Lithuanian “žiaurùs” : “žvėrìs”

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVII (2002), 109–115 Lithuanian žiaurùs : žvėris Steven Young University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD Lith. žiaurùs ‘grausam’ is linked by Fraenkel to the word nest žiaudùs “žiaurus [oft bei Daukantas]”, žiudrùs ‘rauh, uneben’, žiudrėti ‘rauh, uneben werden’; these are associated in turn with either Lith. žūti ‘zugrunde gehen’, žūdyti ‘umbr ingen’ or Russ. жуда́ ‘Entsetzen, Elend’. But Fraenkel’s comparison falls short both phonologically (the derivation of *žiaur- from *žiaud(r)- is not evident) and semantically (the basic meaning of *žiaur- is ‘cruel’ rather than ‘rough, coarse’). A better-motivated solution is suggested by the semantic relation Lat. ferus : ferōx: žiaurùs may be seen as a ‘state I’ formation (*gʰēur-) to the state II of žvėris (*gʰuēr-). In this explanation, (*gʰēur-) would originally have represented a thematic adjective of appurtenance, refashioned in Lithuanian as a u-stem. Lith. žiaurùs, -ì (stem žiaur-) ‘cruel, ferocious, brutal, savage’ is linked by Fraenkel (1965: 1303) to the word nest žiaudùs “= žiaurùs (oft bei Daukantas ...),” žiàudrùs, žiudrùs ‘rauh, uneben’, žiudrėti ‘rauh, uneben werden’, all of which are said to belong either to the set of Lith. žūti ‘zugrunde gehen’, žūdyti ‘umbr ingen’, Latv. zaudēt ‘vernichten, verlieren, verderben’, or to Russ. жуда́ ‘Entsetzen, Elend’ (which itself may be related to the žūti set: Vasmer, Trubačev 1987: 63). Under the entry žiudrùs (characterized as the “Tiefstufe zu žiaurùs”), Fraenkel expands this set of phonetically and semantically disparate items to include žiubrùs ‘rauh, uneben’, žiūbrinti ‘rauh machen’, and under nužurdóti, nužurdóti (1962: 514) ‘zu Tode quälen’ we read: “Nach meiner Ansicht sind die Wörter verw. mit lit. žiaurùs ‘grausam, erbarmungslos, wild, rauh’, žiaudùs dass[elbe]...” Regarding the comparison of žiaurùs to žiaudùs and related forms, it is difficult to imagine how the -d- of the latter stem (to say nothing of the -b- of žiubrùs) could be reconciled with the -r- of žiaurùs, unless the source of both words is taken to be *žiāu-, with an optional -d- enlargement (IEW 448 *gʰeu-, *gʰeu-d- ‘verschwindend, umkommen’, the source of žūti) together with the -r- suffix present in žiudrùs (to žiaudùs; cf. also dial. skaudrùs ‘aštrus, piktas’ alongside skaudùs, Skardžius 1941: 300). But this direction need not be pursued, since žiaurùs and žiaudùs are not easily reconciled semantically. Būga (1959: 327, 688) presents this semantic sketch of žiaudùs: ‘суровый, шероховатый, негладкий; ... acerbus; ... chropawy’. The ‘суровый’ meaning seems to be typical in reference to the wind: sziauręs ar kitti žiaudi wieje; ‘ôr’s yra ... žiaudùs ir nepatogus’ (Daukantas); NW Žem. žiaudrùs ‘суровый, пронизывающий, острый; шершавый, неровный; hirtus’; NW Žem. žiudrùs (reduced grade of žiaudrùs) ‘шершавый, негладкий (šiurkštùs)’, žiudrėti ‘становиться шершавым: nužiudro rankos nù būlvių rinkimo’. To this we can add Vitkauskas (1976: 453, 458): žiaudrùs, žiudrùs ‘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 žiaud(r)-, žiudr- root is ‘rough, coarse, harsh’, rather than ‘cruel, ferocious’, and thus there is no need to link žiaud(r)ùs, žiudrùs semantically (any more than phonologically) with žiaurùs. 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. žiaurùs, semantic parallels such as Lat. ferus : ferōx, Russ. зверь : зверский ‘brutal’, and Lith. žvėris : žvėriškas 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. žvėriškas, a transparent derivative of žvėris, is defined by the ⁴DŽ as ‘žiaurùs’.¹ Given the semantic rapprochement žiaurùs : žvėris, we turn next to the phonetic relationship between the two words. A Lithuanian sequence š’V-, ž’V- (represented orthographically as šiV-, žiV-), such as we have in žiaurùs, reflects in principle an ancestral *k’iV-, *g’iV-. One Balto-Slavic source for such sequences is found in tautosyllabic *(C)ēu- > (in Baltic terms) (C)iāu-: IEW 597 *ḱēu[e]r- ‘Nord, Nordwind’ > Lith. šiaur-[ė] ‘north’, IEW 684 *leudʰi- ‘Nachwuchs, Volk’ > Lith. liaúdis, Sl. *ljud-². Accordingly, the most likely antecedent for a Lithuanian root of the shape žiaur- would be *gʰeur-. The tone of the original (acute or circumflex) cannot be deduced from žiaurùs, since modern u-stem adjectives tend to generalize accent paradigm 4, i.e., impose circumflex metatony: šiaurė ‘north’ : šiaurùs, stem šiaur- ‘šiaurinis’ (Stundžia 1995: 94). We arrive then at a comparison of a pre-Baltic *gʰeur- (essentially ‘žvėriškas’) and *gʰuēr-, 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’ *gʰeur- to a nominal base *gʰuēr-, 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 oxyttonic (Hamp 1984: 141), we are dealing in fact with a thematic stem *gʰeuró-. Gołąb (1967: 770) refers to the derivational process involved here as (a type of) vṛddhi, and explains it at greater length: “Vṛddhi can be defined as a type of secondary (denominative) adjective-generating derivation which combines two devices: 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 interpreted as the result of the ‘addition’ or ‘insertion’ of e to the basic vocalism Ø ...” 1 Yet another semantic parallel of this sort is provided by Slavic *svьrь/sverępь (e.g. Russ. свирепый), ultimately to IE *gʰuēr- ‘animal’ (Holzer 1989: 78–81, in his provocative theory of a Slavic wordstock reflecting an adstrate [possibly Cimmerian] influence). 2 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 ~ i̯u, balt. au ~ iau vom harten oder weichen Charakter des folgenden Konsonanten abhängig, wofür aber eine sichere Beweisführung unmöglich ist, weil die lautliche Spaltung hier schon in den Urzustand dieser Sprachen zurückzuverlegen ist und wir einer sicheren Kontrolle dafür entbehren.” Shevelov (1965: 273) is more categorical: “Yet an examination of every instance shows that the only phonetic reflex of eu was [Slavic] jū, while all other forms are due to extra-phonetic factors and constitute deviations of a later date”. LITHUANIAN žiaurùs : žvėris | 111 Our thematic derivation *gʰeuró- < *gʰu̯er-³ thus parallels that of the (substantivized) adjective *deiuó- (Kurylowicz 1968: 303: ‘himmlisch’ > ‘Gott’) to the original base *dieu- (of OI dyáuḥ, dyoh) through the reduced grade *diu/diu, except that the intermediate stage of a reduced-grade **gʰur- (to *gʰu̯er-) is apparently unattested. Regarding such ‘Schwebeablaut’ relations (which continue the state I and II formations of Benveniste’s binomial roots), Szemerényi (1980: 126) says that the assumption of a reduced-grade stage is not necessary: “In einigen Fällen (z. B. bei mittlerem R) können Umstellungen stattgefunden haben, d. h. *terp- direkt zu *trep- geworden sein”. With the phonetic development of *gʰeuró- to the recognizably Baltic shape *žiau-rà-, 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 -ú-stems: kartùs ‘bitter’, gaǰùs ‘lively, vivacious’, etc.; or even of pseudo-o-grade: saldùs ‘sweet’” (Hamp 1984: 141; Vanags 1989: 118 suggests a motivation for this large-scale shift). Accordingly, the thematic oxytone *žiaurà- was refashioned as the u-stem *žiaurù-. In summary, we have an oxytonic thematic adjective of appurtenance *gʰeuró-, essentially ‘žvėriškas’, to the inherited base *gʰu̯er- ‘žvėris’, by a Schwebeablaut derivational process. This yielded, by regular phonetic change, a ‘pseudo-o-grade’ žiauró-,⁴ which together with other thematic o-grade adjectives was refashioned as a u-stem, giving the modern žiaurùs ‘cruel, ferocious’. Having secured the antecedent *gʰeuró- of Lith. žiaurùs, we might ask if this base is reflected in Slavic as well; the expected formal development of the root *gʰeur- in Slavic would be *žur-, through the intermediate stage *zi̯ur-, with a change of the -eu- diphthong analogous to that in Baltic (for Slavic ž from z of palato-velar origin plus i, note Russ. ёж ‘hedgehog’ < *egʰio- ≅ Lith. ežys). In fact, a verb žuriti (se) is widely attested in the Slavic languages, but in a bewildering array of meanings, summarized as follows. Czech zuřit (intransitive only, replacing older Czech zuřiti se) presents a single unambiguous meaning: ‘rage, be furious’ (Poldauf 1971: 1213); ‘свирепствовать’ (Pavlovič 1989: 808), which appears again in the derived adjective zuřivý ‘raging [mad], ferocious, furious’ (Poldauf, loc. cit.).⁵ ³ 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 žiaurùs by a tendency to generalize circumflex stems. ⁴ I would tentatively suggest that an intermediate Baltic stage *žeura- is reflected in Fi hirveä ‘dreadful, frightful, horrible, hideous’, which lacks an etymology in both SKES 78 and SSA 167. Finnish h 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.’ ⁵ Machek is undoubtedly correct in treating Cz. zuřit (for *žurti) as the result of dissimilation: on the one hand, the Czech root zur- is isolated (Machek suggests Slovak zuřit), žuřit is borrowed from Czech), and on the other hand there is no žur- in Czech. Old Czech žeřiti, brought into the equation by Holub (1952: 440), hardly belongs here. 112 | STEVEN YOUNG In Polish the now archaic żurzyć się (reflexive only) has as its core meaning ‘be angry, indignant’, or, marking greater intensity, ‘rage, storm’ (Doroszewski 1968: 1458: ‘gniewać się na kogo, oburzać się, srożyć się’), as in Czech. Karlowicz (1927: 726) notes the additional senses kwasić się ‘become embittered’, być markotnym ‘be gloomy, sullen’, and also chełpić się ‘boast, brag’, nadymać się ‘put on airs’. Lower Sorbian (Mucke 1928: 1161) has both a transitive žuriś ‘sauer machen; übertr. erbitterн, сделать кислым, озлоблять, ожесточать’ and a reflexive with the meaning ‘sauer werden; übertr. sich erbитtern; скисать, озлобляться, гневаться, ожесточаться’, hence essentially the ‘gniewać się’ and ‘kwasić się’ meanings found in Polish. The East Slavic languages lack the ‘be angry/furious’ meaning. Belorussian and Ukrainian share a core sense of ‘grieve, be distressed’ (verb) and ‘grief-stricken, distressed’ (adjective): Belorussian журыцца ‘грустить, печалиться; кручини́ться’ (Atraxović 1988: 414); журы́цца сов. зажуры́цца ‘скорбеть, предаваться печали’ (Nosovič 1870: 158); Ukrainian журити, -ю, -иш ‘сокрушать, крушить, печалить’, журитися, -юся, -ишся ‘печалиться, грустить, горевать, кручини́ться, крушиться; унывать’ (Kiričenko 1953: 505). In addition, Belorussian and Ukrainian show comparable deverbal nouns and corresponding adjectives: Br. журба, журбота (разг.) ‘грусть, печаль, кручина’, журботны ‘грустный, печальный; скорбный’ (Atraxović 1988: 413); Ukr. журба ‘печаль, грусть’, журливий ‘печальный, грустный’ (Kiričenko loc. cit.). Ukrainian, however, also provides the base from which the verbal журити(ся) is derived: (Kiričenko 1953: 506, s.v. журба) обл. жура́, редк. жур ‘печаль, грусть’ and the corresponding denominal adjective журний ‘печальный, грустный; сокрушённый’. The central meaning of Russian журить, -рю, -ришь (transitive only) is ‘scold’: ‘(разг.) делать лёгкий выговор; слегка бранить’ (Ožegov 1989: 199). The word seems to be attested no earlier than Avvakum’s Житие (1673). The reflexive журиться, -рюсь, -ришься is known dialectally in the meanings of ‘горевать, печалиться’ (southern Russian) and ‘ворчать, браниться’, which reappears in the derived журило, журила ‘grumbler’ (SRNG IX: 231). As in Ukrainian, dialectal Russian also has журный, журной ‘печальный’, although the base жур seems to be absent in Russian. South Slavic introduces the meaning ‘hurry’, in Slovene (archaic) žuriti se, -im, and SCr журити се, 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 *žuriti, which is typically reflexive/intransitive, lacks a derived noun žurbá, 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 žurbá is found along with an apparently underived base žur, žurá. Among the Slavic etymological dictionaries consulted, Brückner (1957: 668) is alone in linking the Polish żurzyć się with the East and South Slavic forms; curiously, the semantically identical Czech zuřit is not mentioned. Machek (1968: 589 s.v. zuřiti) Lithuanian ž́iaurùs : žvėrìs | 113 appropriately unites the Czech and Polish forms without mentioning East and South Slavic, while Vasmer, Trubačev (1987: 68 s.v. журить), Černyx (1993: 309 s.v. журить), and Mel’nyčuk (1985: 210 s.v. журити, журитися) make no reference to the West Slavic forms; the East and South Slavic forms are compared with OI ghóras ‘страшный, ужасный, стремительный’ and Gothic gaurs ‘возмущённый, опечаленный’ (IEW 453 *ghou-ro-s ‘furchtbar’, ‘voller Furcht’). Černyx, while conceding that the root is etymologically unclear (Mel’nyčuk agrees) and that the meanings in the modern Slavic languages are quite divergent, ventures that the older meaning 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. gurìns ‘бедный’). This leaves us with the question of the origin of the West Slavic forms. For Lower Sorbian žuriś ‘sauer machen, übertr. erbitter’n’, žuriś se ‘sauer werden, übertr. sich erbitter’n’ and for the occasional meaning ‘kwasić się’ of the corresponding Polish verb, a solution is suggested by Mucke’s note accompanying the formally corresponding adjective žuriwy (comparable to Czech zuřivý) ‘widersetzlich; упрямый...’: “abg. v. žur”, 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 sūr ‘sour’⁶. The verb žuriś 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 žur. Brückner offers no etymology for žurzyć się. Machek sees Czech zuřiti (se) and Polish żurzyć się as deriving from an earlier *vz-juriti (he adduces Pol. jurzyć się ‘fly into a rage’, ‘fume, storm’, Ukr. напоритися ‘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+j across a prefix-root morpheme boundary is not expected at such a late stage in Slavic (although t+j > č is found in e.g. Russ. очутиться < от+ютиться : Lith. jaušti, jušti; Vasmer, Trubačev 1987: 179). In fact, the etymology of the otherwise isolated West Slavic *žuriti (se) is, from our newly-gained Baltic perspective, clear: it is a denominal verb from the same base as Lith. žiaurùs ‘cruel’, in Slavic terms *gʰeur- > *z̑j̑ur- > *žur-, the Schwebeablaut form to *gʰu̯er- ‘wild animal’. Indeed this connection was precociously hit upon by Josef Jungmann in his 1839 Slovník česko-německý (1839: 793) under the lemma zuřivý, where he notes “cf. zvěř”. In its derivational semantics, West Slavic *žur- (< *gʰeur-): žuriti (se) is analogous to Russ. свирепый : свирепствовать, or, using a 6 Cf. Brückner (1957: 668): žur – niemiecka nazwa ‘kisielu’; od 15. wieku ogólne, przejęte na całym Zachodzie słowiańskim (u nas, Słowieńców, Czechów, Lużyczan), a od nas na Rusi; z niem. sü̆r (dziś sauer) ‘kishy’. Grinaveckienė (1975: 174–5) treats Br. жyp ‘овсяный кисель’ as a borrowing from the Baltic source of Lith. žiùrė, žiùra and Latv. žūru, žūre, 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 žur 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 -umb verb), Russ. бес : беситься. Alongside the verb *žuriti (sę), West Slavic has apparently lost the original base preserved in Lithuanian žiaurùs, a phenomenon not unknown in the history of Balto-Slavic (e.g., Sl. *rǫka ‘hand’: Lith. rankà : riñkti ‘gather’: Sl. *rьtobъ [Russ. ртуть] ‘mercury’: Lith. risti : ritant- ‘roll’). REFERENCES ARUMAA, P. 1964: Urslavische Grammatik 1, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. ATRAXOVIĆ, K. K. 1988: Белорусско-русский словарь 1, Минск: Белорусская советская энциклопедия. BRÜCKNER, A. 1957: Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. BŪGA, K. 1958, 1959, 1962: Rinktiniai raštai 1–3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. ČERNYX, P. Ja. 1993: Историко-этимологический словарь современного русского языка 1, Москва: Русский язык. 4DŽ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, ed. S. Keinys et al., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000. DOROSZEWSKI, W., ed. 1968: Słownik języka polskiego 10, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. DYBO, V. A. 1981: Славянская акцентология, Москва: Наука. FRAENKEL, E. 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. GOŁĄB, Z. 1967: The Traces of vrьdьhi 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: Бытовая лексика литовского происхождения в западной Белоруссии. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16, 163–195. HAMP, E. 1978: Sound change and the etymological lexicon. Farkas, D. et. 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 u-stems. Baltistica 20 (2), 141–142. HOLUB, J., KOPEČNÝ, F. 1952: Etymologický slovník jazyka českého, Praha: Státní Nakladatelství Učebnic. HOLZER, G. 1989: Entlehnungen aus einer bisher unbekannten indogermanischen Sprache im Urslavischen und Urbaltischen, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. IEW – Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, ed. J. Pokorny, Bern: Francke, 1959. JUNGMANN, J. 1839: Slovník česko-německý 5, Praha: V Knížecí Arcibiskupské Knih tiskárně. KARŁOWICZ, J., et al. 1927: Słownik języka polskiego 8, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Kasy im. Mianowskiego. KIRIČENKO, I. I. 1953: Украинско-русский словарь 1, Киев: Издательство Академии наук Украинской ССР. KOIVULEHTO, J. 1991: Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. KURYŁOWICZ, J. 1968: Indogermanische Grammatik 2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. MACHEK, V. 1968: Etymologický slovník jazyka českého, ed. 2, Praha: Academia – Nakladatelství Československé Akademie Věd. MEL’nyčuk, O. S. 1985: Етимологічний словник української мови 2, Київ: Наукова думка. MUCKE, E. 1928: Wörterbuch der nieder-wendischen Sprache und ihrer Dialekte 2, Prag: Verlag der Böhmischen Akademie für Wissenschaften und Kunst. NOSOVIČ, I. I. 1870: Словарь белорусского наречия, Санкт-Петербург: Типография Императорской Академии наук. OŽEGOV, S. I. 1989: Словарь русского языка, изд. 21-ое, Москва: Русский язык. PAVLOVIĆ, A. I. 1989: Чешско-русский словарь, изд. 8-ое, Москва: Русский язык. PETLEVA, I. P. 1969: Дополнительные ресурсы для реконструкции праславянской лексики (на материале сербохорватского языка). Этимология 1967, 173–179. LITHUANIAN žiaurùs : žvėris | 115 POLDAUF, I., et al. 1971: Anglicko-český a česko-anglický slovník, Praha: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelství. 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 – Словарь русских народных говоров, ред. Ф. П. Филин et al., Москва-Ленинград: Наука, 1965-. SSA – Suomen sanojen alkuperä 1, ed. E. Itkonen, et al., Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus, 1992. STUNDŽIA, B. 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, Baltų kalbų katedra. SZEMERÉNYI, O., 1980: Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. TOPOROV, V. N. 1979: Прусский язык. Словарь Е-Н, Москва: Наука. VANAGS, P. 1989: On the History of Baltic u-Stem Adjectives. Baltistica 25 (2), 113–122. VASMER [ФАСМЕР], M., TRUBAČËV, O. N. 1987: Этимологический словарь русского языка. Перевод с немецкого и дополнения О. Н. Трубачева, изд. 2-ое, Москва: Прогресс. VITKAUSKAS, V. 1976: Šiaurės rytų dünininkų šnektų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Steven Young Department of Modern Languages University of Maryland Baltimore County 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore, MD 21250, USA [email protected] Gauta 2002 11 24