Lietuvių kalbos garsų fonologinės interpretacijos

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVI (2002), 1-17 The article deals with a number of controversial issues of Lithuanian phonology. Attention is paid to the phonological interpretation of (1) peripheral phonemes, (2) vowel guantity, (3) diphthongs (especially the rising diphthongs /ie/and [uo/), (4) affricates and (5) the correlation of palatalization. 0. INTRODUCTION The article discusses phonemes (vowels, consonants), their variants and phoneme combinations (diphthongs, diphthongs) of Lithuanian language. The phonetic system of Lithuanian language is essentially unified. There are not many phonological differences between dialects. There are more regular changes in sounds, often less peripheral phonemes. Linguists of different periods and schools of phonology do not describe Lithuanian phonemes according to the same criteria and therefore indicate different numbers of phonemes. The phonetic system of the common Lithuanian language distinguished between 5 and 14 vowels, up to 6-8 diphthongs, 33-45 consonants, as well as 2-3 prefixes (cf. Klimas 1970; Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 23, 29). The number of phonemes depends on whether the following phenomena are considered independent phonemes and are assigned to the segmental sublevel: a) the number of vowels, i.e. long and short vowels, b) diphthongs and africates (combinations of vowels and consonants), c) palatalization of vowels, diphthongs and consonants (velarization), d) vowels and consonants present only in borrowed words. It is a more complex and less studied phonological system of dialects. The phonology of the Aukštaičių dialects (especially the southern ones) is more similar to the common language than to the Žemaičių. The methodology of our work is based on the statement of the Prague, Moscow and Lithuanian schools of phonology that only what is heard and distinguished by the human ear is important for language. The inaudible, audibly imperceptible and indistinguishable features of sounds cannot be phonological elements of language — they do not exist in the language system (see Girdenis 1995: 248). It is difficult to distinguish some phonemes from prosodes. Non-segmental signs differ in length from segmental signs. Non-segmental (prosodic) language phenomena can be longer than a phoneme (e.g., the pronunciation of a word, the intonation of a phrase) and shorter than a phoneme (e.g., the mora—a part of the long vowel phoneme—recognized by some linguists). Phonetic units longer than a phoneme are called supersegmentals, shorter than a phoneme are called subsegmentals (Garšva 1977: 6-7). 2 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA 1. VOICES 1.1. Phonemes and peripheral phonemes The common Lithuanian vowel system is as follows: fir] Ju] Ji Ju] le’ / No] ([e]) le | la] (/2/) le/lal In the diagram, peripheral phonemes, used only in borrowed words, and positional variants are shown in brackets. Crossed and uncrossed phonemes can contrast each other in quality and quantity, e.g.: ti's —t's —té's —tas, vi's —vé's —vo's —vis —ves, sze'*ko: —bag: —suko-, ti-ko' —té-ko-—ta- -ko-—tiko" —tūko" and so on. ; nési's —nosis, di-dis —didis, lis —lis, ši: —shi, ski'r'ū —skir'u; kel'ū" —kel'ū, ti-l'a-—til'ū, tit —tū, hi'pa — lūpa, pii's —pus, dur'u —dur'ū; more — more, kate: —kate; small —small, my — my, ra-stu: —rastu", pair" —po-ra (word pairs that differ not only in vowels, but also in the hardness and softness of consonants are not minimal). The long and short upper case vowels /i:/: /i/, /u'/: /u/ and the lower case vowels /e:/: /e/, /a"/: /a/ alternate both in the same word and in words of different meanings. The long phoneme o" occurs in words of its own origin, and the short peripheral phoneme (/2/) is pronounced only in international words, so /o*/: (/52/) opposition occurs only in a few words of different meanings: jodo" —jddo", jonas ‘John’ —jonas, s6-da ‘soda’ —soda’, šoko": —$5ko, tolis —tdlis. Thus, minimal pairs with peripheral phoneme (/2/) differ in prevalence (there are significantly fewer of them), distribution (only words of different meanings). The vowel [e], pronounced by a few representatives of the common language and therefore not forming any of the minimum pairs used by all representatives of the common language or dialect, is to be considered as an optional vowel /e/ variant, cf.: mėtras | mėtras, eselonas (ešelonas perhaps no one pronounces), éstas —ėstas /ėstas, gėstu' ‘gesty’ —gėstu" /gėstu“ (cf. Kazlauskas 1966: 74; Girdenis 2000: 105). Three main classes of vowels are distinguished (two of them — according to the movement of the tongue): 1) the anterior /i*/, /é‘/, Je’/, /i/, /e/ and the posterior /u'/, Jo’, Ja], /u/(/2]), lal; 2) uppercase /i:/, jul, /i/, /u/, middlecase /ė:/, /0:/, (/2/) and lowercase /e/, /a‘/, /e/, /a/; 3) long /i'/, wl, le], lol, le], la] and short /i/, /u/, (/2)), lel, Ja). 1.2 The variants of the vowels [e] and [a7], [e] and [a] in Aukštaičių Snektos [e’], [e] and [22] ([a]), [2] ([a]) may not be optional, but positional variants. But even after the soft consonant, the variants of the vowels [a] and [e] in common language, in eastern Highland dialects, are often not identified. E. Mikalauskaitė (1975: 24) had already written in 1964 that “in this position almost all of Lithuania can pronounce [a]”, i.e. she distinguishes, for example, the verb siaūbia (inf. siaūbti) from the noun Sauksmininko siaūbe (cf. vard. siaiibas). Of the 167 persons we interviewed, 151 people, or 90.4%, pronounced the final vowel (open a) in the word in this way (9.6% pronounced the closed e). Of the 15 linguists Lithuanians common language word pairs surike —surikią, gilė —gilia, tags — INTERPRETATIONS OF SOUNDS IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE | 3 Zymias, këi —jai and so on were assigned 9-12 persons (the majority) (Garšva 2001: 142-148). It is hardly justified to interpret such a pronunciation as the book one. This agreement seems to be becoming not artificial, but largely universal. According to A. Pakerio's textbook Phonetics of the Lithuanian Common Language (1986: 56, 62), Lithuanian students in higher schools are taught that "in the middle and at the end of a word after soft consonants the vowel [a"] is replaced by [e']", and the vowel [a] —[e]. In the grammar of contemporary Lithuanian language (Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 23, 24) it is stated that after soft consonants the vowels /a:/, /a/ in the non-book dialect most often coincide with /e’/, /e/, e.g.: gilias —gilės, sėniai —sėnei, and "in many dialects, most often in common language, the opposition of vowels /a'/: /e’/ and /a/: /e/ after all consonants is neutralized: in the position [C'-] /a" a/is most often pronounced as Je’ e/, and compounds with unpalatalized consonant and ė do not exist" ". The Western Kaunas Highlanders, who form the basis of the phonetics of the common language, after the soft consonant at the end of the vowel [a] usually, it seems, do not mix with [e], e.g.: pėkšč'a ‘péséia’, plauk'a. The final [4] (< [a]) is pronounced not only in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, but also in the very eastern dialects of Vilnius, on which the Lithuanian common language had either little or no influence (for example, in Uodegėnai): $viii'c'a švenčia", rai.k'a ‘must’. Therefore, it is not possible to say that some speakers are able to distinguish /a'/, /a/ from /e'/, /e/ variants at the end of the word under artificially created conditions only according to the principles reflected in the spelling. In the root of the word, these positional variants are clearly distinguished, for example, by the people of northern Panevėžys: 425 ‘esu’ —és’ ‘you’, g&'r ‘good’ —gér' ‘good’, gar ‘good’ —gėr' ‘good’, nas “nešu' —mėš' ‘you’. At the end of the word panevéziskiy pronounces closed e: mé ‘me’ (vowel), happiness ‘laimé’. Opinions coincide only on the absolute beginning of the word [e], [e] in common language, where the quality of the vowel does not change. There are at least four recommendations of linguists regarding the root and the end of the word [e], [e]: 1) at the absolute beginning of the word, at the absolute end and before soft consonants to pronounce the closed (more tense, fronter) [e], before hard consonants — the open [a] (K. Garšva); 2) the second opinion is largely consistent with the first, but it is suggested to pronounce only e at the end of the word (A. Girdenis); 3) long and semi-long (in doubles) [e], [e.] pronounced [a], [a.], 0 short —[e] (V. Vitkauskas); 4) to mark and pronounce [e'], [e] everywhere (V. Vaitkevičiūtė; [a], [a] —sometimes only optional variants are possible, earlier to allow pronunciation at the end of the word —A. Pakerys). The solution of this question depends not only on the pronunciation of the common language, but also on the description of morphological phenomena. 1.3. Number of votes In all dialects of Lithuanian, long and short vowels of accented syllables are distinguished, and in unaccented syllables long vowels remain or shorten to semivocals and short vowels. There are four interpretations of long and short vowels — they are considered: 1) separate phonemes (the majority of Lithuanian and other linguists); 2) "neutral" length vowel and The latter phenomenon occurs in the Southern Highland dialect. In the pronunciation of vowels and diphthongs in common language, when spelling influence is emphasized or simplified transcription sources are cited, the softness of a consonant is indicated by the sign <i>. 4 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA with a combination of the length feature (prosome) (Svecevičius 1964: 25—26 and so on); 3) the distinctive feature of morphemes (Garde 1968: 161); 4) one short phoneme (mora) and a combination of two mora (Trubeckoj 1960; Heeschen 1968; Kenstowicz 1970). In the first and fourth cases, the quantity is assigned to the segmental sublevel, in the second and third — to the supersegmental sublevel (prosody). Each of these approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages (they are listed here by reliability). Of the four interpretations, we choose the one with the least defects – the first one. This is more consistent with the experimental data (Pakerys 1995: 26-73), that only the low-rising vowels [e’]: [e], [a']: [a] differ more in quantity (length-shortness), and the high-rising vowels [i]: [i], [uw]: [u] — in quality (tension-non-tension). Longer vowels are more tense. There are six types of vowels in common language: /, U, E, O, £, A. Each type consists of two phonemes that differ in spectrum (tension-non-tension). A. Girdenis (1967: 4, 1981: 131), J. Kazlauskas (1968: 13, 14) and especially A. Pakerys (1986: 27-37 and so on) made this idea more concrete by distinguishing long-tensioned and short-non-- tensioned vowels. In Lithuanian, a vowel belonging to a morpheme often retains the same quantity. This led P. Garda (Garde 1968: 160-165) to believe that quantity was a characteristic of morphemes rather than vowels. This is not possible due to quite numerous exceptions in the word root; "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" "I'll be there for you" The number of vowels in word endings depends on the word form, e.g.: dgs. kilm. nami ‘namy’ —vns. in. nama, vi-ru: “men! —vi'ru "vyru", vns. ward. li-gus ‘lygus’ — dgs. ward. li-gu's ‘equal’, etc. The phoneticist V. Artiomov's pupil B. Svecevičius (1964) considered quantity as a sign of intonation. Other researchers have not supported this view. Phonologists have observed that prosodic units are characterized by variability (place of accent), graduality (length, half-length, shortness), only one distinctive feature (vowels, consonants have more of them). The opposition of long and short vowels in a common language has the same conditions. The quantity is determined in the segment of one phoneme and can therefore be considered as a distinctive feature of vowel phonemes (Girdenis 1995: 252). When moving from the phonological level to the morphological one, it becomes clear that quantity, like consonants and prepositions, also belongs to certain morphemes, so that the aforementioned phenomena, with exceptions, could be called "morphoprozodems". Dialects in which the opposition of quantity remains only in accentuated syllables further support the prosodic interpretation of quantity. For example, in the northern Panevėžys dialect there is a clear distinction between long, semi-long and short vowels (there is a three-length system), but one vowel can have no more than two phonological degrees of length. In the accentuated (strong) position, the upper and lower rising vowels form an opposition (I) according to quantity, and the middle rising vowels do not form an opposition (II): I 1. The vowels [i'], [i.], [uw], [u.] are long and semi-long (for examples see below; The position of the short vowels [e], [e], [0], [a] in the vowel system can be interpreted in two or even three ways: 1) 1977: 80); 2. the vowels [e], [e], ([2], [2]), [a’], [a] are long and short; INTERPRETATIONS OF LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE SOUNDS | 5 II 3. Vowels [e'] ([e']), [0] are pronounced only long; 4. Vowels [e] ([3]), [0] according to qualitative similarity they could be associated with the long [e], [e], [0'], [a']; 2) by alternating in the same morpheme with the vowels [i.], [e“, [w.], [a] the sounds [e], [e], [0], [a] could be considered as positional variants of these vowels; 3) short [e], [0] not to be assigned to either of them and to consider them as independent phonemes. Vowels [e], [0] alternate in the same morpheme not with vowels [e], [0] (as long and short [e], [a] do with each other), but with vowels [i.], [u.], e.g.: s'kėr' “separate, separate” —s'ki.r'“separate’, s'kėr' ‘separate’; kor’ ‘which, which’ —ki.r’ ‘which’, kor ‘which’, so only vowels [e], [a] can be associated with long vowels. The short [e], [e], [0], [a] vowels could be considered positional variants of [i.], [e'], [u.], [a'] only if we introduced into the dialect a category of two types of accents, corresponding to a larger extent to the diachronic category — the main and the digressive accent. But, thinking synchronously, we “don’t know” which pitch is main, which is distracting, and from hearing, as our auditory experiments show, these pitch are now very slightly distinguished, the observed differences between them can be marked only by adding a note. In addition, not only long, but also short (longitudinal) vowels can be pronounced with both the main and the diphthong accent. In the position of the main accent, the semi-long [i. |, [u.] in order can be in any syllable of the word, and the vowels [e], [e], [0], [a] pronounced short remain mainly in the final syllable of the word, but also occur in syllables further from the end of the word (in verbs derived from adjectives, e.g., trép'tzleje ‘trépteléjo’, in words from other languages, e.g., lat'vej ‘Latvija’, in some parts of the dialect — in the upper-degree suffix of adjectives -ėsnis, -ė). If the short vowels are accentuated with the main accent, they are mostly retained only in the final syllable, but with the diphthong accent, they are not only in the final, but also in the second syllable from the end, and their shortness is also often not retained in the syllables further forward. Due to the dependence of the vowels [e], [0] the final answer is given by the unaccented position. The unaccented vowels [i] —[e], [u] —[0] are free variants, so in the accented position (where the opposition of these vowels is not neutralized) [e], [0] must be considered as short variants of [i.], [u.]. The vowels [e], [a], as well as the long [e“], [a"] are independent phonemes. In the Panevėžys dialect, there is an opposition of long-semi- -long or long-short vowels in the same pronounced position (neutralized only in the final open syllable), and the number of vowels would be a differential characteristic belonging to phonemes. Vowels that can be pronounced only long ([ė'], [0']) or only short ([e], [0]) do not have a long-short correlation. (Based only on the vowels [ė“], [0°], abbreviated in the unaccented syllable, the quantity could also be assigned to the supersegmental level.) In contrasting long-long [i], [i.], [ww], [#.], in minimal pairs are distinguished only words with different meanings, e.g.: ski'la “hole” —ski.la “scolo', mū'š ‘Musa’ — mū.š ‘musa’, so these vowels in pronunciation retain the same quantity. Long and short phonemes /e"/, /e/, /a'/, Ja/, on the other hand, usually distinguish the forms of the same word (which 6 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA in the language is mostly) and much less often —different words, e.g.: ké'l' ‘kélia, kėlį, kėlą' —kel’ “way, way’. The accentuated short vowels in the same position may occasionally be extended to almost semi-vowels (especially when the syllable is emphasized for intonation), but the meaning of the word remains unchanged. Such elongated vowels can be regarded as optional variants of short phonemes, sometimes having a stylistic meaning (similarly, the former long vowels [i], [ė'], [uw], [0], rarely pronounced as non-short, 0 semi-long in unpronounced syllables, are optional variants of short positional variants, e.g.: gi.vi-bés’ ‘living’, bū.vo.m ‘we were’). In addition to the primary and secondary accents, dialect vowels remain longer or become longer. But everywhere there are uk avieju ugumy phonemes, and all other sounds are positional variants (cf. Kazlauskaitė 2001; Kazlauskienė 2001). The descriptions of three-length low-rising phonemes are incorrect. J. Treiger (Trager 1940: 31; 1941: 139-141) considered Lithuanian and Latvian long vowels as groups of two elements (double compounds), while in Croatian he separated quantity from phoneme and considered it a prosodem. The number of prosodems (differing in length from phonemes) was mainly considered by representatives of the Prague and London language schools. American descriptivists, representatives of the Moscow phonological school, assigned the quantity of some languages to the segmental level (Kuznecov 1970: 339-344). Long vowels are also tried to be divided into 2-3 mores. According to mores theory, long vowels are a combination of two identical short phonemes (mores) belonging to a syllable. In the case of polytonic languages, it has been applied because two types of accents (prefixes) are not only present in diphthongs (compositions of two phonemes), but also in long vowels. In the accentuated morse, the tone is allegedly raised: the accent in the first morse is acute, in the second - circumflex. This theory is not applicable to Lithuanian because prepositions are not entirely dependent on pronunciation: they are not words or forms, but a little accent-related additional feature of certain morphemes. The difference between the first and the second is not the contrast of the first and the second, but the quality of the same first. The long vowels [0°], [ė"] do not have equivalent short correspondences from which they would be composed (Girdenis 1995: 259-260). In our language, it turned out that the tonic is not sound, and in addition, the role of the diphthongs and vowels is fundamentally different due to the different contrast. In Lithuanian, two short vowels that are next to each other are rarely combined into one (cf. paakéti, priiminėti —pasilsėti ‘pasiilséti’), which allows long vowels to be regarded as independent phonemes (Kuznecov 1970: 344). A. Baranauskas (Baranovskij 1898: 21-23) regarded short vowels as monomorphic, semi-long vowels as dimorphic, long vowels as trimorphic. Phonetically, such abstract proportions are possible, but not exact: the semilong vowel inside the word, at the back and unpronounced, for example, in the Utenis dialect, is longer than the short vowel 2.1, 1.7, 1.9 times, the long vowel — 2.4, 2.1, 2.7 times (Girdenis 2001: 270). In the Panevėžys dialect, unaccented vowels are very shortened and reduced. J. Stepanov distinguished between monomorphic, dimorphic and trimorphic vowels, and explained the laws of metatonia of A. Leskin (see Rodionov 2001: 432-433). In modeling the historical accentuation, Stepanov assumed that the acute was in the two-morse syllable, the circumflex in the three-morse syllable. With a stroke to the left, one mora is lost, INTERPRETATIONS OF LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE SOUNDS | 7 o prefix in the second left syllable morse changed from tvirtaprada į tvirtagalę. The metamorphosis is difficult to explain. An interesting mory theory has not been proven in any of the European languages with prefixes: neither in Latvian (cf. Ivanov 1959: 134), nor in Serbian, Croat (Kuznecov 1970: 343—344), nor in the northern Scandinavian languages (Kacnel'son 1966: 37-38, 120-121). 2. SUBWOOFER 2.1. Mixed diphthongs and compound diphthongs The main problem is the phonological interpretation of the diphthongs of some Indo-European languages. In English, German, Romanian (cf. Gordina 1966: 174-175; Glušak 1966: 379-381), Lithuanian and other languages, diphthongs are considered both phonemes and combinations of two phonemes, or some — phonemes, others — combinations of vowels or their variants. It is unlikely that a consensus will be reached in Baltic studies in the near future, since both sides of the linguistics have their own arguments. The number of linguists who hold one or another opinion in this case does not mean much, because it depends on the number of students prepared by the scientist. In Lithuanian there are coincident diphthongs [ie], [uo], compound diphthongs [ai], [au], [ei], [ui], [eu], [oi], [ou] (the last three are only in international words, cf. Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 22) and mixed diphthongs, the first part of which in the whole Lithuanian language consists of short vowels [i], [e], [x], [a], the second part — sonants [/], [r], [m], [n]. Mixed diphthongs [il], [ir], [im], [in], [el], [er], [em], [en], [ul], [ur], [um], [un], [al], [ar], [am], [an] and compound diphthongs are undoubtedly combinations of two phonemes. They are only before consonants and at the end of the word (before a pause), and before vowels split into two syllables: kil —ti: ki—lo, kél—ti: ké—lia, kal—ti: kū—lia, kdl—ti: kū—la (divowels split less often: baddu—ti: bada—vo (all prepositions -auti Vedic), gau—ti: gū—vo, sdu: sa—vė, ui—ti: u—ja). Both types of diphthongs are replaced by other phonemes ', e.g.: gilti: gulti: gėlti; cold: warm; forges: cards: boxes; changed (: fell): wrong: time; meal: meal: meal; mduti: ground, etc. The change of vowels in the same morpheme can change both parts of the diphthong: kilti: kyla, slefika: sliūko, malti: miltai, plauti: plévé, etc. Unlike biphasic, bivowels rarely split into two syllables. This also happens with long vowels (/y—ti: li—jo, Zii—ti: žū—vo), so this and other arguments are only supplementary. But there are other arguments for the diphonemic character of compound diphthongs: they are longer than long vowels (and coincident diphthongs, see Pakerys 1986: 190), at the end of the word and even in the middle their second part can alternate with j, v: vns. caud. tufgui: viet. in the market, to you: yours, to yourself: yours, to God: with God; ūi—ti: u—ja, gaūu—ti: gū—vo. Therefore, the second elements of compound diphthongs are proposed as variants of the phonemes /j/, /v/. in positive diphthongs, both elements belong only to the same syllable, are indistinct and of similar length as long vowels — not entirely reasonable. Prosodic elements do not allow some pairs to be considered minimal. 8 | The Taste of Kazimierz 2.2 Consonant diphthongs [ie], [uo] These sounds, as their classification shows, differ from both compound diphthongs and vowels. In their characteristics, they are intermediate between diphthongs and vowels. They are related to diphthongs by two (with the intermediate — three: [iea], [uoa]) components and the fact that they have no short equivalents, are of variable elevation (it is impossible to determine exactly), slightly longer than long vowels. In secondary school textbooks [ie], [uo] are considered diphthongs (cf. Kondratas 2001: 15-16, 61, 179-180; Sirtautai 1999: 59, 62; Palubinskienė, Čepienė 2001: 31), in higher school textbooks — phonemes (Girdenis 1981: 59-60; Girdenis 1995: 83-87) or phonetically diphthongs and phonologically — one phoneme (Petkevičienė 1993: 3, 4, 9). The diphthongs are made closer to the vowels by converging components and phonetically and phonologically similar prefixes (pronunciated components do not elongate). At the intersection of the prefix and the root, diphthongs may be before vowels and other diphthongs: prieežis, prieangis, prieaušris, niioara, nūoalpis, nūoauga, etc. (cf. Girdenis 1981: 60; Pakerys 1986: 188), half-grown, sduéda (Tekorius 1985: 131-132). But these are not important phonological circumstances. The coincident commutation of the diphthong parts (replacement by other phonemes) is, in my opinion, more formal, random and therefore not so necessary element for proving or rejecting the diphthongity of ie, u. This also brings them closer to the combination of two phonemes in one syllable. It has been observed that the second part of [ie], [uo] can be opposed to the elements of other diphthongs or mixed diphthongs: kiėtis — kirtis, duoti —duiti —dūrti —dumti, kuokėlė —kulkėlė, kuopti —kurmmpti, liiotas —luitas, tick —tilk —tirk —tisk, diiok —dumk —durk, etc. For incomprehensible reasons (Girdenis 1983: 151) it is not accepted that the first part of these diphthongs can be replaced by consonants [7], [s], [Z], although this was already pointed out by L. Jelmslev (Hjelmslev 1936— 1937: 28; also cf. Kazlauskas 1966: 73-76; Buch 1998: 11-12, etc.), e.g.: feną — sieną —pēną, iėžė —kräžė, puotą —protą, skūodžia —skrodžia —skradžiai; piétus —pratus, tiodas —sodas, akmuo —sala —žala, uodo —būdo —orodo, uogą —nūgą —sūgą —vagq, uosti —kasti —rasti (—kosti)'. In the historical evolution of compound diphthongs and mixed diphthongs, only one part (the first, cf. Pakerys 1986: 191, 193) is involved, but no one has suggested that they should be considered vowels. Consonant diphthongs [ie], [uo] can also form oppositions with vowels: lieti —lyti —loti, liesti —lįsti —lėsti, liepti —liuo[p]ti ‘serti’ —lipti —lėpti —lo[p]ti ‘lobti’, stalas —plynas — plonas, skiestą —skystą —skūtą, šviėsti —švisti —šveisti, tié —tuo —tij —to —tą, tiekti — tudkti —tikti —tėkti —tūkti, tiėsė —tėsė —tąsė, duoti —dėti, puodas —pūdas — pėdas, puotą —pūtą and so on. This cannot be an argument in favour of one of the two opinions, since we could thus prove not only [ie], [uo], but also the “monophonism” of all other diphthongs and the “diphonism” of vowels. But diphthongs are often replaced by vowels, and vowels by diphthongs, e.g.: basido —baido —būdo —būdo, jauko — juoko —jūko, reikia —riėkia —rėkia, žandas —žiedas —žydas, laūpo —ldipo —leipo — liepo(s), kais —keis —kirs, kaimas —kėlmas —kiémas, teis —tiés —tirs, vaikas —viėkas — The last four pairs would be suitable only if the vowel [a] were considered the second component of the diphthongs [ie], [uo] (cf. LCA II 77). ENGLISH INTERPRETATIONS OF SOUNDS | 9 wolf —everything. The structure of syllables and words allows only a certain order of phonemes. For example, in the initial samples of consonants, [m], [t] and others are only after s (see smok —stok) and there is no requirement that they exchange places in commutation. Consistently following N. Trubeckojus’ rules of phoneme division (1960, 62-66, 207), at least the diphthong [uo] should not be considered a phoneme, since it can split, like other diphthongs, into two syllables. In the past tense [uo] splits into two syllables in the prefix -uoti, -ūoja, -ūvo, e.g.: ga—-ruo—ti —ga—ra—vo, va—-žiūo—- ti —va—zid—vo (similarly as in the prefix -duti, -auja, -avo, e.g. badauti, badauja, badavo)". It is also worth noting the change of the stem -uo with the suffix -uva: akmuo | akmuva, ruduo / ruduva, sesuo | sesuva, šunys | šuva, tešmuo /teSmuva and the like." In many dialects, both variants of the word can occur. The appearance of the suffix -uva here can also be explained phonetically: between two vowels, as in other cases, a consonant [v] is inserted. With the diphthong ie in Lithuanian there are no such examples, cf. dio—ti —da—vé, ei—ti — é—jo, but lie—ti —lie—jo. This occurs only in Latvian, cf. siet “to bind, to tie” —sē—ja 'riša, sieja'. Consonant diphthongs [ie, uo] are slightly longer than long vowels. Compound diphthongs are even slightly longer — this is due to the lower-rising vowels [a, e]. According to A. Pakeri (1982: 52) the ratio of pronounced long vowels with a firm beginning, coincident diphthongs [ie], [uo] and compound diphthongs [au], [ai], [ei], [ui] in the common language is 1: 1.12: 1.25, of unpronounced — 1: 1.09: 1.15, and of pronounced consonants is the lowest — 1: 1.02: 1.08. Similar data have also been obtained in the southwestern dialects of Lithuanian (Atkočaitytė 2000: 99; Leskauskaitė 2001: 122). The ratio of polyphthongs to monophthongs is 1.61:1. Inversely, they coincide with the diphthongs [ai, au], so they should be interpreted in the same way. Dialect data [ie], [uo] does not fundamentally change the interpretation. For example, in southern and western Samogitian, Panevėžiškis, Uteniškis and other dialects, unpronunciated [ie], [uo] are usually monophonic (in northern Samogitian, conversely, they are diphonic é, 0), but this can also be the case with other diphthongs: e.g.: Samogitian va ks ‘child’, Panevėžiškis graZe(s') ‘beautiful(s)', mato(s) “mataū(- s)', kiekviéns | kekviéns | kikviéns ‘everybody’, stegvi.le /steigvi.le ‘Steigviliai’ and so on. Dvibalsiy monophthongation has occurred in dialects of various languages: Lithuanian, Latvian, Slavic, Tocharian, Arabic and others (Schmalstieg 2001: 145-146, 225). The monophonic interpretation of coincident diphthongs of some languages has been proposed already 1929 (Trubetzkoy 1929: 55), although not every coincident diphthong should be considered a phoneme (Vachek 1936). Considering the Lithuanian sounds [ie], [uo] as one phoneme has been proposed since 1965 (Trost 1965; Smoczynski 1978; Kosienė 1978: 30-31; Kačiuškienė 1982: 41; Girdenis 1983: 152; 1995: 85-87; Leskauskaitė 2001: 23; Smoczynski 2001: 211-213). The most important argument for [ie], [uo] monophonism The diphthong [uo] in the examples diio—ti —da—vė, šlūo—ti —šla—vė (as well as the diphthong [au], cf. aū—ti — a—vé,gau—- ti —ga—vo, mdu—ti —mo—ve) could be considered a /a/ and /v/ compound, only that, unlike [au], its components “exchange” places due to word structure rules. These dictionary exceptions could only be taken into account if we accepted the biphonic interpretation of long vowels, because here a similar change of sounds occurs more frequently, cf. gyv—ti —gi-jo,bū-- —ti —bu—vo. The northern Panevėžys people say rodov "ruduva", šėva Suva", but akma | akem "stone", piema | piem "example- ". 16 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA GIRDENIS, A. 2000: Kalbotyros darbai 1, Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias. GIRDENIS, A. 2001: Kalbotyros darbai 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. GLUušAK, T. S. 1966: K npobieme Ooxojiorugeckofti HHTepripeTaLMH JMOTOKHTOB. Layman, C. K., pez., Hccaedosarusn no dononozuu, Mocksa: Hayka, 376-384. GORDINA, M. V. 1966: O pazmuunbix GyHKIMOHATBHBIX EJMHHINAX si3bika. [llaymsn, C. K., pen., Hecaedoeanus no gonoaoeuu, Mocksa: Hayka, 172-183. Hamp, E. P. 1959: Buividze Lithuanian Phonemes. HEESCHEN, C. E. E. 1968: Introduction to the Basic Problems of Generative Phonology with Special Reference to Lithuanian Phonology: Inaugural-Diss., International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, Vol. to obtain the doctorate, Bonn: Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität. HIELMSLEV, 195-202. L. 1936-1937: Accent, intonation, quantity. Baltic Studies 6, 1-57. Ivanov, V. V. 1959: O peipbIBUCTOI HHTOHALIMH B JIATbILIKOM si3biKe. Sokols, E., ed., Rakstu krastam. 1987: The 1987-1988 Academic Year of the Latvian PSR Academy of Sciences, Riga: The Latvian PSR Academy of Sciences, 1987: The 1987-1988 Academic Year of the Latvian PSR Academy of Sciences, Riga: The Latvian PSR Academy of Sciences, 1987. KACNEL’SON, S. D. 1966: Cpaenumensnas axyenmonoeus epmanckux a3vikoe, Mocksa-JIeHUHIpa. KACIUSKIENE, G. 1982: The number of vowels in western northern Panevėžys dialect and its phonological interpretation. Linguistics 33 (1), 39-45. 133-148. KAZLAUSKAITE, R. 2001: Low-rising vowels in Pašušvio $nekta. Linguistics 50 (1), 43-52. KAZLAUSKAS, J. 1966: The system of differential elements of Lithuanian literary language. Kalbotyra 14, 73-81. KAZLAUSKAS, J. 1968: Historical grammar of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mintis. KAZLAUSKIENĖ, A. 2001: Side accents in the Kaunas dialect of western Altai. Linguistics 50 (1), 53-66. KENsTOWICZ, M. 1969: Lithuanian Phonology. Ph.D. Thesis, Urbana (IIl.): University of Illinois. KENSTOWICZ, M. 1970: On the Notation of Vowel Length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3 (1), 73-113. KENsTOWICZ, M. 1972: Lithuanian Phonology. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2 (2), 1-85. KLiMAS, A. 1970: Some attempts to inventory lithuanian phonemes. Magner, Th. E, Schmalstieg, W. R., eds., Baltic Linguistics, University Park—London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 93-102. KLIUKIENE, R., sud. 1997: Readings on Phonetics of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Vilnius University. KONDRATAS, B. 2001: Lietuviy kalbos taisyklės. Student's book, Vilnius: Presvika. KOSIENE, O. 1978: Uteniškių dialekto balsinés fonemos. Linguistics 29 (1), 29-40. KuRryrowicz, J. 1956: L'apophonie en indo-européen, Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Kuznecov, P. S. 1946: K Bonpocy o doHonornu Ynapenns. Jokaadst u coobuenus uronoeuueckozo gaxyasmema MTY, Bom. 6, 12-17. Kuznecov, P. S. 1970: O ¢poHonoruyeckoii cicreme cepbo-XopBaTcKoro sizsika. Pedpopmarckuii A. A. M3 ucmopuu omewecmeenrou (dokonozuu, Mocksa: Hayka, 336-354. LESKAUSKAITE, A. 2001: South-western vocalism in the highland dialects: phonological and experimental study, doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: LKI, VDU. MARKEVICIENE, Z. 1999: Aukštaičių dialektų tekstai 1, Vilnius: VU. MIKALAUSKAITE, E.1975: Phonetics of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslas. PAKERYS, A. 1982: Prozodija Lietuviy bendrinés kalbos, Vilnius: Mokslas. PAKERYS, A. 1986, 1995: Phonetics of Lithuanian Common Language, Vilnius: Mokslas. PALUBINSKIENE, E., CEPIENE G. 2001: Lithuanian language for 8th grade, Kaunas: Šviesa. PETKEVICIENE, R. 1993: The bilingual system of Lithuanian language, Šiauliai: ŠPI. RobioNov, V. A. 2001: JluroBckuū si3bIK B Kone akagemuka IO. C. Crenanosa. Kybpsikosa, E. C., Anko, T. E., pen., A3bik u Kynbmypa. Oaxmoi u ŭennocmu. K 70-nemuio Opus Cepeeeeuxa Cmenanoea, Mocksa: 51351KH CIaBSHCKOM Ky/IbTYphI, 421-434. INTERPRETATIONS OF LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE SOUNDS | 17 SALYS, A. 1992: Rastai 4, Roma: Lietuviy kataliky mokslo akademija. SAWICKA, J. 2001: An outline of the phonetic typology of the Slavic languages, Torun: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikotaja Kopernika. SAWICKA, J., GRZYBOWSKI, S. 1999: Palatalization in the Germanic languages 1, Torun: University of Mikołaj Kopernik Press. SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1958: A Descriptive Study of the Lithuanian Verbal System. General Linguistics 3 (3) (Suppl.), 85-105. SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 2001: Lithuanian and Indo-European Phonological Parallels. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 145-150. SIRTAUTAL J. V. and V. V. 1999: Lithuanian language. 5th ed., New York: Alma-Tadema. SMOCZYNSKI, W. 1978: The controversial problems of Lithuanian vocalism. Reports of the Krakow Branch PAN za rok 1976, 20 (2), 331-333. SMOCZYNSKI, W. 2001: Lithuanian Language in Comparative Perspective, Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press. STEPANOV, Ju. S. 1972: YaapeHue H MeTaTOHMS B TMTOBCKOM riarose. Baltistica, appendix 1, 169-183. SVECEVICIUS, B. 1964: /Tpocmbie 2nacnbie (MOHOGMOH2U) COBPEMEHHO20 AUMOBCKO20 AUMEPAMYPHO20 A3bIKA: IKCnepumermanbHo-(Ohhemu4eckoe uccredosatue, asropedeparJIMCCEpTALIHH Kau. Ohio. Hayk, BHILHIOC: BIV. TEKORIUS, A. 1985: On the phonological evaluation of Lithuanian diphthongs. Baltistica 21 (2), 125-133. TRAGER, G. L. 1940: Serbo-Croatian Accents and Quantities. Language 16, 26-32. TRAGER, G. L. 1941: The Theory of Accentual Systems. Spier, L., Holowel, A.I., Newman, St. S., eds., Language, Culture and Personality, Menasha, 131-145. TrosT, P. 1965: Two Remarks on Lithuanian Vocalism. Acta Baltico-Slavica 3, 183-185. TRUBETZKOY, N. S. 1929: On the general theory of phonological vowel systems. Work of the Circle Linguistics of Prague 1, 39-67. TRUBECKOJ, N. S. 1960: OcHosst horosoeuu, Mocksa: U3nare1bcTBO HHOCTPAHHOM JIUTEPATYPhI. ULvVYDAS, K. red. 1965: Lithuanian Grammar 1. Phonetics and Morphology, Vilnius: Mintis. URBANAVIČIŪTĖ, Ž. 1997: Hard and soft consonants in Lithuanian literary language and dialects. Kliukienė, R., ed., Lithuanian Phonetic Numerals, Vilnius, 154—159. VACHEK, J. 1936: Phonemes and Phonological Units. Proceedings of the Linguistic Circle of Prague 6, 235-239. VAITKEVIČIŪTĖ, V. 2001: Basics of Lithuanian Pronunciation and Dictionary, Vilnius: Pradai. VITKAUSKAS, V. 1985: Dictionary of Lithuanian Pronunciation, Vilnius: Mokslas. VITKAUSKAS, V. 2001: Dictionary of Lithuanian Pronunciation. 2nd revised edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1975: Smulkmenos IX. Baltistica 11 (1), 36. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1994: The dialectology of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 2002: Selected articles 1, Vilnius: Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Sciences. Kazimieras Garšva Received 04/04/2002 Institute of Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania kgarsva(dtakas.lt