Dėl rytų aukštaičių tarmės skirstymo

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) Review. Reviews. Notes and Opinions. Reviews. Observations and overviews. Reviews. Notes ON EAST AUKŠTAIČIŲ ARTICLES DISTRIBUTION A proper classification of dialects is possible only when the area of the language is thoroughly studied, when all the most important isoglosses are already known. However, the practical work of dialect research requires to classify (distribute) dialects, even if imperfectly, already at the beginning of the work. The Eastern Highland dialect was comparatively less studied by non-Hungarians gu before the war. (and southern) Highland ar Samogitian dialects, so it was ją difficult to į divide the dialects ir into even smaller units. Prof. Antanas Salys, partly following Kazimieras Jaunius, in the interwar period proposed to divide the eastern Highlanders (he called them Eastern Highlanders) into three groups: 1) Pantinians, who keep the strong initials am, am, en, em intact, and turn the strong accents on, om, en, em, and also turn the strong accents 3, ¢ into 2, e-; 2) pontinists, who translate the sounds on, om, en, em and 2, e“ (from ą, ¢) not only in strong-pronounced, but also in strong-starting syllables, and 3) pūntinists, who instead of an, am, en, em, 3, ¢ have un, um, in, im, 4, i. There are different turns in places, which A. Salio would not know yet. For example, about Krekenau, Ramygala the strong initials an, am, en, em are kept intact, but the strong consonants are translated un, vm, tn, tm, so in essence this is a pointinistic pantininky variant, which A. Salys had not foreseen. About Panevėžys, the strong-headed translate these sounds as pontininkai, and the strong-tailed — as pontininkai, so here again a peculiar pointinist hybrid of pontininkai. On the contrary, about Pasvalys and Saločiai, the strong-heads are referred to as pointists, and the strong-toes — as pointists, which is already a pontist hybrid of pointists. In addition, not everywhere the en, em transformation is analogous to the an, am transformation: there are such dialects where 4n, dm are converted to Jn, dm, but én, ém are kept intact (Joniškėlis, Vaškai...), thus half pontininkai, half pantininkai. Moreover, the transformation of the hard en, erm depends on the further syllable: before a soft consonant there is ef, er, and before a hard —bf, 2m. The diversity is further enhanced by the abundant differences in unpronounced syllables. The 3, ¢ transformation also does not follow A. Salis's position in many places. Many pantininky and pontiniai 4 translate the accented o without looking at the preposition, and the unaccented pronounce >, only in the outskirts of Krekenavas there is ž (under the accent) resp. a (in the unaccented syllable). Pasvalys is pronounced # or 2» depending on 237 diaphragm (not standby) !). Instead ¢ of the word in the middle many pronounce open e (pronounced long, unpronounced short, preposition ignored), o narrowed in — the limb € (approx. Krekenau e). In the east, about Pasvalyje, 7 pronoun- € ced or looking at the accent (not a prelude). In this situation, it is impossible to formulate exactly who are the pawns and who are the pawns. ir Distinguish one from another would be possible only by the pronounced firmertapradziy 4n, (the 4m pronunciation of !) these two, but it would have theoretical, but by no means ne practical significance. For there are very few su words with the pronounced strong initials an, am, which the Pontians actually iš translate as dm, dm, just a few (more commonly duck, window, péntis, samtis...), jų excluding adverbial derivatives. Much more often in the pontininky area consumed whole (non-translatable) solids 4m, 4m, namely, secondary origin (e.g., tdmsta, dat.sg. tam, geram, dat. pl. child, pl. 1. dirbam et ir al.), in borrowed ir iš words from common language (dngelas, bankas, tankas, etc.), in words of ir onomatopoeic origin (4m miss, blink...) ir kt Can a man talk all day without consuming one ir nė iš tų a few words with translatable 4n, 4m. Not only that, for consistency we should distinguish even the puontinis, ir plg.tarimą puontis ‘pantis’ Jotainis. Finally, the pointlessness of such a division is shown by the fact that we can divide only the north-western corner of the jį eastern highland area, all the other several times larger area, belonging solely to the Pointers, remains undivided in this o way. ' 1964 m. su Aleksu In Girdeniu refining the classification of dialects, we proposed to tų divide ryaukštaitis on another basis: west į approximately from In the eastern Highland area of the Papilio-Vabalninko-Kavarsko-Giedraičių- -Maišiagalos line, where long short vowels are not distinguished in unpronounced syllables ir (they are all only short), we proposed to distinguish Panevėžys people, who all the short final vowels split into one reduced vowel į (after the posterior of a hard consonant, after the anterior of a soft one), and in the case of outliers, where there is no such flexion, we proposed to distinguish the Utenis, Anykščiai, Kupiškis and Vilna dialects according to the same criteria as in the classification of A. Salis, only by giving the dialects other names (not of nickname origin, but according to the most important city in that area). This classification of the eastern Highland dialect, like the entire revised classification of dialects, has become established over time and is now, it can be said, universally used. Later, when studying the origin and antiquity of the distinctive features of dialects and the history of Lithuanian dialects in general, the opinion emerged that the formed Anykščiai and Kupiškis dialects eventually displaced the half-older Uteniškiai (most typical eastern Highlanders) area. After that, the innovative ! A detailed critique of A. Salis’s classification is presented in: Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, A series 3(31), 1969, 142-146. 238 the wave of ir Širvintos residents from Panevėžys eventually flooded the western "uteniškių" side, only in the north to kupiškėnai remained the so-called The Vabalninkas dialect is related to the northern Panevėžys dialect, but is still relatively close to the Utenis dialect. Be of this, yet it turned out that be Sniffles, there's another one ,,uteniSkiy“ relic on the right bank me of the Kavarsko ir Vidiškių (Gelučiai ir et al. villages). ? Recently by Jeanette Urbanavičiūtė-Markevičienė published a very interesting article?, which states that the latter "uteniškių" relic about the larger area, namely, all Kavarsko ir Villages of Vidiškiai parish (very important observation!), only the area, in her opinion, šį should be allocated to the southern Panevėžys, but to the Širvintos. ne She raised the question of whether it was worthwhile to separate the people of Širvintos from the people of southern Panevėžys, since these two dialects of the eastern Highlands are very close. It is more likely to separate the northern Panevėžys residents from the southern ones and keep them separate in the eastern Vysoké Tatry council. However, it is no longer worthwhile to break the established classification. As regards the doubts and arguments raised, here is what can be said. In particular, it is important to distinguish the cardiac ventricles from the ventricles. As Vabalninkas district, these parishes form the peripheral dialect of Panevėžys (Vabalninkas district — northern, this parish — southern Panevėžys dialect), which is a mixture of relict Utenis (in Vabalninkas district) or their continuation of the current Širvintos (Kavarsko and Vidiškiai parishes) characteristics. The transitional nature of the Kavarsko-Vidiškiai schneck is obvious. For example, in Vidiškiai, people say darbus ‘work’, acc. pl. šakūs ‘Sakas’ as in the whole southern area of Panevėžys (cf. širvintiškių darbas, sakes), but šaka (cf. širvintiškių Šaka, p. panevėžiškių sakv), dirba (širv. dirba, p. pan. dirbv), koja (širv. koje, p. pan. ko) with maintained reflex of „uteniškiai“ -a (in the case of Saka and širvintiškiai). In such a situation, this transitional dialect could be attributed to both the southern people of Panevėžys and the people of Širvintos. However, since the direction of development of the ending a was a -» a —u (v), is to have a final result u (even if not in all forms) this speech is more attributable to piety panevėžiškiai than to širvintiškiai, who do not have such a u (there is only a degree). Obviously, dialectology agreement is required here, as in other cases where transitional dialects are involved. On the question: was it worth separating the inhabitants of Širvintos from the southern inhabitants of Panevėžys? Here, too, the doubt is justified. In fact, the southern Panevėžys people, especially their transitional schnekts closer to the Širvintų people, are quite close to the Širvintų people. However, the fate of the short vowels in the endings clearly distinguishes them from each other: the people of southern Panevėžys combined these vowels into one sound (after the hard consonants?Zinkevičius Z. —Ba/tistica 16(2), 1980, 138— 139. 3Urbanaviciaté-- Markeviéiené Z. Again about the borders of the eastern Highland dialects. —Kalbotyra 43 (1), 1994, 85-87. 239 posterior v, po forelimb — ¢), o Širvintos people don't have such a thing. This was due to the uneven 2— a — v degree of development in the limbs: the people of Panevėžys have vu, the O people of — Širvintos only a. In the transitional Kavarsko-Vidiškiai dialect, as we have seen, the process of fusion has not yet ended, some forms have retained a ir u, po soft consonants e (7a) ir 7 the appointment. If we were to ir combine the districts of į Širvintos and Panevėžys into one, it would be difficult to formulate its distinctive criteria. All Panevėžys dialects—southern and northern—are united in one dialect by a very important feature from the point of view of phonology—the shaking of short vowels at the ends. Despite their relatively large difference from the southern Panevėžys residents, the į separation of the northern Panevėžys residents into a separate eastern Altai council would create considerable practical difficulties. Let’s take the most striking difference between northern and southern Panevėžys people — the transformation of short vowels into murmurs at the ends and their disappearance. It is very difficult, simply impossible to determine where the sound is already murmuring and where it is only heavily reduced. There is even a dispute where it is no longer present and where there are still some remains. It is clear that such a feature, not forming a distinct isophone, cannot be a criterion for distinguishing a dialect, it can only be considered as a difference between parts of that dialect. The same applies to other important differences, many of which also do not constitute clearly tangible isophones (except perhaps for the general declination of the accent, but this is not characteristic of all people of northern Panevėžys, the exception is Biržai corner), such as the author of the article indicates a more pronounced pronunciation of vowels in accentuated syllables in the area of northern Panevėžys (compared with southern Panevėžys), more pronounced prefixes and so on. In addition, all distinctive isophones are very scattered, do not form a clear boundary. On the other hand, from a diachronic point of view, southern Panevėžys residents are still, we would say, not quite true Panevėžys residents, if we consider the northern Panevėžys residents as typical. In the case of a, b, c, and d, the 7-bit values are: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, o, u. Therefore, the author’s doubts are quite understandable, especially if we look at these dialects from the point of view of synchrony. But when classifying dialects, diachronicity (the history of the dialect) cannot be ignored. From all that has been said, it becomes clear that changing the established division of the Eastern Highland dialects would not gain anything, but only create confusion. By the way, the author of the article writes that it is not worth destroying the already established classification. Let us continue to treat the dialects of KavarskoVidiškiai and Vabalninkas as transitional dialects of the dialect of Panevėžys. At the junction of dialectal units, the isophones do not always form distinct fibers, they are often very scattered (even reaching the middle of the dialect), so the selection of the more important isophones that determine the classification of dialects is not an easy task, often the agreement of researchers saves. In my aforementioned article (and in other recent works) I usually refer to the development of dialectal characteristics and not to the classification of dialects, as the reader might sometimes wish to understand. This is where the inaccurate statement of Ž. UrbanavičiūtėMarkevičienė came from, that I attributed the Gelučiai šnekas to the Utenis people (p. 85). I didn't do that. I consider it to be only a spoken language close to Utena (as well as the Vabalninkas area), reminiscent of Širvintos 240 (p. 139). By the way, I wrote the ir word „uteniškiai“ in quotation marks, referring to the old area of that dialect before it was split in half. Jeanettes Urbanavičiūtė-Markevičienė’s article contains other ideas relevant to dialectologists, ir with which one cannot disagree. su Interesting her reasoning about The city of Ukmergė dialect dependence is — the object of the southern ir Panevėžys Širvintai. I have always maintained such ir aš an attitude”, I never gave Ukmergė unconditionally to neither the people of Panevėžys, nor those of Širvintos (the author seems to be ir inclined to attribute to Širvintos). The city is home to three eastern Altay dialect dialects. (from the north-eastern side approached anykštėnai) met on the spot, but mo does not belong to any of them. iš The language of the city is mixed, with elements of all three dialects. As in all ir cities, it is heavily ji influenced by the common language. Due to being at the intersection of dialects, I could not use the name of Ukmergė to name the council (sometimes to ukmergiškiai reproach me), although this city is my home. — Interesting reflections of the author about the so-called „rūtininkus“, where it is pronounced r“stas, even ruotas ‘wheel’. She writes about this pronunciation: "The reason is probably a two-vowel length system. The vocalism here is basically like that of Širvintos, except for the "rotinavimas". If rdtfas, gėras as other anykštėnų, 2, e should be lengthened and a, e replaced by o, €.l And instead of /apas, and instead of lopasskirčioje position we would have /dpas, unpronounced /apē/'is. Vowels o ir écoupling with a and e would be very uncomfortable, the vowel would become very undifferentiated. It should be borne in mind that in these dialects the unpronounced positions of a, O and uo, e, € and Ie coincide. Two more pairs of vowels would be too much. Therefore, o, e were diphthongized" (p. 86). That conclusion could be accepted. However, it should be noted that the very southern corner of Anykščiai — the southwestern part of Lyduokiai parish towards Ukmergė (Nūotekai, Juodausių, Jogvilų and other villages) “do not use the rota” (here it is pronounced rotas), although the vocalism is even closer to those from Širvintos than those who use the “rota” (there there is a tendency to “waking up”). Also known as the "Jotunheimen". The vocalism of all the dialects should be thoroughly studied from a phonological point of view. Noteworthy are the author’s thoughts about the strange monophthongation of au, ai, ei in the strong and unpronounced syllables of the Anykščiai and Širvintos dialects of this region, especially at the open end of the word (pronounced matd “I see’, misksr “forests’, gdudi ‘gaudei’), which is associated with a complete transfer of pressure to the second diphthong sand. It is not possible to disagree with the author raising the importance of parish boundaries for the establishment of isophones. This has long been noticed. The parish boundaries are old and characterized by permanence. The boundaries of districts or neighbourhoods, which are relatively new, and are constantly changing, are something else. Dialectologists may ignore the latter, but the parish boundaries cannot be ignored. Zigmas Zinkevičius ‘See. "Zinkevičius Z. Ukmergės rajono tarmė". —Our Language 4, 1978, 28-31. 241