Edenda Curaverunt, Józef Marcinkiewicz ir Norbert Ostrowski. „Mvnera lingvistica et philologica Michaeli Hasivk dedicata“

138 | Reviews MVNERA LINGVISTICA ET PHILOLOGICA MICHAELI HASIVK DEDICATA. EDENDA CURAVERUNT JOZEF MARCINKIEWICZ ET NORBERT OSTROWSKI Poznan: University of Poznan. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Department of Scandinavian Studies and Baltologii, 2001, 273 p., ISBN 83-232-1198-1. (Poznanskie Studia Baltystyczne, 1) It is symbolic that in recent years even several jubilee collections of articles dedicated to foreign Baltists are starting new Baltic series of books. In 2000, the first book in the series “Schriften des Instituts fūr Baltistik der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald” was published in honour of the famous German Slavist and Baltist Rainer Eckert. This tradition is supported by a collection of articles dedicated to the Polish Baltic studies promoter, Professor Michaił Hasiukas: it marks the beginning of the series “Poznanskie Studia Baltystyczne”. On the other hand, as can be seen from the prefaces of the authors, Jozef Marcinkiewicz and Norbert Ostrowski, it is also a kind of continuation of the old series "Seria Filologii Baltyckiej" of the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, which included three important books for Baltic scholars, published in the second half of the 1970s. In addition to the list of those who congratulated Prof. Hasiuk on his 70th anniversary and the comprehensive bibliography of his works, the aforementioned collection of articles also briefly presents the most important episodes of the jubilee’s life, especially his scientific activities (pp. XV-XVII, Eugeniusz Rajnik). This description highlights some of the most important areas of Hasiuk’s scientific interests — Lithuanian dialectology, phonology and phonetics, and the history of Baltic languages. Obviously, the authors have tried to ensure that the majority of the articles in the publication address the issues of such areas close to the anniversary. There are also literary works — after all, Michatas Hasiukas, who devoted much effort to develop Lithuanian studies in Poland, especially in Poznan, (since 1987 he headed the Department of Baltic Languages at the University of Poznań), strongly supported its literary side. If we look at the works published in the publication, it is clear that the diachronic studies of the Baltic languages occupy the largest place. A number of articles are devoted to the history of words — etymology, historical formation, historical morphology. Some of the etymology works develop the research of borrowed words. In the article "Lie. (m) abrinas“ (p. 73-79) Vincas Urbutis supplements the history of Lithuanian words with a few clarified borrowings. This time it is convincingly shown that the Samogitian dbrinas “a tall wooden jar with a lid to put butter or something else into it", in DZ, _, included as an own word, is in fact a late Leticism borrowed from the Latvian dialects of the south-western corner of Curonian. By the way, other names of the ancient wooden butterhouse are also touched by the prophecies, especially the Slavic vogonas. Interesting is the semantic development of abriin and vogon. The meaning of both words differs significantly from the source of borrowing — the meanings of words in Latvian and Slavic languages; la. abra has the usual meaning of ‘kneader, bread maker’, it is also common in some Slavic examples. The researcher rightly claims that the meaning of Lithuanian borrowed words from “knytytuvis, duonlavio’ to “senovinės medinės sviestinės, abrino’ could have passed either through an intermediate meaning “(wooden) bowl (with top)', or directly specializing, cf. lit. box “skrinia, skrynelė' and “abrinas- ’, derived from br. d3xvxd at le. dzieža ‘minkytuvis’. 1 Kolbuszewski (1977), Kudzinowski (1977), Hasiuk (1978). Based on certain spelling characteristics of Prussian texts, one Germanism of the Prussian language was established by Pietras U. Dinis in „Linguistics and Baltic Philology: On EV 469 Scrundus, EV 558 Scrundos“ (p. 131-136). According to him, pr. scrundus, scrundos ‘zirklés’, in the original meaning *‘disclosure, tearing’, reflects pr. [[rund-] and is related to v. v. a. schrunde ‘crack, tear in the skin’, schriindic ‘present with cracks in the skin’ (cf. v. v. a. schrinden ‘tear, break, split, escape’). Since the meaning of the object of action, the result, of German derivatives with the so-called zero suffix is usually closely related to the meaning of nomina actionis, such borrowing seems quite plausible. Perhaps only because of the importance of the tool acquired by Prussian Germanism it would have been worthwhile to draw other parallels. Interesting connections with the history of Lithuanian words are highlighted in Lembitas Vaba’s article “Is the Finnic lanko a Germanic or a Baltic loan?” (p. 157-160). Although the case of the Finnish word is being resolved, the proposed etymology of the name of the marriage kinship loop “vedybų giminaičiai [ir kt.]' depends directly on the clarification of the source of borrowing — the Lithuanian word origin. The attempts of Liukkonen's soldier suo. bow to lie. (g.) nitolanka, lanka "humiliation, humiliation; marčios lenktini vyro giminės' Vaba considers semantically unfounded. It is true that the article does not recount this rejected etymology quite correctly — the meaning ‘humility, humiliation, respect’ has been given next to the word humility; thus the etymological connection seems completely incomprehensible, and in fact it should be criticized especially for the chosen Žemaičių Vedic novelty and limited spread. The Estonian scholar himself chose the source of Finnish borrowings — li. laigonas —semantically and in terms of prevalence, age seems more appropriate. But, as the author of the thesis admits, in such a case there are phonetic difficulties and problems of the etymology and historical phonology of the Lithuanian word have to be solved. It is regrettable that Vaba did not use Rūta Buivydienės monograph Lietuvių kalbos vedybų giminystės pavadinimai (1997), which presents in detail the history of the research of laigon and evaluates the etymologies presented. Buivydienė reasonably prefers the association with ide. *leik'-‘to bind, bind up’, ‘to swear, to commit’ in the root words. Therefore, the linguist probably could not have given so much space to other less reasonable alternatives. The Finnish language is considered to be a Proto-Finnish language. *langonas, as it is assumed, could have existed next to laigonas, similarly to the variants aldra //audra; bengti // finish; solid // steam; strungas || strugas. However, the very alternation of the sonant and the vowel, or rather the diphthong and the diphthong, in the root or suffix is a rather problematic, not entirely clear language phenomenon. The connection between the examples given is not entirely clear; at least some of them reflect different language laws: aldra //audra and other similar variants are the result of the al //au alternation characteristic of some dialects (see more Zinkevičius 1966: 164); bengti, formed later next to baigti, beigti, the root n is of interjectional origin (see Urbutis 1981: 100-104); there is no unanimous opinion on the relationship between steam and steam (Urbutis 1981: 102, note 26) and so on.” So proposed suo. the interpretation of the arc remains too hypothetical. Mariola Walczak-- Mikotajezakowa’s research (,,banti3msl B 6oarapekom s35rke“, pp. 167-173) is a further refinement of Jūratė Laučiūtė- ’s dictionary of baltisms Crosaps 6armuzmos 6 cragsmckux azvixax (1982). Similar work has already been done by other scientists, e.g. 184-191), and the remarks of Alexander Anikin (Anikin 2001: 8-10). 2 Postulated phonetic word changes are not appropriate and Vytautas Vitkauskas has thoroughly investigated the phenomenon of nasal vowels being replaced by diphthongs or diphthongs due to epentesis (Vitkauskas 2001: 120-126). 140 | REVIEWS baltizmais. Only one of them — sexmep — is of undisputed Baltic origin, but in the Bulgarian language it is a Rusification. Similarly, some of the other words mentioned in the dictionary have come into Bulgarian through the closer Slavic languages, and the rest are probably merely related words dating back to the common epoch of the Baltic and Slavic languages. In particular, the work of Wojciech Smoczynski on the origin of Belarusian words is worth mentioning. The article „Litewskie stogas obok innych refleksėw pie. pierwiastkéw na *-h,T“ (p. 15-27) he develops the idea of the lithography raised in his earlier works „Indoeuropejskie podstawy stownictwa litewskiego- “, „Komentarz laryngalistyczny do wybranych formacji litewskich“ (Smoczynski 2001: 131tt., 252). stegas, more precisely bl. *stag-a-, origin. In his opinion, this isolated word esas is the extinct verb lie. *stogti, roof, derivative of roof "to drip, to drop, to drip' (with equivalents in Greek)®. The original meaning of stegas would then have been ‘drainage (roof) gutter, roof slope for rainwater drainage’, and the current one has developed metonymy. The semantic side of the hypothesis is somewhat doubtful. There are no obvious parallels with other languages. There's no decrease in ide. The motivation of the main roofing words in some languages is nevertheless related to the roofing: vk. Roof, German. * paka-, lo. toga, r., br. xpsrua et al., also see li. trm. cover "roof" (LKZ, 259). Therefore, the etymology of Vytautas Maziulis's Prussian etymological dictionary, which returns to earlier attempts to associate the word with ide, would seem more reliable. *(s)teg-‘to cover’: bl. (dial.) *stūgas —inflection derivative of verb bl. *stag-/stag- -‘to cover’ —*stag-, which existed next to the verb bl. *steg-‘to cover’, cf. the related pr. steege ‘garziné’ < pr. *stėgė ‘covering’ < pr. stėg-‘to cover’ < bl. *step-it. p.' etc. (Mažiulis 1997: 157pp.). In addition to the etymology of stogas, Smoczynski- ’s article discusses several Lithuanian words that correspond in phonological structure to the presupposed *stūg-< *stéh g-, i. e. *C(C)eh,T. Some of the interpretations of the origin of the words discussed here have already been mentioned in previous works of the author. However, there are also completely new etymological connections, which add new material to the famous work of German linguists Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (see Rix 1998). Somewhat problematic are the studies of word origins presented by Piotr Stalmaszczyk and Krzysztof T. Witczak („On two Baltic-Celtic terms for “stallion'”, pp. 29-32). As can be understood from the article, they are closely related to the project of a new comparative etymological dictionary of Indo-European languages being prepared at the University of Łódź. Linguists have presented two new etymologies of Baltic words for stallion and horse. It is said that pr. sweriapis 'tournament horse' and v. sl. *swerjep» is borrowed from the extinct eastern Celtic dialect *swerihapa ‘erzilas’, cf. s. air. serrach ‘young horse, colt’, etc. However, it is unlikely that the Prussians borrowed this supposed Celtic word directly and even had a common word bl.-sl. *swerjapas. Most likely, as many prominent Prussianists of today believe, it is Prussian Polonism. Furthermore, neither Slavic nor Baltic languages have established a reliable case of Celtic borrowing, nor a completely convincing isoglosse distinct from the Baltic Celtics (cf. Dini 2000: 53t., 152t.). Thus, instead of the complex and complicated etymology, the le suggested by Trautman and Vasmer seems much more acceptable. šwierzepa ‘kumelé’, Ce. sverep(ec) ‘field weeds; 'breeding colt' etc. with an adjective that has not survived in Polish, but has been used in other Slavic languages, cf. bžn. r. swerép ‘wild’, slvn. srėp “rude, harsh', etc. New hypothesized Baltic, Celtic, Indo-Iranian etymological connection: e. bl. By the way, it is not clear why the revealed word formation reaches only past times, after all, the roof is a common Baltic word. REVIEWS | 141 melias), s. air. meile “'horse' < Celtic *melyos, s. i. maryah ‘eagle’ —also seems controversial. The word s. i. mdryareikšme ‘erzilas’, supposedly recorded in the Rigveda, is mentioned only in the old Sanskrit dictionaries of the late 19th century. In recent works of scholars this meaning is not given at all (see Mayrhofer 1996: 326; Geldner 1951 a: I91.13; 1951 b: IX 97.18). Therefore, the word in this meaning probably does not exist in the ancient Indian language. O spėjamo giminiško s. air. love genetic relationships reliably determined is prevented by not entirely clear meaning. Ignacas R. Danka’s article “De Balticis ciconiae nominibus” (p. 1—4), written in Latin, with which the authors began and as it were represented the publication, is a striking example of the ideologization of Indo-Europeanist research and the lack of reading of etymological literature. The thesis presents an overview of some studies of the origin of the names of white gandro. Most of the time they are limited to the works of the old classics of Indo-European studies, and what was written by Balts in the second half of the 20th century is ignored. For example, since the time of Pokorny, it is said to be unanalysed lie. gūžas, gužūtis is considered to be an Indo-European veldinis, 0 in fact, as established by Vincas Urbutis, is a derivative of the Lithuanian language epoch (cf. gūžinti "to go bent over, to bend over', gužinėti "to walk contracted, to slide', gūžtis "to withdraw into a heap, to riestis ', gaūžtis 'to bulge, to pull the neck, to land', etc. ; see. 1981: 33 and 43. Other names of the heron in Baltic languages have been analyzed in detail in Urbutis's study. garnet, crane, etc., la. trm. guoris etymology (Urbutis 1981: 18, 24t., 32t.), although they are much more justified than those recounted in the article. It would be even more strange if the Germanic origin of the word gandras was the only one being discussed, and other possibilities were not mentioned, and if you go into the literature referred to in the footnote (p. 2, footnote 4), which seems to confirm this only way, it becomes clear that here the preference is given to completely different interpretations of the origin. In addition, the article refers several times to the Polish Jotvingian dictionary once made public by Z. Zinkevičius, from which allegedly Jotvingian equivalents (sterkas, gerwe) are quoted, although Wolfgang Schmid has quite convincingly established that the Jotvingian language is not recorded in this work at all.” Even Zinkevičius’ opinion, expressed a little later, that the words recorded here are those of the Jotvingians (as a certain union of Baltic tribes) and Lithuanians who lived in the Naura river basin (Zinkevičius 1992: 99-133), does not give reason to look at this source with such a believable and uncritical attitude. All of them emphasize that the data should be evaluated with great caution. The publication contains several works dedicated to onomastics. Jozefas Marcinkiewiczius discusses the origin of the -ukas suffix in Suwatki personal names („The -ukaffix in Lithuanian personal names of the Suwatki region“, p. 55-62). Based on the so-called Falko [published] forestry registry (XVIIAccording to the 18th century) he claims that the aforementioned suffix of Suvalki personal names is Lithuanian, not Belarusian (the latter is seen here by many researchers). However, the presented facts do not give a definitive answer: some of the church Latin names came into the Lithuanian language through the Belarusian or Lenky languages and it is very difficult to judge about the typical Lithuanianization of certain variants of them in the presence of close Polish, Lithuanian and Belarusian relations. Sometimes there is a lack of accuracy. For example, it is asserted that the Belarusians of Polish dialects mentioned by other linguists are “really Lithuanian origin (sic)” (p. 56, note 4), although some of them, for example: pacuki (cf. pacūkas), kančuk (cf. kančūkas- ), kindžuk (cf. kindziūkas), their Lithuanian equivalents are borrowed. The adaptation of Baltic toponyms and anthroponyms on the Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian border has been examined by Michatas Kondratiukas in his article „O cjaBskn3aniuH 6anTHIICKHX TOTMOHHMOB H AHTDpONOHHMOB Ha 4 The dictionary actually records a mixture of Lithuanian, Latvian and German, which could have been spoken by a Jewish settler who did not know Lithuanian and Latvian well (see Schmid 1986: 273-286). 142 | Reviews NOJIBCKO- -OEJIOpYCCKO-JIKHTOBCKOM riorpaHHube“ (p. 161-166). This research grew out of the previous work of the researcher (see especially Kondratiuk 1985 and 2000). Accumulated in Poland Baltstogės, Belarus The database of names of Grodno district allowed to review the methods of slavization of established Lithuanian toponyms and anthroponyms: phonetic, phonetic- -verbal, several hybrid variants (the word root is Baltic, and the other — Slavic), translational and folk etymological adaptation. Interesting, although controversial, is the work of Mykolas Letas Palmaitis, analysing the origin of some Prussian- -Russian place names and personal names („Old Prussian Share in Creating the First Russian State“, pp. 141-153). Based on historical and protohistorical data (chronicles, legends), archaeology and onomastics, the linguist reconstructs (creates?) a fragment of the Prussian history of the 9th-13th centuries, which is closely related to the formation of Kievan Rus. This is the basis of the Norman origin theory. The Prussians here are a kind of allies and intermediaries of the Normans, or Vikings, Varyags. In this connection, a specific origin of the name Russia and the Russian ethnonym is proposed: this is the Viking name Riis < Ros, plg. s. isl. rēbs-menn ‘oarers’, generalization from the name *Rus(ai), Russes of the Prussians who lived in the Rusne (Russ /*Rusa) river basin. The material of chronicles and legends is usually multifaceted, multi-meaning and unverifiable, so it is very difficult (if not impossible) to avoid speculation. The “pruscentricity” of the hypothesis developed by Palmaitis immediately raises serious doubts. The operation with facts, linguistic material seems too much inclined to one idea: the Prussian word for the Russian language, vitjaz' («—pr. *vitingis « s. german. vikingr) is based on the Prussian root of the word io, while the Prussian origin of the name of the prince of the Varyags, Oleg <—pr. *Algis (such a Prussian personal name, although not recorded) summarizes the supposed d stem of gen. *Algas and others. Some ancient Germanic, Baltic and Slavic personal names are also etymologically related. Henryk Jankowski’s article “The names of habitation places of Polish-Lithuanian Tatars” (p. 189—200) also belongs to the field of onomastics. Here we delve into Trakai, Vilnius and some The origin of the toponyms of Tatar settlements in Belarus and Poland, which are presumably of Turkish origin. In addition to place names with the Turkish suffix -I4r, toponyms derived from Tatar personal names with Slavic or Lithuanian suffixes are also discussed. By the way, the Lithuanian suffix -išk (the Slavicized form -iški) is somehow incorrectly considered Slavic or even Lit.-sl. languages. Interesting and awaiting the appreciation of Lithuanian onomastics is the attempt to associate the name of the river Vokės with the Turkish actual word Wag. The work of Witold Manczak specifically connects the studies of synchrony and diachronicity of words, forms „An overview of the Lithuanian frequency dictionary“ (p. 47-53). It further develops and supports the author’s idea that irregular sound changes can be determined by frequent word use. According to Laima Grumadienės and Vida Žilinskienė’s Frequently Used Dictionary of the Present Written Lithuanian Language (1997), a list of particularly frequently used words, the origin of which cannot be explained by phonetic laws or analogy, is presented. It is clear that most of these words or forms are abbreviated, others have grown out of several longer words, and some have changed sounds. It is strange that the article does not contain any references to the literature used to determine the origin of the words. It is not clear whether, apart from Fraenkel (perhaps his work Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch?) mentioned several times, other works were taken into account. Probably not. Therefore, the comments on some words should be clarified: there are quite opposing, different opinions about the origin of nama, dole — they are not necessarily abbreviated (see Zinkevičius 1981: 170, 182t. with lit.). There is also a lack of clarity about the origin of Germanism monegas. According to Kazimieras Būga, the longer variant tangis (from s. v. ž. penning) was taken over only by the Žemaičių dialects, and pinigas a little later (about 1200) from v. v. Mr. Penny RECENZIJOS | 143 was taken over by the Highlanders (Būga 1959: 91). Therefore, we are not dealing with the shortening of one form, but with the result of several forms of competition. Accuracy is sometimes lacking in the Fraenkel dictionary data. It is said that the particle gi is the abbreviated form of the verb heard. In fact, the most commonly used accentuating particle is considered archaic and is associated with the -ge, -ga, -gu, which are common in old texts, as well as with their Slavic and other language counterparts (Fraenkel 1962: 126; Zinkevičius 1981: 197). Another hypothesis repeated by Fraenkel (based on Endzelynas 1939: 74, 188) about the homonymous gi, occurring at the beginning of the sentence and supposedly originating from girdi, can be doubted- .” In any case, the common vocabulary probably included only the usual archaic particle gi. It is also worth considering whether it is worth considering the removal of the end of the pierced first sando (or the historical stem with the end) as an unfair abbreviation, cf. century, hotel komentarus®. The formation of adjectives from a combination of two words does not take place chaotically, but according to certain laws. The abbreviation corresponding to the author’s hypothesis could only be considered as the elimination of the perforated connective vowel, but the newly built hotel, which does not have longer variants, would not fit here either. It may be a proofreading error, though, to kill out of will rather than out of desire. A similar work by W. Manczak, devoted to the Prussian language, is commented on and clarified in another article of the reviewed publication with a graceful and subtle humorous title “A note on Old Prussian deiwas, Marx and engels” (pp. 155-156). The author, William Schmalstieg, corrects several Prussian examples that inappropriately illustrate the relationship between word frequency and incorrect phonetic variations. The word deiwas and other abbreviated forms of *6 root words cannot be considered nom. s.g. forms with -is (deiwis, etc.), because they alone (without the variant deiwas) are used in the early Prussian text — the Elbing dictionary. It is also not shortened to Gen. sg. form cheese ‘Sirdies’: Manczako gretinama s. bžn. sl. česo actually reflects the *0 root, while the Prussian form is a consonant root, cf. gr. xfįpogz. Norbertas Ostrowski’s studies of the Lithuanian verb are related to historical morphology („Zu den litauischen nasalinfigierenden Verben des Typs ved. punati“, pp. 69-71). According to the author, with the old n insertion in the Lithuanian language, several verbs can be found: trinti, skinti and minti, the representatives of this type identified by previous researchers žinoti and gauti (gauna) are rejectable. Frederik Kortland examines the issues of historical writing („OPr. -sna, Lith. -sena, Latv. -šana“, pp. 137-139). This is another attempt to establish the suffix lie. - See, la. -Sana and pr. -sna genetic connection (for other attempts see Ambrazas 1993: 60tt.). Cortland reconstructs such a bl.-sl. paradigm: nom. s.g. -sin, acc. s.g. -senin, others cheerfully —with -sna-. Karl H. Schmidt reviews the archaic, Indo-European inherited Baltic reflexive forms („Zum baltischen Reflexivum“, pp. 5-14). The position of the enclitic pronoun s(i) in words and sentences of old Belarusian texts, as well as the usage of the attributive pronoun of the returning pronoun in the sentence, is compared with the old ide. equivalents of other languages (Indo-Iranian, Tocharian, Greek, etc.), and typologically — also with neide. of the ergative sentence in the Kartvelian languages. : Fraenkel indicates that its meaning is ‘but, oh, but’. However, the LKZ does not give such a meaning, and the similar use (corrected in works on language culture) in comparative or contradictory conjunction sentences was conditioned by the Russian conjunction and the particle že. On the other hand, the idea of Endzelynas should not be completely rejected. Unlike Fraenkel, the Latvian linguist did not specify the clear meaning of the second particle gi. It is possible that the origin of the jaugi meaning 'true, yes, by the way' (which is also included in the LKZ) is actually related to the verb form girdi. By the way, the base words of the punch-hole viešpilas, which is the model (prototype) of the word viešbutis, could not be viešas and pilis, but viešas and pilti. 144 | REVIEWS Several semantic parallels between Caucasian and Basque languages regarding the emphatic pronoun *the etymology itself supports the interpretation of a considerable number of linguists, such as Delbrūc, Gamgrelidze, Ivanov and recently especially argumented Rosina, that id. *pot in its original meaning was ‘lord, master’ (see Rosine 2000: 129-140). The only article devoted to the complex topic of the historical accentology of the Balts is Rick Derksen’s “Tonal oppositions on non-initial syllables in Latvian” (p. 81-87). This paper examines Steven Young’s assertion that the secondary circumflex in the non-initial syllables of a word in the middle Latvian dialects almost regularly replaces the primary circumflex. The analysis shows that the established regularity is not regular: some of Young’s examples can be interpreted in a completely different way — in Latvian or Lithuanian dialects there are a number of contradictory accentuation variants, and the operation of the Sosiūro-Fortunatovo law in non-initial syllables is unjustifiably absoluted. For those who continue to investigate the origin of the non-initial syllables, Derksen proposes some sequential stages: first, consider the existing variants of Latvian dialects, then compare them with the facts of Lithuanian dialects, and finally, refer to the etymology of the morphem. By the way, these studies could perhaps be adjusted by the data of borrowed words, cf. the Germanisms sipuols, maguone, slavizma cilvėks (cilvéks) mentioned in the article. From the researches on the history of ancient texts, two Latonic works are presented in the publication. Gvidas Michelinis investigates the sources of the first printed Latvian book — the translation of the Catholic Catechism of Peter Kanisius in 1585 (“Sources of the Latvian Catechism of 1585”, pp. 121-129). It is difficult to find a clear source of the catechism. The Latvian text is more similar to the German small catechisms of Canisius, the closest of which are Der kleine Katechismus of 1584 and Catechismus In Kurtze Frag of 1581. However, according to the author, there are still a number of places in the text that do not have clear correspondences. There are two hypotheses: either the Latvian work was composed of several different translations of the Catechisms of Canisius, or some compiled manuscript (German) text was used. It is worth adding that additional material on the issue could perhaps be provided by checking the version of the translator’s authorship somehow hidden in the article: it is assumed that the translator of the catechism could be the German Erthmann Tolgsdorf. By the way, the name of the author of the facsimile edition of the Catechism is not given accurately — it should be Giinther, and ne Giinter. Toshikazu Inoue’s article “Hexoropbie 3aMeTKH K H3/laHHOMY BelnneHOeprepoM TEKCTY JIATBINNIckoro Karexusuca 1586 ropa” (pp. 113-119) discusses another old Latvian catechism — the 1586 translation of Martin Luther’s Enchiridion. In fact, this is a list of discrepancies and errors found in Adalbert Bezzenberger’s critical edition of the Latvian Enchiridion (1875). The author’s proposed version of the full text with comments in Japanese was published in Japan. These textological notes are only the beginning of the planned major work (comparing all three Baltic texts of the Enchiridion). Such ambition is also conditioned by the sources of Prussian and Latvian texts that have been sufficiently thoroughly studied by scholars (see Trautmann 1909: 217-479; Mažiulis 1966: 33-40; Vanags 1995: 52-62). It is true that the relationship of the Lithuanian translation of Bartholomew Wilens’ ENCHIRIDION Catechifmas mafas with the sources after Trautmann’s study seems to have not been re-examined; In Wilens’ work there is also an extended part of the catechism of 1547, translated from Polish (probably the work of Martynas Mažvydas himself). The reviewed publication contains several articles dedicated to dialectology research. There could have been more of them, since dialect studies are perhaps the main field of scientific interest of Michail Hasiuk. Almost all dialectological works are devoted to the analysis of Polish Lithuanian dialects. Kazimieras Garšva In the 145th article of the book, the author presents an overview of the phonology of these dialects and some accentology features („The Lithuanian dialects of the Seinai region“, p. 33-38). Especially emphasized are the problems of i: variants, a and e phonological interpretation, endings and determination of the number of postpositional vowels, as well as the leveling of long vowels. And regarding the mentioned hardening of the consonants /, r, s, the opposite assessments are also possible: see. Kardelis (2001: 141–150 with lit.). The dialect studies of Piotr Grablun and Jowita Niewulis are quite student-- oriented. In Grablun’s work “Some (sic!) questions of the use of locals in the Polish Dzūkų dialect” (pp. 39-46) the very awkward, confusing terms used to describe locals are striking. From the beginning of the article and from the English summary it is clear that the names of the locative/insertive, the iliative/directive are used synonymously, i.e. instead of the present internal and, respectively, instead of the internal transitive. But the examples show otherwise: “Inesyv can be used (a) the locator and (b) to express an interest” (p. 40); "The iliative can also be used (a) the investor and b) to denote the locative" (p. 40), "Likewise, the illiative approaches the directive in its meaning, rather than the locative" (p. 44)". Anyway, after reviewing the overview of the dialectal use of the locus, based on the distribution of humorous meanings by Jon Šukis, it is clear that a considerable part of the described locus compounds are syntactic limestones of Slavic languages (the article talks only about the takeover of some constructions from Polish). Jowita Niewulis in her article „Punsk dialect pronouns’ specificity“ (p. 62-67) discusses more special forms of individual Punsk dialect pronouns. There are also some inaccuracies here. The forms are jisai., jmai., tasai. are considered to be noun forms of pronouns, 0 are actually forms extended by the postpositional particle -ai, -nai, which in some dialects are only treated as noun forms (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 430tt.). An entirely different dialect, or perhaps even language, is studied in Friedhelm Hinzė’s article in the publication „Mehrsprachigkeit rund um das Kurische Haff im Bewusstsein meines Gewahrsmannes Fritz Peleikis (1904-1984) aus Preil“ (pp. 98-111). Here is published a late text in Kurian language, written by Fritz Peleikis, a former fisherman from Neringa. It is worthwhile that it additionally highlights the rising preposition uttered by the presenter in his commentary. Detailed commentaries on place names and certain word forms with comparisons of German and Baltic languages have also been prepared. The author emphasizes that, like other late 20th century texts, Peleikis’ Panorama shows clear signs of a disappearing dialect. An interesting article by Rainer Eckert on Latvian lexicology and folklore is “Satzgliedwertige und satzwertige Phraseologismen aus der Sprache der lettischen Folklore” (p. 89-98). The linguist examined one nest of phraseologisms based on the words siets and sijat. The comparison of various folkloric phrases and proverbs convincingly revealed the meaning of sayings such as “through a sieve sieving a cow” and the like as “to despise, to hurt, to harm” and denied Arturs Ozol's opinion that Latvian singing folklore contains only undeveloped “seeds” of phraseologisms. In Lithuania and Latvia, a relatively new branch of linguistics — sociolinguistics — is represented by Joanna Ostaszewska and Tomasz Wicherkiewicz’s article “Žemaitisch und Latgalisch als europaische Regionalsprachen” (p. 175-188). The authors have determined that according to their characteristic features, the Samogitian and Latgalian languages should also be considered as regional languages. The facts of the history of the Žemaičiai have some inaccuracies in the work. In the first two cases there may be a proofreading error: from the dialect sentences it seems that instead of "inesyvui" there should be "iliatyvui", cf. ind'e:j p'uodi p'inigus; I'm going to work. The 17th century Duchy of Žemaitija (and the bishopric, the date of founding and the founder of which are also given incorrectly), which encompassed mainly the Upper Lithuanian lands of central Lithuania and established the Upper Lithuanian variant of the written language. For this reason, Mikalojus Daukša, who wrote in the middle Altai dialect, is mistakenly mentioned as the author of the Altai language, and next to Skuodas, which is truly Altai language, are mentioned Jurbarkas and Kėdainiai. Priests and monks promoted the idea of a common language in the 19th century, not in the 18th. At least a few words could be said about the 18th century — it was then (and not in the 20th century) that the distinctive Samogitian script began to take shape. Furthermore, it is hardly possible to agree with the statement that the Žemaites still look different from the Altai (apparently, they were confused with the Latgalians, whose appearance is really typical). In addition to this work on external linguistics, several other articles that transcend the boundaries of traditional linguistics are to be mentioned: Alfredo Majewicz’s study “Bronistaw Pitsudski and Lithuania” (p. 201-214) on the connections of the famous ethnographer Pitsudski with Lithuania and Bernardo Piotrowski’s study “W oczekiwaniu na niepodlegtoszcz. Litwini amerykanscy i z Prus Wschodnich wobec spraw narodowych (1914-1915)” (p. 215-227) about the political expectations of East Prussia and American Lithuanians in 1914— In 1915. As already mentioned, there are also literary works in the publication. All of them are related to Lithuanian literature in one way or another. However, only Juozas Girdzijauskas’ article “Liudvikas Adomas Jucevičius at the Crossroads of Cultures” (pp. 241—249) and Monika Pokorska-Iwaniuk’s rather student review “Maironis — the Great Lithuanian Poet” (pp. 251—263) analyse the Lithuanian author and his work. The other two interesting works are already from the history of Polish literature: the expressively written article by Jerz Borowczyk and Radosław Okulicz-Kozaryn “Fun in a Dark Time at the Basilians. Philomath customs in the Vėliniai III part” (pp. 229-239) and Justyna Prusinowska’s work “Vitolio rauda —užmiršta J. I. Kraševskio lietuviška daina” (pp. 265-270). It is a pity that Prusinowska’s work does not compare Kraszewski- ’s original with Andrius Vištelis’ translation into Lithuanian. Thus, the collection in honour of Michailas Hasiukas includes a wide variety of articles — both serious scientific studies and modest reviews, which the authors could perhaps have given up. The publication in question is devalued by the surprisingly unedited, full of language culture and proofreading errors language of some articles translated (or written?) into Lithuanian (especially literary works). For example: nonsense (p. 66), interested noun (p. 66), equivalents in common language (p. 64), main criterion of classification (p. 37), hint of work manifested [...] in creative explosion of improvisation (p. 299), manuscript analysis (p. 299), so-called (p. 230), provocative [...] drama (p. 230), three years (p. 231), poetic mate acquired deeper meaning (p. 232), and at the same time (p. 267), beings uncritically assigns (p. 267) etc. etc. Therefore, the editors who will continue to publish the books of the established scientific book series “Poznańskie Studia Battystyczne” should be wished greater diligence and care. AMBRAZAS, S. 1993: The development of noun construction 2, Vilnius: Institute for the Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias. ANIKIN, A. 2001: 3ameTku o Gantusmax. International Conference of Kazimieras Bogas: Etymology of Ironomastika, 9 November 2001, Vilnius: VU Department of Baltic Studies and General Linguistics, 8-10. BUGA, K. 1959: Selected Writings 2, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishing House. BUIVYDIENE, R. 1997: Marriage kinship names in Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Dini, P. U. 2000: Baltic languages. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing.