, Elend’. But Fraenkel’s comparison Jalls short both phonologically (the derivation of *Ziaur- from *ziaud(r)- is not evident) and semantically (the basic meaning of *ziaur- is ‘cruel’ rather than ‘rough, coarse’). A better-motivated solution is sug- gested by the semantic relation Lat. ferus : ferox: žiaurūs may be seen as a ‘state I’ formation (*g"éur-) to the state II of žvėris (*g"uér-). In this explanation, (*g"éur-) would originally have represented a thematic adjective of appurtenance, refashioned in Lithuanian as a u-stem. Lith. žiaurūs, -i (stem žiaūr-) ‘cruel, ferocious, brutal, savage’ is linked by Fraenkel (1965: 1303) to the word nest Ziaudus “= žiaurūs (oft bei Daukantas ...),” žiaudrūs, Ziudrus ‘rauh, uneben’, Ziudréti ‘rauh, uneben werden’, all of which are said to belong either to the set of Lith. žūti ‘zugrunde gehen’, žudyti ‘umbringen’, Latv. zaudeét ‘vernichten, verlieren, verderben’, or to Russ. xyda “Entsetzen, Elend’ (which itself may be related to the Ziti set: Vasmer, Trubacev 1987, : 63). Under the entry žiudrūs (characterized as the “Tiefstufe zu žiaurūs“), Fraenkel expands this set of phoneti- cally and semantically disparate items to include Ziubrus ‘rauh, uneben’, Ziubrinti ‘rauh machen’, and under nuzurdoti, nuzurdoti (1962: 514) ‘zu Tode gualen' we read: “Nach meiner Ansicht sind die Worter verw. mit lit. žiaurūs ‘grausam, erbarmungslos, wild, rauh’, Ziaudus dass[elbe]...” Regarding the comparison of žiaurūs to Ziaudus and related forms, it is difficult to imagine how the -d- of the latter stem (to say nothing of the -b- of Ziubris) could be reconciled with the -r- of žiaurūs, unless the source of both words is taken to be *Ziau-, with an optional -d- enlargement (IEW 448 *¢heu-, *¢heu-d- ‘verschwinden, umkommen’, the source of Ziti) together with the -r- suffix present in žaudrūs (to Ziaudus; cf. also dial. skaudrūs “aštrus, piktas’ alongside skaudus, Skardžius 1941: 300). But this direction need not be pursued, since žiaurūs and Ziaudus are not easily rec- onciled semantically. Būga (1959: 327, 688) presents this semantic sketch of Ziaudiis: ‘CYPOBBI, IIEPXOBATHIN, HETJIAAKHI; ... acerbus; ... chropawy’. The “cypoBeri" mean- ing seems to be typical in reference to the wind: sziaures ar kitti Ziaudi wiejej; 'Or's yra ... žiaudūs ir nepatogus’ (Daukantas); NW Žem. žiaudrūs ‘CypOBblii, TPOHH3bIBAIOLLNIA, OCTPBIIf; 1IepIIaBblil, HepoBHBIiL; hirtus'; NW Žem. Ziudris (reduced grade of Ziaudris) 'mrepuraBbIė, HerJiaJjKHŪ (SiurksStis)’, Ziudréti ‘cTaHOBUTBCS 1IEPIIABLIM: nuZindro rankos nu bulviy rinkimo’. To this we can add Vitkauskas (1976: 453, 458): Ziaudrus, Ziudrus "šiurkštus, kietas': (examples appear in dialect form in the original) marškiniai 110 | STEVEN YOUNG žiaudri buvo. ... kaip šepečiai; pakulinis žiaudrus: nugarą draskė; vikšris žudrus: pjausta liežuvį gyvulių; pakulinis labai žudrus audeklas. It seems clear from these glosses and samples that the central meaning of the žiaūd(r)-, žiūdr- root is ‘rough, coarse, harsh’, rather than ‘cruel, ferocious’, and thus there is no need to link Ziaud(r)us, Ziudrus semantically (any more than phonologi- cally) with žiaurūs. The occasional contexts in which the usages may coincide (for example, in reference to a harsh ~ raw ~ cruel wind) should not obscure this fact. For Lith. žiaurūs, semantic parallels such as Lat. ferus : ferox, Russ. 36eps : 36epckuii ‘brutal’, and Lith. žvėris : Zvériskas suggest rather a comparison with Lith. žvėris ‘wild animal’. Consider also Žem. žvėris in the sense of ‘kas žiaurus' (Vitkauskas 1976: 462) and the fact that Lith. Zvériskas, a transparent derivative of žvėris, is defined by the ‘DZ as “žiaurūs'!. Given the semantic rapprochement Ziauriis : žvėris, we turn next to the phonetic rela- tionship between the two words. A Lithuanian sequence š'V, ž'V. (represented ortho- graphically as $il~, Zil~), such as we have in žiaurūs, reflects in principle an ancestral *KiV-, *¢iV-. One Balto-Slavic source for such sequences is found in tautosyllabic *(C)éu- > (in Baltic terms) (C)iau-: IEW 597 *Kéufe]r- ‘Nord, Nordwind’ > Lith. šiaur-[ė] ‘north’, IEW 684 *leud"i- ‘Nachwuchs, Volk’ > Lith. liaudis, Sl. *ljud->. Ac- cordingly, the most likely antecedent for a Lithuanian root of the shape Ziaur- would be *g'™eur-. The tone of the original (acute or circumflex) cannot be deduced from žiaurūs, since modern u-stem adjectives tend to generalize accent paradigm 4, i.e., impose cir- cumflex metatony: šiaurė ‘north’ : šiaurūs, stem šiaūr- ‘Siaurinis’ (Stundžia 1995: 94). We arrive then at a comparison of a pre-Baltic *g"eur- (essentially ‘zvériskas’) and *g"uer-, IEW 493 ‘wildes Tier’, the source of Lith. žvėris ‘id.’. Since this relationship is (to use Eric Hamp’s term) one of an ‘adjective of appurtenance’ *g"eur- to a nominal base *g"uér-, and such adjectives are formed by thematic derivation and the addition of the “vocalism e in the first possible position” (Hamp 1978: 186, 193-94), and moreover are oxytonic (Hamp 1984: 141), we are dealing in fact with a thematic stem *g"euro-. Gotab (1967: 770) refers to the derivational process involved here as (a type of) vrddhi, and explains it at greater length: “Vrddhi can be defined as a type of secondary (denominative) adjective-generating derivation which combines two de- vices: a) suffixation (chiefly -o/e- and -(i)io/e-); b) gradation of the initial syllable of basic word (noun). The gradation of the vowel in the initial syllable ... can be inter- preted as the result of the ‘addition’ or ‘insertion’ of e to the basic vocalism @ ...” Yet another semantic parallel of this sort is provided by Slavic *svepa/sveréps (e.g. Russ. ceupeniii), ultimately to IE *g"uér- ‘animal’ (Holzer 1989: 78-81, in his provocative theory of a Slavic wordstock reflecting an adstrate [possibly Cimmerian] influence). On the development of *eu in both Slavic and Baltic, see Arumaa (1964: 86 ff. and 96 ff.). Arumaa challenges Vaillant’s claim that the change took place only before a soft consonant: “Vaillant ... macht den Wechsel slav. u ~ iu, balt. au ~ iau vom harten oder weichen Charakter des folgenden Konsonanten abhangig, wofiir aber eine sichere Beweisfithrung unmaglich ist, weil die lautliche Spaltung hier schon in den Urzustand dieser Sprachen zuriickzuverlegen ist und wir einer sicheren Kontrolle dafiir entbehren.” Shevelov (1965: 273) is more categorical: “Yet an examination of every instance shows that the only pho- netic reflex of eu was [Slavic] jū, while all other forms are due to extra-phonetic factors and constitute deviations of a later date”. ta LITHUANIAN žiaurūs : žvėris | 111 Our thematic derivation *g"eurd- < *g"uėr-* thus parallels that of the (substantiv- ized) adjective *deiuo- (Kurylowicz 1968: 303: ‘himmlisch’ > ‘Gott’) to the original base *dieu- (of Ol dyduh, dyoh) through the reduced grade *diu/diu, except that the intermediate stage of a reduced-grade **g"ur- (to *g"uér-) is apparently unattested. Regarding such ‘Schwebeablaut’ relations (which continue the state I and II forma- tions of Benveniste’s binomial roots), Szemerenyi (1980: 126) says that the assump- tion of a reduced-grade stage is not necessary: “In einigen Fallen (z. B. bei mittlerem R) konnen Umstellungen stattgefunden haben, d. h. *terp- direkt zu *trep- geworden sein”. With the phonetic development of *g”euré- to the recognizably Baltic shape *Ziau- ra. we have a form with the appearance of an o-grade (Baltic a-grade) adjective. Such adjectives (chiefly deverbal) in Baltic were susceptible to a shift to the originally reduced-grade oxytonic u-stems: “the notable fact of Baltic is the appearance of o- grade bases in -ii-stems: kartus ‘bitter’, gajus ‘lively, vivacious’, etc.; or even of pseudo- o-grade: saldūs ‘sweet’ (Hamp 1984: 141; Vanags 1989: 118 suggests a motivation for this large-scale shift). Accordingly, the thematic oxytone *Ziaura- was refash- ioned as the u-stem *Ziauri-. In summary, we have an oxytonic thematic adjective of appurtenance *g"eurd-, es- sentially ‘zvériskas’, to the inherited base *g"uér- ‘zvéris’, by a Schwebeablaut deriva- tional process. This yielded, by regular phonetic change, a ‘pseudo-o-grade’ Ziauro-,* which together with other thematic o-grade adjectives was refashioned as a u-stem, giving the modern žiaurūs ‘cruel, ferocious’. Having secured the antecedent *g"eurd- of Lith. žiaurūs, we might ask if this base is reflected in Slavic as well; the expected formal development of the root *g*eur- in Slavic would be *Zur-, through the intermediate stage *ziour-, with a change of the -eu- diphthong analogous to that in Baltic (for Slavic Z from z of palato-velar origin plus i, note Russ. éxc ‘hedgehog’ < *eg’io- = Lith. ežys). In fact, a verb Zuriti (se) is widely attested in the Slavic languages, but in a bewildering array of meanings, sum- marized as follows. Czech zurit (intransitive only, replacing older Czech zuriti se) presents a single un- ambiguous meaning: ‘rage, be furious’ (Poldauf 1971: 1213); ‘cBupencTBOBaTH’ (Pavlovic 1989: 808), which appears again in the derived adjective zu7ivy ‘raging [mad], ferocious, furious’ (Poldauf, loc. cit.)’. According to Dybo (1981: 40) Lith. žvėris shows apophonic root length which was generalized in this root as early as Indo-European. Others posit a laryngeal base here. As noted above, the original situation is obscured in Ziaunis by a tendency to generalize circumflex stems. I would tentatively suggest that an intermediate Baltic stage *Zeura- is reflected in Fi hirved ‘dreadful, frightful, horrible, hideous’, which lacks an etymology in both SKES 78 and SSA 167. Finnish 4 is the expected reflex of a Baltic palatal; concerning the regular metathesis of -ur- > -rv- in Finnish, see Koivulehto (1991: 34). The pattern example is Fi. karva ‘hair’ < Baltic *gaura- ‘id.’ Machek is undoubtedly correct in treating Cz. zufit (for *žufit) as the result of dissimilation: on the one hand, the Czech root zur- is isolated (Machek suggests Slovak zurit’, ziirit’ is borrowed from Czech), and on the other hand there is no Zur- in Czech. Old Czech zeriti, brought into the equation by Holub (1952: 440), hardly belongs here. 112 | STEVEN YOUNG In Polish the now archaic žurzyč się (reflexive only) has as its core meaning ‘be angry, indignant’, or, marking greater intensity, ‘rage, storm’ (Doroszewski 1968: 1458: ‘gniewac si¢ na kogo, oburzac sig, srožyč si¢’), as in Czech. Kartowicz (1927: 726) notes the additional senses kwasic si¢ ‘become embittered’, byč markotnym ‘be gloomy, sullen’, and also chelpic si¢ ‘boast, brag’, nadymac sie ‘put on airs’. Lower Sorbian (Mucke 1928 : 1161) has both a transitive Zuri§ ‘sauer machen; tibertr. erbittern, caenaTbh KHCJIbIM, O3JIOOJISITb, oXecTto4yaTh and a reflexive with the meaning ‘sauer werden; zbertr. sich erbittern; CKHCATb, O3JIOOJISTbCHS, THEBATHCS, oxecroyarbcs’, hence essentially the ‘gniewac si¢” and ‘kwasic si¢’ meanings found in Polish. The East Slavic languages lack the ‘be angry/furious’ meaning. Belorussian and Ukrai- nian share a core sense of ‘grieve, be distressed’ (verb) and ‘grief-stricken, distressed’ (adjective): Belorussian »xcyptiųua ‘TpycTMTh, NEYATUTHCS; KPYYMHUTBCS (Atraxovié 1988: 414); »xypuųbsya cos. 3axcypliybya ‘ckopdeth, npeaasatbes nevamu’ (Nosovic 1870: 158); Ukrainian xcypiimu, -10, - uw ‘COKPYLIATh, KPYILINTh, NEYATUTD , HCypLimucs, -10CA, -UWICA "TIEYAJIMTbCS, TPYCTUTD, TOPEBaTh, KPYYUHHUTHCS, KDYNIHTbCS; YHBIBATD (Kiricenko 1953: 505). In addition, Belorussian and Ukrainian show comparable deverbal nouns and corresponding adjectives: Br. ocyp6d, scyp6oma (pasr.) ‘rpycTs, nevyasib, KPyumHa’, #ypoomuot ‘TPYCTHBII, Te4aJIbHbIK; CKOpOHKbIū"' (Atraxovié 1988: 413); Ukr. xcypod ‘nevans, rpycTs’, acypaisui ‘nedanbHbiit, rpycTHEIH' (Kiriéenko loc. cit.). Ukrainian, however, also provides the base from which the verbal »xyprimu(ca) is derived: (Kiricenko 1953: 506, s.v. »xyp0d) 0631. Hcypd, penx. #cyp 'neuaJIb, TpVCTB' and the corresponding denominal adjective xcypuiiu ‘mevanbHblii, TPYCTHBII; COKPYILUEHHBINH . The central meaning of Russian xcypiims, -pr0, -pliws (transitive only) is ‘scold’: ‘(pasr.) JteJIaTb JIETKHĖŪ BbITOBOp; cierka GpanuTb' (Ozegov 1989: 199). The word seems to be attested no earlier than Avvakum’s Kumue (1673). The reflexive Hcypumeocs, -pr0Cb, -puūwbes is known dialectally in the meanings of ‘ropesars, nevanuthes’ (southern Russian) and ‘Bopuats, 6panutscsi’, which reappears in the derived acypiino, cypia ‘grumbler’ (SRNG,,: 231). As in Ukrainian, dialectal Rus- sian also has wypuowuil, acyprou ‘nevansusiit’, although the base xcyp seems to be ab- sent in Russian. South Slavic introduces the meaning ‘hurry’, in Slovene (archaic) Ziriti se, -im, and SCr »xypumu ce, which alongside its core meaning also shows (dialectally) ‘complain’, which Petleva (1969: 178) connects with the ‘grieve’ and (for non-reflexives) ‘scold’ meanings found in East Slavic. The above survey suggests a consistent distinction between a West Slavic *Zuriti, which is typically reflexive/intransitive, lacks a derived noun Zurbd, and centers around the notion of “anger, rage’; and the rest of Slavic, where the range of meanings is more scattered, but ‘grieve, cause grief’ is typical, and the deverbal noun Zurbd is found along with an apparently underived base Zur, Zurd. Among the Slavic etymological dictionaries consulted, Briickner (1957: 668) is alone in linking the Polish Zurzy¢ si¢ with the East and South Slavic forms; curiously, the semantically identical Czech zufit is not mentioned. Machek (1968: 589 s.v. zuriti) LITHUANIAN žiaurūs : žvėris | 113 appropriately unites the Czech and Polish forms without mentioning East and South Slavic, while Vasmer, Trubacev (1987 : 68 s.v. xcypiims), Cernyx (1993: 309 s.v. acyprims), and Mel'nyCuk (1985: 210 s.v. acypuimu, mcypimucs) make no reference to the West Slavic forms; the East and South Slavic forms are compared with OI ghoras ‘CTpalIHbIH, yXacHbIN, cTpeMuTeNbHbIN and Gothic gaurs ‘BO3MYILIEHHBIN, oneuanennplii’ (IEW 453 *ghou-ro-s ‘furchtbar’, ‘voller Furcht’). Cernyx, while con- ceding that the root is etymologically unclear (Mel'nyčuk agrees) and that the mean- ings in the modern Slavic languages are quite divergent, ventures that the older mean- ing for the Russian term was ‘cause someone grief’, ‘upset someone’, whence also ‘rush’ and ‘worry’. Baltic *gur-, with the general meaning of ‘impoverishment’, may also belong here (Toporov 1979: 346 ff., s.v. gurins ‘6ennsiit’). This leaves us with the ques- tion of the origin of the West Slavic forms. For Lower Sorbian Zuris ‘sauer machen, dbertr. erbittern’, Zuris se ‘sauer werden, tibertr. sich erbittern’” and for the occasional meaning ‘kwasic si¢’ of the correspond- ing Polish verb, a solution is suggested by Mucke’s note accompanying the formally corresponding adjective Zuriwy (comparable to Czech zurivy) ‘widersetzlich; yIpsiMbli...: “abg. v. Zur”, that is, derived from the widespread West Slavic word for a sour mash used for soup or bread, the generally accepted source of which is MHG sir ‘sour’®. The verb žuriš may either be a direct derivative of LSo. žur; or the original meaning of the verb may have been extended from “be angry’ to “be sour, bitter’ through a folk-etymological association with Zur. Brickner offers no etymology for žurzyč sie. Machek sees Czech zuriti (se) and Po- lish žurzyč sie as deriving from an earlier *vz-juriti (he adduces Pol. jurzy¢ sie “fly into a rage’, ‘fume, storm’, Ukr. naropumucs ‘get angry’) through a false break (*v-zjuriti ) and ž- from the sequence zj-. Although the semantics are suggestive, the comparison cannot be upheld: the word seems not to know a prefix vz- or v- (modern Czech uses only na-, roz-, vy-, za- with this root). More importantly, the palatalization of z+; across a prefix-root morpheme boundary is not expected at such a late stage in Slavic (although t+) > ¢ is found in e.g. Russ. ouymumoscs < om+romumoca : Lith. jaiisti, justi; Vasmer, Trubacev 1987 : 179). In fact, the etymology of the otherwise isolated West Slavic *Zuriti (se) is, from our newly-gained Baltic perspective, clear: it is a denominal verb from the same base as Lith. žiaurūs cruel’, in Slavic terms *g’eur- > *ziour- > *Zur-, the Schwebeablaut form to *g"uér- ‘wild animal’. Indeed this connection was precociously hit upon by Josef Jungmann in his 1839 Slovnik cesko-némecky (1839: 793) under the lemma zurivy, where he notes “cf. zwér.” In its derivational semantics, West Slavic *Zur- (< *g"eur-) : Zuriti (sę) is analogous to Russ. ceupensiii : ceupencmeoeams, or, using a 6 Cf. Brūckner (1957: 668): zur — niemiecka nazwa ‘kisielu’; od 15. wieku ogélne, przejęte na calym Zachodzie stowianskim (u nas, Stowiencow, Czechow, Luzyczan), a od nas na Rusi; z niem. sir (dziš sauer) *kisty’. Grinaveckienė (1975: 174-5) treats Br. xcyp ‘oBCsiHbIN KucCeJIb' as a borrowing from the Baltic source of Lith. žiūrė, žiūra and Latv. Ziira, Zire, arguing that the Baltic forms have the broader semantic range and are therefore original. But this argument does not take into account the presence of Zur in Polish, Upper and Lower Sorbian, Czech, and even Slovene, where it cannot possibly represent a borrowing from Baltic. 114 | STEVEN YOUNG closer formal analogy (a reflexive -ums verb), Russ. 6ec : 6ecumsca. Alongside the verb *Zuriti (s¢), West Slavic has apparently lost the original base preserved in Lithuanian žiaurūs, a phenomenon not unknown in the history of Balto-Slavic (e.g., SI. *roka ‘hand’ : Lith. ranka : rinkti ‘gather’ : SI. *retote [Russ. pmyms] ‘mercury’ : Lith. risti : ritant- ‘roll’). REFERENCES ARUMAA, P. 1964: Urslavische Grammatik 1, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. ATRAXOVIC, K. K. 1988: beaopyccko-pycekuii caosaps 1, Munck: benopycckasi coBeTcKast SHIMKIONEIHS. BRUCKNER, A. 1957: Stownik etymologiczny jezyka polskiego, Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. BUGA, K. 1958, 1959, 1962: Rinktiniai raštai 1-3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. CERNYX, P. Ja. 1993: Hemopuko-3mumonozuseckuii cn06apb cospementoeo pyccko2o a3bika 1, Mocksa: Pycckuii si3bIK. ‘DZ — Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, ed. S. Keinys et al., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000. DOROSZEWSKI, W., ed. 1968: Stownik języka polskiego 10, Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. DyBo, V. A. 1981: Ciaeanckas akųenmono2us, Mocksa: Hayka. FRAENKEL, E. 1962-1965: Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch 1-2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. GotAB, Z. 1967: The Traces of vrddhi in Slavic. To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 770—784. GRINAVECKIENĖ, E., et al. 1975: BbrroBas 1eKCHKa JIMTOBCKOTO NPOMCXOXACHMS B 3anaaHoit Bejiopycenn. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16, 163-195. Hamp, E. 1978: Sound change and the etymological lexicon. Farkas, D. er. al., eds., Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon, April 14-15, 1978, 184-195. Hamp, E. 1984: On the development of oxytone o-grade adjectives to -ii- stems. Baltistica 20 (2), 141-142. HouLus, J., KoPECNY, FE. 1952: Etymologicky slovnik jazyka českėho, Praha: Statni Nakladatelstvi Uéebnic. HOLZER, G. 1989: Entlehnungen aus einer bisher unbekannten indogermanischen Sprache im Urslavischen und Urbaltischen, Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. IEW — Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch, ed. J. Pokorny, Bern: Francke, 1959. JUNGMANN, J. 1839: Slovnik cesko-némecky 5, Praha: V Knizeci Arcibiskupské Knihtiskarné. KARLOwICZ, J. et al. 1927: Slownik jezyka polskiego 8, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Kasy im. Mianowskiego. KIRICENKO, I. I. 1953: Vkpauncko-pycexuii crosaps 1, Kune: VanarenmerBo Akanemun Hayk Ykpansckoit CCP. KOIVULEHTO, J. 1991: Uralische Evidenz fiir die Laryngaltheorie, Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kuryrowicz, J. 1968: Indogermanische Grammatik 2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. MACHEK, V. 1968: Etymologicky slovnik jazyka ceského, ed. 2, Praha: Academia — Nakladatelstvi Ceskoslovenské Akademie Véd. MEL'NYCUK, O. S. 1985: Emumonoeiynuu caosnuk ykpainckoi moeu 2, Kunis: Haykosa aymka. MUCKE, E. 1928: Worterbuch der nieder-wendischen Sprache und ihrer Dialekte 2, Prag: Verlag der Bohmischen Akademie fiir Wissenschaften und Kunst. Nosovič, I. I. 1870: Caosaps beaopycckoeo napeuus, Canxr-Ilerepoypr: Tunorpadus Mmneparopekoit AxaneMHu Hayk. OžEGov, S. I. 1989: Caosaps pycckoeo azvika, vaj. 21-oe, Mocksa: Pycckmii si3bIK. PaAvLovič, A. I. 1989: Yewcko-pycckuii caosaps, msn. 8-oe, Mocksa: Pycckuii si3biK. PETLEVA, I. P. 1969: lonoaxnTebHbIe pecypehl JUISI peKOHCTPYKIIMH TTPACIaBIHCKOM JIEKCHKH (Ha MaTepHajie cepboXopBaTCKOro si3bIKa). Imumoaoeus 1967,173-179. LITHUANIAN žiaurūs : žvėris | 115 POLDAUF, I.,etal. 1971: Anglicko-česky a česko-anglicky slovnik, Praha: Statni Pedagogickė Nakladatelstvi. SHEVELOV, G. Y. 1965: A Prehistory of Common Slavic, New York: Columbia University Press. SKARDŽIUS, P. 1941: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademija. SKES - Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja, ed. Y. Toivonen, Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura, 1955. SRNG - Caoeaps pycckux napodusix 206opos, pen. O. II. Ouran et al., Mocksa-Jlenunrpan: Hayka, 1965-. SSA — Suomen sanojen alkuperi 1, ed. E. Itkonen, et al., Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus, 1992. STUNDZIA, B. 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, Baltų kalbų katedra. SZEMERENYI, O., 1980: Einfiihrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Tororov, V. N. 1979: Ipycexuū azsik. Caoeaps E-H, Mocksa: Hayka. VANAGS, P. 1989: On the History of Baltic u-Stem Adjectives. Baltistica 25 (2), 113-122. VASMER [OACMEP], M., TRUBAČEV, O. N. 1987: Jmumnonozuu4eckuiū crosaps pycckozo a3bixa. INepeBoj c HeMeIIKOTO H JIONoJIHeHHs O. H. Tpybauesa, usa. 2-0e, Mocksa: Ilporpecc. VITKAUSKAS, V. 1976: Šiaurės rytų dūnininkų šnektų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Steven Young Gauta 2002 11 24 Department of Modern Languages University of Maryland Baltimore County 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore, MD 21250, USA [email protected]