in grammars prepared by the institute. The idea that in general statements and formulations of so-called “eternal truths” the copula is omitted seems debatable; for example: man is mortal (212). Sentences of this type without a copula, representing Indo-European nominal sentences, have long been and are widely used in Lithuanian (oak [is] a heat-loving tree; man [is] mortal etc.). The section on agreement (229–235) is new and interesting, describing many cases of agreement characteristic of Lithuanian.

The final chapter of the book, on word order (236–247), reveals the role of information structure in selecting various word-order patterns, the relationship of these patterns to different constructions in English, and many other important topics in this field that have not hitherto been discussed systematically in grammar courses of this kind.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that Terje Mathiassen’s book provides a coherent, concise, and systematic description of the grammatical system of Lithuanian, which will be useful not only to students of Lithuanian but also to authors of future works on grammar.

Vytautas Ambrazas

“LINGUISTICA BALTICA”: FOURTH VOLUME

Here we take up the fourth volume of “Linguistica Baltica,” the international journal of Baltic studies, which began publication in Poland in 1992. This volume is special: it commemorates the centenary of the birth of the great Indo-Europeanist and Balticist J. Kurylowicz.

At the beginning, following a very brief preface, W. Smoczyński (pp. XI–XXV), the originator and editor of this excellent journal of Baltic studies, surveys the life and scholarly work of his teacher J. Kurylowicz. W. Skałmowski (pp. XXVII–XXXII), S. Urbańczyk (pp. XXXII–XXXVII), and F. Sławski (pp. XXXIX–XL) then share their recollections of J. Kurylowicz. The biographical section concludes with a comprehensive bibliography of J. Kurylowicz’s works on Baltic and Slavic studies, compiled by W. Smoczyński (pp. XLI–XLIX).

The volume then presents 36 articles written in English, German, French, Italian, and Russian, addressing various topics in Baltic and Slavic studies, and some in Indo-European studies as well. It is pleasing to see the names of Lithuanian linguists in this volume of “Linguistica Baltica” (as in the others). Z. Zinkevičius’s article (pp. 83–91) deserves mention first: based on an analysis of manuscript texts written before the appearance of M. Mažvydas’s Catechism, it proposes the hypothesis that Lithuanian texts in manuscript may already have existed in the time of Mindaugas. S. Karaliūnas (pp. 135–140) offers an original etymology of amžiaus. The late V. Grinaveckis (pp. 145–148) linked the Samogitian dialect word kanka ‘pine’ with Latvian kuõks ‘tree’.

256

(see also Kalbotyra 44(1), 1995, 89–90). B. S t u n d ž i a (pp. 75–82) examines the accentuation of Lithuanian prefixed verbs. Some articles by foreign scholars also concern Lithuanian studies. J. D. R a n g e (pp. 93–102) discusses the use of the allative and adessive in sixteenth-century writings. It is noteworthy that he is editing and studying J. Bretkūnas’s translation of the Bible: several substantial volumes have already appeared, and during his visit to Lithuania in 1997 he was awarded the M. Mažvydas Prize for this work. G. M i c h e l i n i (pp. 103–111), continuing his analysis of S. Vaišnoras’s “Margarita theologica,”¹, examines the translation of a Latin verbal phrase. R. L ü h r (pp. 119–130) writes about interrogative particles in old Lithuanian writings. E. S t a n k i e w i c z (pp. 61–73) discusses certain aspects of the operation of F. de Saussure’s law. F. K o r t l a n d t (pp. 141–143) argues that, from a historical perspective, the suffixes -auti and -uoti are variants of a single suffix. G. T. R i k o v (pp. 131–134) connects Lithuanian galėti with Slavic *golemb ‘large, broad, tall’. W. W i t k o w s k i (pp. 149–151) offers comments on several Balticisms in Belarusian mentioned in J. Laučiūtė’s¹ dictionary. W. M a ń c z a k (pp. 113–117), drawing on Romance-language analogies, defends the hypothesis previously proposed by J. Kazlauskas² that the Lithuanian conditional form -čia derives from -čiau. However, the evidence from old Lithuanian writings and dialects themselves seems to support more strongly the view that -čia is older than -čiau³, although the origin of the form *-tį̯a itself is not yet entirely clear.⁴

Some articles also consider broader problems in Baltic studies. A. E r h a r t (pp. 1–12) attempts to answer the question of whether the Baltic and Anatolian languages are archaic or conservative. Developing J. Kurylowicz’s ideas, H. B i r n b a u m (pp. 13–22) writes about the reduced and zero grades of vowel ablaut in the Baltic languages, while T. M a t h i a s s e n (pp. 41–53) writes about Indo-European in the East Baltic languages. E. I. P o l o m é (pp. 35–40) surveys religious terminology in the Baltic languages. B. J. D a r d e n (pp. 217–223) connects the s-future of the Baltic languages with the s-aorist of the Slavic languages.

H. S e l d e s l a c h t s and P. S w i g g a r s (pp. 23–33) propose that Baltic and Slavic names for tools with the suffix -to- derive from corresponding formations with *-tlo- (e.g., Lithuanian káltas < *koltlo-, Slavic mlatъ ‘hammer’ < moltlo-, cf. Latin marculus). However, this hypothesis raises considerable problems. First, how can the change of the consonant cluster tl into the consonant t be explained? Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the category of tool-name formation itself is not very old; it probably began to develop only in the very last period of Proto-Indo-European’s existence, or even after its breakup. After all, the tool-name suffix *-tlo-/-tro- is merely a variant of the agent-noun suffix *-tel-/-ter-.⁵ It is therefore unsurprising that the same verb yielded a tool name with the suffix *-tlo- in some languages, and with the adjectival suffix *-to- in others (cf. Slavic mlatъ and Latin marculus). Other adjectival suffixes were also used to form tool names in the Baltic languages: *-lo-, *-no-, *-ro-, *-uo-.⁶ So would it not be simpler to continue deriving the Baltic suffix -tas from Indo-European *-to-?

As many as four articles examine relations between the Baltic and Finnic languages. R.-P. R i t t e r

257

(pp. 193–198), drawing on an analysis of Balticisms in Finnic languages, attempts to answer the question of when contacts between Baltic and Finnic began. T. K. Nilsson (pp. 199–207) looks for adverbs of the Lithuanian laukan type in the Finnic languages of the Baltic region, while K. Liukkonen (pp. 209–210) seeks equivalents of the construction jo būta. L. Vaba (pp. 211–216) discusses flower names of Baltic origin in seventeenth-century Estonian dictionaries.

Three articles are devoted to Latvian studies. A. Holvoet (pp. 153–161) examines impersonal sentences in Latvian. R. Derksen (pp. 163–168) investigates the origin of Latvian intonation patterns. The late V. J. Zeps (pp. 169–172) wrote about certain features of the Latgalian dialect.

Two articles investigate relations between Prussian and German. W. Smoczyński (pp. 173–184) argues that some Prussian forms may have been modeled on German (cf., for example, Prussian acc. lab­bas and German nom.-acc. Gutes). It may be added here that A. Rosinas also discusses the major influence of German on the system of Prussian personal names in his new monograph.¹ F. Hinze (pp. 185–192) compares Prussian formations denoting birds with their German counterparts.

E. P. Hamp (pp. 277–278), writing about Albanian perēndi ‘emperor, lord’, also mentions the origin of the Baltic theonym Perkūnas. Balticists may also be interested in F. Bader’s article (pp. 265–276) on Latin sōl, cognate with Lithuanian sáulē. The remaining six articles are devoted to Slavic studies.

The volume concludes with a review by J. D. Ranges (pp. 279–283) of the book by R. Eckert, E.-J. Butkevičiūtė, and F. Hinze, “Die baltischen Sprachen. Eine Einführung” (Leipzig-Berlin-München: Langenscheidt, Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1994)², a comprehensive bibliography of Baltic studies publications from 1994 compiled by P. Wójcik with collaborators (pp. 287–313), a list of publications received by the editorial board of “Linguistica Baltica” in 1995 (pp. 315–318), and a word index compiled by W. Sowa and M. Grzelak (pp. 319–328).

As this brief review of a single volume shows, alongside “Baltistica,” founded by J. Kazlauskas, “Linguistica Baltica” is becoming one of the leading journals in Baltic studies, bringing together linguists from various countries who write about the Baltic languages. We eagerly await further volumes of this excellent journal, both in content and in appearance.

Finally, it should also be recalled that in 1995, the same year the reviewed volume of “Linguistica Baltica” was being prepared, another new journal in Baltic studies, “Res Balticae,” was launched in Italy thanks to two young, energetic Balticists, P. U. Dini and N. Michailov;³ the VIth volume of the earlier-founded journal “Ponto Baltica” also appeared. In addition, in 1995, alongside the VIIth Congress of Balticists held in Riga, a major international conference of Balticists¹ was organized by the eminent Indo-Europeanist and Balticist A. Bammesberger in Eichstätt, in southern Germany. Thus the voice of Balticists is beginning to be heard ever more widely around the world; let us hope that it will grow ever louder and stronger.

Saulius Ambrazas

258