LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997)

PROBLEMS OF LEXICOGRAPHY AND LEXICOLOGY

Anatoly NEPOKUPNY

ON THE PROBLEM OF DERIVATIVES IN HISTORICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARIES OF THE BALTIC AND SLAVIC LANGUAGES

0.1. The principal work of twentieth-century Lithuanian lexicography—the multivolume “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”—is a kind of crossroads of many paths, not only in philology but, more broadly, in the history and culture of Lithuania within the European context. For this reason, it would hardly be correct to open one or another of its volumes at one page or another without first taking at least a cursory look at the retrospective of how the fate of this thesaurus of the Lithuanian language took shape. Doing so seems all the more necessary because the entire first half of the century in the history of the fundamental publication entitled “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” was connected chiefly with the names of its two founders and creators—K. Būga and J. Balčikonis.

As it seems to us, the materials of the discussion surrounding the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” that took place in 1952–1953 should now be reread in order to understand better the criteria that guided lexicographers in the second half of our century, so as not to seek in the multivolume dictionary what it was not intended to contain. Thus, in an article written in 1953 and supplemented in 1957, B. A. Larin, on the one hand, highly valued K. Būga’s legacy [‘a special monograph should be devoted... to K. Būga’s lexicographical works...’ (Larin, 1957: 138)], while, on the other, he postulated a departure from the principle of historicism in the Lithuanian thesaurus. Thus, speaking of the preparation under his direction of a new instruction according to which “volume III of the dictionary was revised,” the scholar drew the following conclusion: “materials from the oldest sources have been relegated to second place as means of creating a historical background in the dictionary, since an academic dictionary of the m o d e r n [here and below, emphasized in the quoted text. – A.N.] Lithuanian language cannot be constructed as a historical dictionary according to the simplest chronological scheme—in it, the basic meanings of words in use in o u r t i m e, in contemporary literary, political, and scholarly works and in the speech of educated people, are given first” (Ibid.: 143).

As for the opposing side that took part in the discussion, what is noteworthy here is the position of J. Balčikonis, who, first, opposed dividing words “into supposedly necessary and unnecessary ones”: “... if some unnecessary word is included, the dictionary will not suffer much from it. The word may turn out to be necessary”

11

(Balčikonis I 213) and, secondly, referring to the fact that “all lexicographical work has no established final principles” (Ibidem: 214), objected to the hasty preparation of a new edition of the collective work: “There is no sense in our hurrying to revise our dictionary now” (Ibidem: 215).

Nevertheless, J. Balčikonis was forced to leave the editorial board of the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”.

Thus, the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” was prepared with an orientation toward the present, including even such a subjective criterion as an assessment of whether a word was necessary or unnecessary. This should be taken into account when approaching the work in question as a source of information on both broad and narrower issues of Lithuanian lexicology. In particular, what has been said also applies to the problem of derivatives.

0.2. The problem of identifying derivatives as separate not only forms but already words, possessing their own new meaning, is highly significant for lexicography. For in dictionary-making practice, a situation often arises in which an actually new word is still considered merely a word-formational variant of a known designation for a particular object or phenomenon. Thus, for example, the entry under the word knūgos also includes the form knygelės from M. Mažvydas’s “Catechism” (LKŽ VI 242). At the same time, as we have managed to demonstrate, this concerns a new pedagogical term knygelės, with the meaning not ‘little book’ but already ‘textbook’ (Nepokupnas 1994: 76). Consequently, the word cited deserves to appear as an independent dictionary entry in future lexicographical works.

The “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” partly contains elements of both historical and etymological dictionaries. For this reason, some of its entries can confidently be placed alongside the corresponding treatments found not in general but in specialized lexicographical works on Baltic and Slavic linguistics—in historical and etymological lexicons.

Below, two studies are offered to researchers’ attention, in which the source material is taken from the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.” In the first, derivatives formed with the help of a common Germanic-Balto-Slavic suffix from the Balto-Germanic and Slavic designation for a child are examined; in the second, a case of parallel semantic word formation is analyzed—the transition of a Baltic and Balto-Slavic designation for elevated terrain into the sphere of meteorological terminology.

1.0. If one attempts to briefly define one of the leading categories, whose derivational expression is, so to speak, “profiling” in the terminology of kinship, it will be the category of possessivity (belonging, possession), which is connected with the origin of what is designated. As O. N. Trubachev wrote, “the development of the meaning from otsy in Slavic ‘fathers’ > ‘father’ is an example of the occurring de-etymologization of derivatives with a possessive suffix; in this case, the derivative once again acquires the meaning of the non-derived base—‘father’.”

12

Cf. German Mensch ‘person’ < Old High German mennisco ‘der von Mannus Stammende’ with the suffix – isco “(Trubachev 1959: 26).

The example of German Mensch (with a reference to the work: F. Kluge. Nominale Stammbildungslehre der altgermanischen Dialekte. 2. Aufl. Halle, 1899, S.10) is especially important for us in this case, since with the very same suffix – isco there occur not only Germanic but also Baltic and Slavic derivative formations from the designation for a child, which are discussed below.

1.1. In the special study “The semantics of Lith. bérnas: Latv. bērns and their derivatives,” R. Bertulis convincingly demonstrated that the primary meaning of the East Baltic lexeme ‘child; offspring’ continues to be preserved only in the modern Latvian literary language, whereas in Lithuanian it reveals an entire chain of semantic transitions, reconstructed as ‘child’→‘boy’→‘young man’→‘farmhand’, as well as ‘man’ (Bertulis 1972: 32). Thus, if the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” as a thesaurus-type dictionary, represented word meanings in the order of their historical development, the ‘child, offspring’ recorded only in monuments and in the Pelesa dialect should stand not in second place (LKŽ _I2, 767), but in first place.

Speaking of derivatives, R. Bertulis drew attention, in particular, to the fact that the derivative berniškė ‘childhood, youth’ (Ibidem: 770), which preserves the original meaning of the base word, occurs only in ancient texts (Bertulis 1972: 21); more precisely, only in M. Daukša’s “Postil,” where this form is recorded three times. Here too we would like to point out the scholarly significance, for comparative-historical linguistics, of presenting this derivative formation in the “Dictionary.”

The point is that the monuments of the Gothic language preserved not only the noun barn (neuter) with the sole meaning ‘child’, and the adjective formed from it barnisks ‘childish’, but also the derivative from the latter barniski (neuter) ‘childhood’ (Wright 1910/1981: 170,178,310). Thus, in the “Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy” (chapter III, verse 15) we find: jah batei us barniskja weihōs bōkōs kunþēs... (Ibidem: 290), i.e. “And from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures”...

Consequently, between the Gothic translator of the Bible, Bishop Ulfilas (ca. 311–ca. 383), on the one hand, and the Lithuanian translator of the “Postil” (1599), Canon M. Daukša, on the other, there runs a common Gothic-Lithuanian lexical-word-formational parallel: Goth. barniski (neuter) ‘childhood’—Lith. berniškė (feminine) ‘the same’.

The example cited testifies to the considerable scholarly value of the derivatives contained in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”; at the same time, it convinces us that in a future etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language it would apparently no longer be sufficient to limit oneself to a brief entry on the base bė́rnas (cf. Fraenkel 1962: 40).

1.2. In the “Laurentian Chronicle”—a copy of the chronicle compilation of 1305, drawn up in 1377—under the year 945 there occurs the following entry: Волга же бяше в Киевѣ съ [ы]н[о]мъ своимъ съ дѣтьскомъ [св]ятославом (55), which the compilers of the historical dictionary of the Russian language cite as

13

an illustration in the entry under дѣтский (an adjective meaning ‘underage, of child age’) (СлРЯ XI–XVII вв. IV 239). However, it is obvious that here the matter concerns not the adjective дѣтский, but a derivative from it, now a noun, дѣтьско (neuter) ‘child, infant’, to which a separate entry should have been devoted in the dictionary cited.

The same error is repeated in a study of the historical lexicology of the Ukrainian language. Thus, among the “designations relating to a person and his age characteristics,” the form “Дѣтьскъ (a substantivized adjective)<dětьskъ ‘child’” is singled out, illustrated by an example from the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle under 1206: король же Андрѣи... хотѧще дати д[ъ]щерѣ свою за кнѧзѧ Данила объѣ-има дѣтьскома бывшима (ИУМ ЛР 31). However, the forms of the dative-instrumental cases of the dual ending in -ома (cf. дѣтьскома) are borne by nouns not only of masculine but also of neuter gender. That is why, instead of the nonexistent variant of the lexeme дѣтьскъ proposed by the author of the treatment, the neuter form дѣтьско ‘child’ should be reconstructed. As for the semantic adequacy of such a designation, let us recall that Prince Daniel of Galicia (1201–1264) was only five years old in 1206, the time of the chronicle entry.

Thus, on the basis of two chronicle entries: 1) under 945—about the Kievan prince Sviatoslav (?–972), and 2) under 1206—about the Galician-Volhynian prince Daniel, the word дѣтьско is restored for the history of the Ukrainian language as one of the designations for a child.

From the standpoint of this reconstruction, the place of the corresponding derivative in both dictionaries of the Proto-Slavic language, being published in parallel in Russia and Poland, should be considered. Thus, while in the first of them forms such as Polish dziecko ‘child’ are treated in a general entry under dětiьskъ(jь) (ЭССЯ V 17), in the second, the substantivized neuter form of the adjective dětьsko, marked as West Slavic, is given a separate entry (SP III 174–175).

The materials we have obtained confirm the advisability of a separate treatment of the derivative under discussion. At the same time, even now it is necessary to abandon the definition of this formation as West Slavic in its distribution. In addition to the new facts already cited by us, cf. also the recording of the form sought in the South Slavic area. Thus, for example, the Slovenian language has the expressive word děčko (in particular, this is said of a strong young man), recorded (dezhko) around 1800 (Bez laj 1977: 98).

Thus, both chronologically and geographically, the derivative dětьsko ‘child’ unquestionably belongs to formations of the Proto-Slavic period and, in this capacity, should find its place in future supplements to the dictionary of the Proto-Slavic language.

2.0. The difficulty of adequately presenting both historical and dialectal vocabulary in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” lies in the fact that this part of the lexical stock often contains such word forms, as well as meanings, that have not yet acquired any sufficiently established tradition of not only lexicographical but even lexicological

14

interpretation. This applies, in particular, to that part of derivative formations in which derivation is carried out without changing the structural form of the word—exclusively at the semantic level, when the lexicographer must determine what he is dealing with: so to speak, a “one-off” deviation from a widely known old meaning or a new meaning. Here the discussion will concern semantic derivation observed in one of the Lithuanian designations for an elevation (gaubrỹs, gū̃brys, etc.), the material for which—in its principal meaning—is presented in “commentary” no. 80 to the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” (LKA I 180).

2.1. The entry under gūburas (gùburas) in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” mentions only two dialectal sources—the Lenas and Dusyatos dialects: the former in indicating the meaning ‘kauburys, kurpstas, kelmas, kalva’ (i.e., respectively ‘mound, hummock, stump, hill’), the latter in documenting the illustration—Šiandiej ant dangaus daug gūburų (panašių į kelmus debesų) – reikia bul’vos sodint – gerai augs (LKŽ III 691), i.e. ‘Today there are many “mounds” in the sky (clouds resembling stumps)—potatoes should be planted—they will grow well.’

In the entry cited, it is noteworthy that its compiler (or editor), among four possible interpretations of the dialectal example, chose its resemblance to stumps.

At the same time, it is revealing that in the same Dusyatos dialect the adjective guburiuotas is also recorded: Šiandiej guburiuotas dangus, gera sėmenija (LKŽ III 692), i.e. ‘Today (let us translate it as) a “moundy” sky, good weather for sowing.’ And the fact that such an adjective is not something accidental is eloquently attested by three further examples from the Lithuanian press before 1940:

1) gauburiuotas: Du žalsvi garlai viai nuplaukė į šiaurę, kur renkasi gauburiuoti debesys (LKŽ III 161); 2) gūbriuotas: Padangė šliaužiojo sunkūs, gūbriuoti debesys (LKŽ III 690); 3) guburiuotas: Tolumoje juoduoja guburiuoti debesys (LKŽ III 692), i.e. 1) ‘Two greenish steamboats sailed north, where “moundy” clouds gather’; 2) ‘Heavy “moundy” clouds crawled across the sky’; 3) ‘In the distance, “moundy” clouds are blackening.’

In all the illustrative examples cited above, we chose in our literal translation to compare the clouds not with a stump, as proposed in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” but with a mound, as required by the nearest Slavic perspective.

2.2. The published entries in both Proto-Slavic dictionaries on the East Slavic regionalism—the designation for an elevation вцгът (SP I 436, ЭССЯ III 79)—can by now be supplemented with new materials.

Thus, from the Baltic side, Lith. vįgur̃s ‘mažas pakilimas’, i.e. ‘a small elevation’, recorded by V. Maurčiüjai in the Prienai district by collectors of materials for the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” (LKA I 180), is highly valuable evidence: until now, the Baltic correspondence was known only in Latvian.

15

As for new evidence from dialectology on the properly Slavic side, it proves no less important for interpreting parallels from the same lexical-semantic group of the Baltic dictionary.

Thus, in his “Additions to the Lexical Materials” of the aforementioned dictionary of Russian etymologists, A. F. Zhuravlev cited, among other things, previously unrecorded evidence from Belarusian dialectal lexicography: бургы ‘cumulus clouds’ and the diminutive бугарок ‘cloudlet’ (Zhuravlev 1990: I, 36). The first example (plural; a meteorological term) was recorded in the village of Okhremovtsy, Braslav district, Vitebsk region: Як вязной буграми неба – садзіць гуркі трэба (СБГПЗБ I 232), i.e. ‘When in spring the sky is covered with mounds—cucumbers need to be planted.’ The second record comes from the Loev district of the Gomel region (Я н к о в а Т. С. Дыялекты слоўнік Лоеўшчыны, Minsk, 1982, 58; cited from the text of A. F. Zhuravlev’s publication).

Thus, бугарок ‘cloudlet’ and бургы ‘cumulus clouds’ are recorded at diametrically opposite edges of Belarus, with the Braslav district even bordering Lithuania’s Zarasai district, in whose territory (Dusyatos) Šiandiej ant dangaus daug guburų … was recorded (see above), i.e.—translated already at the dialectal level—‘Today there are many mounds in the sky.’

2.1–2. Both terms for elevated terrain—Lith. gūburas and Belar. бугор, having the same semantic-word-formational structure (in both cases: a Balto-Slavic root meaning ‘to bend, curve’ + suffix -úras/-тьь = ‘elevation’), reveal the same direction of further semantic derivation, ‘elevation’→‘cloud’, as an image of a cloudy sky through the prism of perceiving the relief of the earth’s surface. Apparently, in this connection it would not be superfluous to recall the opening line of A. S. Pushkin’s poem “Редеет облаков летучая гряда...”.

2.3. In view of the establishment of the Belarusian-Lithuanian isogloss (бугор / gūburas) ‘elevation’→‘cloud’, it seems appropriate to return to one of the theses of the authors of the fundamental work “Indo-European Language and the Indo-Europeans,” who assert that “the combination of the meanings ‘mountains’ and ‘clouds’, ‘storm clouds’ in one word... reflects the actual landscape of the ancient Indo-Europeans: ‘clouds’ gather at the peaks of ‘high mountains’, which can explain the semantic connection between these meanings, traceable in ancient Indo-European traditions” (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov 1984: 667–668).

At the same time, the occurrence of semantic derivation (transition) ‘elevation’→‘cloud’ under the conditions of the East European Plain (the area of the Lithuanian and Belarusian languages) may in this case serve as a counterargument in the discussion of the mountainous character of the Indo-European homeland. Cf. the view of the American comparativist W. P. Lehmann, who, evaluating the work cited above, noted that “one cannot agree with all their (i.e. T. V. Gamkrelidze’s and Vyach. Vs. Ivanov’s. – A.N.) conclusions, especially concerning the Indo-European homeland... the regions lying north of the Black and Caspian Seas appear more probable as the location of the homeland, since in that case it is easier to explain the successive stages of the development of the proto-language...” (Lehmann

16

1991: 24–25).

1–2. The identification of derivatives—both at the word-formational and at the purely semantic levels—is one of the most important tasks of modern Baltic and Slavic lexicography. The correctness of presenting a given derivative form not only in the modern language depends on the thoroughness of the approach in determining the connection between the base formation, on the one hand, and its derivative, on the other.

As the experience of consulting historical and etymological dictionaries of the Baltic and Slavic languages teaches, they partly require rereading, since, as a result of an imprecise or even erroneous interpretation of the derivatives they contain, it sometimes happens that highly important evidence, significant not only for a particular branch of linguistics but also for Indo-European studies as a whole, becomes “blocked” from the researcher.

Thanks to the creation of the multivolume “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” the lexical base of the future “new Fraenkel” will become immeasurably richer than that available to the author of the work entitled “Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch.” Moreover, it is not impossible that the position of the compilers of the “Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” will also change when, for example, information on derivatives from the verb gaũbti is contained not only in the entry for the latter but is at least partly distributed among the corresponding treatments under words derived from it.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА

Гамкрелидзе Т. В., Иванов Вяч. Вс. 1984: Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы. Реконструкция и историко-типологический анализ праязыка и протокультуры, Тбилиси: Издательство Тбилисского университета.

Журавлев А. Ф. 1990: К уточнению представлений о славянских изоглоссах. Дополнения к лексическим материалам “Этимологического словаря славянских языков” 1, Москва: Институт русского языка.

ІУМ ЛФ 1983: Історія української мови. Лексика і фразеологія, Київ: Наукова думка.

Ларин Б. А. 1957: Краткий исторический обзор литовской лексикографии. – Лексикографический сборник 2, Москва: Государственное издательство иностранных и национальных словарей, 119–144.

Леман В. П. 1991: Новое в индоевропеистических исследованиях. – Вопросы языкознания 5, Москва: Наука, 5–26.

СБГПЗБ I – Слоўнік беларускіх гаворак паўночна-заходняй Беларусі і яе пагранічных зямель 1, Мінск: Навука і тэхніка, 1979.

СлРЯ XI–XVII вв. IV – Словарь русского языка XI–XVII вв. 4, Москва: Наука, 1977.

Трубачев О. Н. 1959: История славянских терминов родства и некоторых древнейших терминов общественного строя, Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР.

ЭССЯ III, V – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд 3,5, Москва: Наука, 1976, 1978.

Balčikonis J. J.: [Выступление на лексикологической, лексикографической и терминологической конференции 24 IV 1952 г.]. – Balčikonis J. Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978, 212–216.

Bertulis R. 1972: Liet. bėrnas latv. bērns un tā atvasinājumu semantika. – Baltistica I priedas, 17–32.

Bezlaj F. 1977: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika 1, Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.

17

Fraenkel E. 1962: Lituanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag.

LKŽ I – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1, Leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977.

LKŽ II – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968.

LKŽ III, VI – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3,6, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956, 1962.

Nepokupnas A. 1994: M.Mažvydo “Kate kizmo” būlojančio vadovėlio (knygelių) vaizdas istorijos ir kultūros kontekste. – Protestantizmas Lietuvoje: istorija ir dabartis, Vilnius: Apyausis, 70–77.

SP I, III – Słownik prasłowiański 1,3, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1974, 1979.

Wright J. 1910/1981: Grammar of the Gothic language, Oxford: At the University Press.

DĖL VEDINIŲ ISTORINIUOSE BEI ETIMOLOGINIUOSE BALTŲ IR SLAVŲ KALBŲ ŽODYNUOSE

Santrauka

Pagrindinis XX a. lietuvių leksikografijos darbas – “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” turi ir istorinio, ir etimologinio žodyno elementų. Norint nustatyti, kiek jis laikytinas lietuvių kalbos tezauru, būtina įsigilinti į 1952–1953 m. vykusios leksikografinės diskusijos priežastis ir padarinius, kai K. Būgos ir J. Balčikonio žodyno darbo kryptis buvo pakeista ir istorinę medžiagą imta pateikti “kaip foną”.

Etimologinis leksikografinio pateikimo principas, kuriuo remiantis įvairios formos nurodomos į vieną pagrindinę formą, ne visuomet tinka. Mat vediniai neretai tampa savarankiškais žodžiais, turinčiais kitą reikšmę.

Dėl šių procesų neįvertinimo lietuvių kalbos ir pedagogikos istorijoje nebuvo žinomas jau M. Mažvydo “Katekizme” vartotas terminas knygelės ‘vadovėlis’. Ukrainiečių kalbos istorijoje neatsižvelgta į vaiko pavadinimą Дѣтско, užfiksuotą 945 m. ir 1206 m. metraščiuose.

Būsimajame “Etimologiniame lietuvių kalbos žodyne” reikia daugiau dėmesio skirti išvestiniams žodžiams: M. Daukšos “Postilėje” randamas liet. berniškė turi tikslų gotų kalbos atitikmenį barniski ‘vaikystė’.

Lietuvių kalbos tarmių gūburas ir baltarusių tarmių бугор yra semantinės derivacijos ‘kalva’ → ‘debesis’ pavyzdys. Geografijos sąvoką reiškiantis žodis imamas vartoti meteorologijos sąvokai reikšti. Būtent šiuo semantiniu ryšiu remiamasi įrodinėjant, kad indoeuropiečių protėvynė buvo kalnuotoje vietovėje. Tačiau tai, kad lietuvių ir baltarusių izoglosa atsirado Rytų Europos lygumoje, galima laikyti kontrargumentu diskutuojant šiuo klausimu.

Formos ir semantikos vedinių problemos tyrimas istoriniuose bei etimologiniuose baltų ir slavų kalbų žodynuose yra labai svarbus. Jis suteikia daugiau galimybių įsigilinti ne tik į tam tikrų kalbų ar jų grupių, bet ir į indoeuropiečių kalbų šeimos žodžių išteklius.

ZU DEN ABLEITUNGEN IN DEN HISTORISCHEN UND ETYMOLOGISCHEN WÖRTERBÜCHERN DER BALTISCHEN UND SLAWISCHEN SPRACHEN

Zusammenfassung

Eine grundlegende Arbeit der litauischen Lexikographie im 20. Jh. ist “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” (“Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache”), das sowohl historische als auch etymologische enthält. Um festzustellen, inwiefern es als Thesaurus des Litauischen betrachtet werden kann,

18

ist von Belang, auf die Gründe und Folgen der 1952/53 stattgefundenen lexikographischen Diskussion einzugehen, die dazu führte, daß die von K. Būga und J. Balčikonis in der Arbeit am Wörterbuch eingeschlagene Richtung geändert wurde und der historische Stoff nur als Hintergrund dargelegt wurde.

Das etymologische Prinzip, das der lexikographischen Darstellung zugrunde liegen sollte und nach welchem verschiedene Formen aus einer Grundform abzuleiten sind, erwies sich nicht in allen Fällen als passend. Die Ableitungen verwandeln sich häufig in selbständige Wörter mit einer neuen Bedeutung.

Da diese Wandlungsprozesse in der Geschichte der litauischen Sprache und Pädagogik nicht berücksichtigt wurden, blieb auch der im “Katechismus” von Mažvydas gebrauchte Terminus knygelės in der Bedeutung ‘Lehrbuch’ unbekannt. In der Geschichte der ukrainischen Sprache wurde auch die Bezeichnung für das Kind дѣтько, die 945 und darauf 1206 in den Chroniken vorliegt, nicht in Betracht gezogen.

In dem künftigen “Etymologischen Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache” sind Ableitungen gründlicher zu untersuchen: so entspricht die in der “Postille” von M. Daukša vorhandene Ableitung lit. berniškė genau dem got. barniški ‘Kindheit’.

Das in den litauischen Dialekten vorliegende gūburas und in den weißrussischen бу́гор ist ein Beispiel der semantischen Derivation ‘Hügel’ → ‘Wolke’. Das einen geographischen Begriff bezeichnende Wort beginnt man für die Benennung eines meteorologischen Begriffs zu gebrauchen. Auf dieser semantischen Beziehung gründen die Beweise, daß die Urheimat der Indoeuropäer in einem bergigen Gebiet lag. Doch die Tatsache, daß die litauischen und weißrussischen Isoglossen auf der Osteuropäischen Ebene entstanden sind, wird als Gegenbeweis während Diskussionen verwendet. Das Problem der Ableitungen ihrer Form und Semantik nach verdient große Aufmerksamkeit in den für etymologische Wörterbücher der baltischen und slawischen Sprachen bestimmten Untersuchungen. Diese letzteren geben größere Möglichkeiten, sich nicht allein in den Wortschatz gewisser Sprachen bzw. Sprachgruppen zu vertiefen, sondern auch in den der indoeuropäischen Sprachfamilie.