Šis tas iš Lazūnų ir Zietelos šnektų leksikos gretinimo

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997) LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS Aloyzas VIDUGIRIS A COMPARISON OF SOME LEXICAL FEATURES OF THE LAZŪNAI AND ZIETELA DIALECTS The names Lazūnai and Zietela refer to the most remote dialects on the southern edge of the Lithuanian language area: the Lazūnai area, or parish, in the Vija district of the Grodno region in present-day Belarus (Belarusian Lazduny), and the Zietela district and parish (Belarusian Dziatłava). In their own way, both are probably the most archaic of all present-day Lithuanian dialects. These dialects share a considerable number of features, including lexical ones, as well as differences, which until now have not been compared either with each other or with other dialects. Great Lithuanian linguists are closely associated with the study of these dialects. As early as 1906, Jonas Jablonskis came to study the Lazūnai dialect, while Kazimieras Būga studied Zietela. They were also the godfathers of these dialects. Before them, the dialects had been studied only by Eduardas Volteris, and Zietela also by Jan Rozwadowski. During the years of the Polish occupation, Jurgis Šlapelis collected words and recorded folklore in Lazūnai. Juozas Balčikonis visited these places and collected words in the postwar years. All these Lithuanians were linguists of epoch-making importance who contributed to the restoration of Lithuania’s independence and, through their joint efforts, created the standard Lithuanian language as the foundation of an independent state. J. Jablonskis was the greatest authority on and creator of the standard language; the physician J. Šlapelis devoted his entire life to nurturing and establishing the Lithuanian language in Slavic-speaking eastern Lithuania; K. Būga raised Lithuanian linguistics to a world-class level; and J. Balčikonis, as if a symbol of continuity, was destined to unite three different eras and preserve to this day what his predecessors had created. There have never been any direct ties between the Zietela and Lazūnai dialects. They are separated by about 100 km of territory inhabited by Slavs, a substantial stretch of forest, and three sizeable rivers—Maučėdis, the Nemunas, and the Gauja. There are no direct roads. To get from Zietela to Lazūnai, one has to travel via Naugardukas (called Naugardas by the Zietela speakers) or via Lyda. Lazūnai lies about 130 km southeast of Vilnius, while Zietela is 150 km to the south. Lexicon is a rather specific domain of language. Open to various influences, it is the most sensitive and most rapidly changing of all levels of language. It is affected by various intralinguistic and extralinguistic factors. The influence of these factors on the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects, long since separated from the main Lithuanian-speaking area and surrounded by Slavic languages, may be decisive. Here, people’s speech sometimes differs not only from family to family or from one yard to another, but also from person to person and from year to year. Thus, local, individual, and temporal factors have a considerable influence on the dialect, especially its lexicon. The speakers who best preserved the Lithuanian language were those who lived in their native locali- 163 ties and communicated in Lithuanian with one another and their neighbors. Leaving aside women who had married and moved away, the speech of the dialect speakers themselves also changed considerably with age and a change of place (moving to cities to live with their children); fluctuations, variation, and occasionalisms became more numerous. On the other hand, when recording a dialect text, some interference may also be introduced by the recorder’s unconscious psychological predispositions, haste in writing down an unfamiliar word or form without sufficient context, an unconscious tendency to compare or “normalize” a case or gender heard in an unusual form, insufficiently careful listening to various phonetic details, and so on. In fact, it is difficult to communicate with speakers of such isolated dialects, because many elderly people understand hardly any standard-language words, and some are hard of hearing. Since it is impossible to compare the entire lexicon of the Zietela and Lazūnai dialects because of its enormous size and uneven scope, it is necessary to limit the comparison to a certain part of it. Mechanically comparing dictionary entries by particular letters, words, or their word families is also scarcely feasible, owing to so-called gaps (“lacunae”) and ethnographic terms that may occur in one dialect but not in the other. The lexicons of both dialects—that is, words or their word families—can be compared selectively, but even then one must be content with a certain number of items. Here, the easiest route has been taken: the comparison is limited to the lexicon mapped in the first volume of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language,” and even that is not covered in full. The lexicon volume of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” mentioned above mapped and described 190 realia. After excluding narrow ethnographic terms not found everywhere and some uninformative responses, the study covers the names of 150 objects, mostly widespread in the dialects in various forms. This defined and limited number of selected responses has certain drawbacks and advantages. The “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” questionnaire included mainly names of objects or phenomena with various meanings—nouns that have different forms of expression in different dialects, that is, different word roots or stems. Disproportionately few words from other parts of speech were included. The advantage is that even this number, although fairly limited and determined by chance through the questionnaire, can already be treated as part of a certain lexical whole. The same objects may be called by different names in dialects: some by native Lithuanian names, others by borrowings or calques; in the compared Lazūnai and Zietela dialects, some are named identically and others differently. Therefore, the names are discussed below first by origin and then by form. Lithuanian-origin vocabulary. 1. A considerable number of concepts are named identically, in Lithuanian, in the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects, although sometimes other synonyms or accentuation variants may also be known alongside them (these are indicated in parentheses), e.g.: apušė ~ epušė (rt. āpušė Lz) ‘a leafy tree with trembling leaves, an aspen’ (LKA I 92*), daigė ‘scythe’ (LKA I * The work drew on LKA I maps—their numbers and the corresponding data from the commentaries are cited. 164 50), draugė ‘family’ (// šeimýna) (LKA I 120), karvėlis ‘pigeon’ (LKA I 76), kūgis ‘a large haystack, intended for’ (LKA I 110), miekočia ‘a trough’ (// miekočia Zt) (LKA I 21), pelūdė (pelūdnyčia) ‘part of a threshing barn or an extension to it for scattering chaff’ (LKA I 15), pirkia ‘dwelling hut, house’ (LKA I 2), priemnė ‘implement, porch’ (LKA I 5), priėtema (LKA I 106), sunkus Lz: sunkus Zt (LKA I 114), šaudyklė ‘a device for inserting the shuttle while weaving’ (LKA I 67), vežimas (// rātai) ‘a horse-drawn vehicle’ (LKA I 34), žagrė ‘plough’ (// žagrė Lz) (LKA I 45), etc. These are mostly old Lithuanian words or terms. More recent words with extended or multiple meanings also occur; these may have arisen in place of terms that once existed but have since disappeared, e.g.: dantis ‘harrow tooth’ (LKA I 49), duobė ‘hearth of an oven’ (LKA I 8), lenta ‘seat of a loom, bench’ (LKA I 67), etc. Of the 150 questions, there are 41, or 27.3%, such Lithuanian-origin words in the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects that are identical or almost identical. 2. Also noteworthy here are cognate Lithuanian-origin names that differ between the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects: a) in formation (suffixes), e.g.: éras, eráitis ‘a young sheep, lamb’ Lz: erūkas Zt (LKA I 74), rāgos ‘a winter road vehicle that slides on runners, a sleigh’ Zt: rāgutės Lz (LKA I 43), trainė, trainià ‘part of a cart’s brake, brake lever’ Lz: trainijà Zt (LKA I 35); b) in the root or suffix vowels and consonants, e.g.: dilginė, dilgynė ‘a medicinal fibrous plant whose stem and leaves have stinging hairs’ Lz: dirgėlė Zt (LKA I 94), kailiniai ‘a winter garment sewn from furs’ Lz: kaliniai Zt (LKA I 72), spragilyčia ‘the handle of a flail, a threshing tool; spragilinė, siaustuvė’, cf. sprāgilas Lz: spragelyčia, spragelyščius, spragelyštis, cf. sprāgelas Zt (LKA I 56); c) in the stem ending, e.g.: priešvirnis ‘a roofed space by the granary, an anteroom’ Lz: priešvirnė, priešvirnė Zt (LKA I 12); d) in accentuation, e.g.: kālvis ‘a person engaged in metal forging’ Zt: kalvỹs Lz (LKA I 107), etc. A total of 9 such names, or 6%, were found. These words form a kind of transitional group of names between concepts expressed identically and those expressed differently (by words with different roots) in the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects. 3. The same concept is expressed in the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects by different Lithuanian-origin words (lexemes), e.g.: brauktuvė ‘a tool for scraping and cleaning flax of shives, a flax scutching tool’ Zt: blaškýtuvė Lz (LKA I 59), giria ‘a wooded area, forest’ Zt: medžias (pronounced medžias) Lz (LKA I 113), kārtė, kārtis ‘a long, slender, limbed tree trunk’, cf. kārčių tvorà ‘a fence of poles’ Zt: sàtrà, cf. satrų tvorà ‘a fence of poles’ Lz (LKA I 119), kiēmas ‘a yard beside a dwelling house’ Zt: atšlàimas Lz (LKA I 9), klónis ‘a low-lying place, valley’ Zt: lóbās Lz (LKA I 103), pėntis ‘the foot of a scythe’ Zt: kākłas Lz (LKA I 52), tarpupėdis ‘the part of a threshing barn between the uprights for stacking grain or fodder, a storage bay’ Lz: šalis Zt (LKA I 16), vēdaras ‘a sausage made of baked groats or mashed potatoes’ Lz: dešrā Zt (LKA I 32), vedegà ‘an axe with a curved blade for hollowing out troughs or tubs’ Zt: medžiagėlė Lz (LKA I 33), etc. In total, according to the program of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language,” 10 such names with different roots for expressing one concept were recorded in the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects, or 6.6%. 4. There are more names used in a mixed manner. In those dialects, they differ not 165 only in form but also in origin. When a Lithuanian name is used in one or the other of these two dialects (most often Lazūnai), the other generally has a loanword or hybrid, and vice versa, e.g.: buožė, buoželė ‘the head of a flail’ Lz: bičis, bičius Zt (LKA I 56), ėglẏs, ėglius ‘an evergreen shrub of the cypress family with black berries, a juniper’ Lz: velauka Zt (LKA I 91), gėlė ‘a plant with attractive flowers or leaves’ Lz: kvietką, kvietkas Zt (LKA I 111), jungėlis ‘a strap joining the flail handle to its head’ Lz: užikas, vūžas Zt (LKA I 57), kupetà ‘a pile of raked hay or straw’ Lz: kapà Zt (LKA I 110), rátapedis ‘a wheel spoke’ Lz: špykis Zt (LKA I 41), sprandagalvis ‘tadpole’ (// stambagalvis) Lz: galavóčius Zt (LKA I 83), vieversẏs ‘a songbird of the sparrow order, a lark’ Lz: žāvarankas Zt (LKA I 79), vińkšna ‘a crossbar of a sleigh’s runner’ Lz: vėzas Zt (LKA I 44), etc. Among the Lithuanian names is the Lazūnai name žilausis of uncertain origin, meaning ‘a man’s sister, sister-in-law’ Lz: žaluvyčia Zt (LKA I 117). In total, there are 20 such names, or 13.3%, where the term in one dialect corresponds to a loanword in the other. Excluding the questionable name žilausis, the corresponding figure is 19, or 12.7% of such pairs. The Lazūnai dialect has preserved more Lithuanian vocabulary. Of the 20 items mentioned, 15 have unquestionably Lithuanian equivalents, although loanwords or hybrids may also replace some of them, e.g.: jelaučius ar jėlaučius alongside ėglius Lz, kačelkėlės ‘heddle pulleys’ alongside ratėliai Lz: katkėlės Zt (“same, too?”) (LKA I 66), kāčiorius ‘a drake’ alongside ančiukas Lz: kāčioris Zt (LKA I 73), vėzas alongside vińkšna Lz, žėvarinka alongside vieversẏs Lz. In the Zietela dialect, Lithuanian names occur in only four of the 20 cases, e.g.: jūosta ‘rainbow’ alongside tenčius Zt: tetėčius Lz (LKA I 105), skylėlė ‘the entrance hole of a beehive’ Zt: liotkà Lz (LKA I 101), as well as other calques (see below). In addition, speakers of Lazūnai Lithuanian named three more concepts, while speakers of Zietela did not provide names for them at all, e.g.: kiškis ‘a thick woollen coat’ (LKA I 30), raudonikīs ‘a red-capped bolete, red-capped scaber stalk’ (LKA I 98), stulpėliai ‘the posts supporting a spinning wheel, its legs’ (LKA I 62). Thus, a total of 77 or 79 concepts are named in Lithuanian in the Lazūnai dialect, i.e. 52%, whereas in the Zietela dialect only 64 of the 150 items, i.e. 42%, are. Loan translations. The classification of lexemes into names of Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian origin is fairly conditional. Both Lithuanian and Slavic languages contain many words that might be suspected of having been copied or calqued from one another. Words with extended meanings used to name specific concepts may be particularly suspect. Some names that arose in this way may be old, with origins that are difficult to discern, while others are new. The origin of the latter is revealed by their narrow area of use in individual dialects on the southeastern margins of the Lithuanian language. Loan translations are entirely indistinguishable in form from Lithuanian words. Because of their unusual meanings, they can easily be mistaken for dialectal exoticisms. They are often semantically motivated as well, e.g.: arkliūkas ‘grasshopper’ Zt, or namėlis ‘frame beehive’ Zt. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to say 166 whether, for example, the word namelis in this sense is a loan translation (cf. Slavic domik), or a Lithuanian word used by analogy, like the Lazūnai hybrid equivalent skrynelė (LKA I 100). After all, such beehives are often called bičių nameliais ‘bee houses’ in other Lithuanian dialects as well. Thus, it is doubtful that the Zietela form namelį should be unconditionally regarded as a loan translation. The case of arkliukas is different; cf. Belarusian kónik ‘grasshopper’, a meaning unattested anywhere else. In this case, speakers of Lazūnai most often use the hybrids kazlaitis, kazlėlis or the pure borrowing kāzlas (cf. LKA I 86). The name lápė, lapáitė ‘yellow edible mushroom, chanterelle’ Lz: lisýčià, lisicá Zt (LKA I 97) arose in the same way. The beautiful Lithuanian expressions kėlines apsiauti ar apsimauti, sijoną apsisėgti, apsivilkti ‘to put on trousers, put on a skirt, get dressed’ are translated chiefly using the verb uždėt ar užsidėt kėlines, suknelę (cf. Belarusian nadziec, Russian nadiet) Lz, Zt; less often kráuti, e.g., an savė kėlnes kráut ‘to put trousers on oneself’ (cf. Polish nałożyć) Zt (LKA I 115). Such loan translations are also called semanticisms or semantic calques (Velakoski 1984: 221–222). Usually, a native Lithuanian-sounding word with a different, foreign, borrowed meaning also becomes a different word (lexeme). Calquing is therefore regarded as one of the ways of naming (Pavel 1983: 74, 83). Dictionaries, however, treat such words inconsistently. Nouns are usually listed separately, whereas verbs are listed together with their other meanings, but with a separate (borrowed) sense, e.g.: líšti ‘to climb, ascend’, lùpti ‘to tear, dismantle’, riñkti ‘to take’, uždėti ‘to dress, put on, fasten’, etc. (for more, see Vidugiris 1989: 39–54; 1995: 175–180). B o r r o w i n g s. The Lazūnai and Zietela dialects have long been surrounded and influenced by Slavic languages (Belarusian, Polish, and now Russian), and contain an extraordinarily large number of borrowings adapted in various ways. These are compared in the same order as words of Lithuanian origin. 1. Most borrowings in the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects coincide, e.g.: ābadas ‘rim’ (LKA I 42), buliónas ‘potato soup’ (// bùlionas Lz) (LKA I 29), dieškà ‘dough trough’ (LKA I 25), káuka ‘jackdaw’ (LKA I 78), krinvčià ‘spring’ (LKA I 104), õdina ‘snake’ (LKA I 80), plotkà ‘roach, dace’ (LKA I 82), statývos ‘loom treadles’ (LKA I 6), striekà ‘roof’ (dãchas Lz) (LKA I 3), tákas ‘beaten-earth floor of a barn or oven, threshing floor’ (LKA I 4), etc. Most of these borrowings are neither used nor even known in the main Lithuanian dialects. This type also includes borrowings that have entered the standard-language system and for which other dialects often have no substitute, e.g.: burõkas ‘beet’ (LKA I 88), kõšė ‘purée’ (LKA I 30), norãgas ‘part of a plough or ard that cuts the soil layer with its sharp side during ploughing’ (LKA I 46). There are 46 borrowings shared by the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects, or 30.6%. Adding to this number the shared names of Lithuanian origin gives a total of 88 concepts (or 58.7%) named identically in the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects. 2. As with Lithuanian cognates, cognate borrowings can also differ in similar ways: a) in word formation, e.g.: karvalãtas, karaulãtas ‘spinning wheel’ Lz: karvalãtas, karaulùtkas Zt (LKA I 60); b) in the vocalism of the root or stem, e.g.: ãrnas ‘blacksmith’s hearth, forge’ Lz: hãrunis Zt (LKA I 108), 167 rapukà ‘toad’ Lz: rapuchà Zt (LKA I 81), švōranas ‘wagon drawbar’ Lz: švōrinas Zt (LKA I 38); in the stem ending, e.g.: padnebiėnė (// padnebė) ‘the roof, or vault, of a bread oven’ Zt: padnebėnia Lz (LKA I 7), etc. There are 7 such responses, or 4.7%. 3. The same concept is expressed by different borrowings or hybrids, e.g.: bruška ‘rutabaga, swede’ Zt: kručka Lz (LKA I 89), bul’ba ‘potato’ Lz: kunodà (less often kurdūplė) Zt (LKA I 87), chrīstulys, chrūštulys (// mojavinis, mōjinis žūkas) ‘cockchafer’ Zt: kārklinis žūkas, lazinis žūkas Lz (LKA I 84), dešėtkas ‘haystack, haycock’ Zt: menðlis Lz (LKA I 109), kalādė ‘wheel hub’ Lz: kūlbė Zt (LKA I 40), katkėlė ‘spinning-wheel pulley’ Zt: muterkà Lz (LKA I 63), košys ‘ginalovis’ Zt: skrynėlė Lz (LKA I 68), stajėkas, stajōkas ‘priebrukas’ Lz: stōpčis, stōpčius Zt (LKA I 58), etc. A total of 8 such pairs have been recorded, or 5%. Comparison of the latter borrowings shows that the lexicon of the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects was influenced by different Slavic languages (chiefly Belarusian, and to a lesser extent Polish) and by Belarusian dialects. It is not yet possible to claim that any one Slavic language influenced one of the dialects more than the other. Of the remaining 4 questions (2.7%), speakers of Zietela did not provide names for 3 concepts (2%), while speakers of Lazūnai did not provide one (0.7%). In total, the names that do not coincide in the Zietela and Lazūnai dialects, whether of Lithuanian or Slavic origin, number 54, or 36.4%. Of these, 19 are distinct Lithuanian names (34.5%, or 12.7% of the total), 19 are mixed forms (35.7%, or 12.7%), and 16 are borrowings alone (29%, or 10.7%). Considered separately by dialect, the Lithuanian names that do not coincide number 34 in the Lazūnai dialect alone (61.8%, or 22.6% of the total) and 23 in the Zietela dialect (41.8%, or 15.3%); non-coinciding borrowings number 20 in the Lazūnai dialect (37.4%, or 13.3% of the total) and 32 in Zietela (58.2%, or 21.3%). This shows that the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects developed in different environments and independently of one another. The total number of Lithuanian names found only in the Lazūnai dialect exceeds half of the total, namely 79 (80 including the word žilausis), or 52.7% (53.3%), whereas the 65 in the Zietela dialect, or 43.4%, do not reach even half. This can be explained by the fact that the isolation of the Lazūnai dialect from the main Lithuanian-speaking area began later than that of Zietela. Excluding two clear loan translations in each case, we obtain 77 words of Lithuanian origin in the Lazūnai dialect (51.3%) and 63 in Zietela (42.4%). Excluding 6 unanswered questions in the Zietela dialect and 1 in the Lazūnai dialect, all the remaining names are borrowings. In the Lazūnai dialect there are 70 pure borrowings (46.7%), or 72 including unequivocal loan translations (48.4%); in Zietela there are 80 (53.3%), or 82 (54.7%). We can only take comfort in the fact that the figures and percentages presented here are quite provisional, since the analysis deals primarily with the names of small, specific objects. The number of borrowings in these dialects greatly exceeds not only the 16%–30% of borrowings in the main dialects but also the average of 27%–40% in the Vilnius dialects (Zinkevičius 1978: 147–151). By the time material for the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” was collected, many dialects on the southeastern margins were already dying out. The absolute majority of the small dialects in that area, including such unique 168 For dialects such as those of Zietela and Lazūnai, this decline during the Soviet era ended in death. Soon there will be no one left speaking Lithuanian around Breslauja and Pastovys, throughout the vast eastern part of Varanavas District, in the northern part of Gardinas District, and elsewhere. Now we can only speculate about what quantity of borrowings is fatal to a dialect. For dialects unsupported by their own national culture and devastated in every possible way, apparently any number is fatal. Decline probably begins when the native language loses at least a third of its own lexicon. The Zietela dialect is something of a record-holder, with borrowings making up about two-thirds of its entire lexicon. In this case, extralinguistic conditions are decisive. Nevertheless, Lithuanian vocabulary is significant not only for a dialect or subdialect, but also for linguistics. It can tell the science of language much more than borrowings can. Most Lithuanian names show that the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects belong to the same branch of Lithuanian and attest to the ancient Lithuanian (Baltic) past of those territories. The distribution of certain words they share shows that the Lazūnai and Zietela dialects, together with the southern Aukštaitians, are connected with the eastern Vilnius Aukštaitians, for example: apušė, dalgė, niekočia, pirkià, stõvai; whereas the distribution of other words, e.g., eráitis, éras, erùkas, kiẽmas, sprãgilas or sprãgelas, vežìmas, shows that together with the southern Aukštaitians they are closely aligned with the western Aukštaitians, etc. Words with different roots distinguish the Zietela and Lazūnai dialects from one another and indicate different dialect affiliations. The Lazūnai dialect is linked with the eastern Vilnius Aukštaitians by the words atšláimas (// kiẽmas), jáuja, lóbãs ‘valley’, medžiagėlė ‘vedega’, viñkšna, and others. However, other words indicate that the Lazūnai dialect was closely connected with the southern Aukštaitians (the so-called western Dzūkians), for example: gréndymas, krėsłas ‘the upper crossbar at the front of a wagon’ (LKA I 37), šãtrà, and especially with their eastern part, e.g.: blaškýtuvė ‘bruktuvė’, mėdžias ‘forest’, rãtapėdis ‘spoke’, tarpūpėdis ‘side shed’, and others. By contrast, these names (and sometimes the objects themselves) place the Zietela dialect more in line with the southern, and especially the southwestern, Aukštaitians: duobė ‘a certain type of earth cellar with a furnace for drying flax’ (LKA I 20), girià ‘forest’, kártis, klónis ‘valley, hollow’, vedegà, and others. The considerable number of elements characteristic of the western Balts that have survived in the Zietela dialect, and often in the southern Aukštaitian dialect as well, suggests that in the past a union of Sudovian (Yotvingian) tribes closely related to the Lithuanians lived across a large area of southern Lithuania, now divided among Lithuania, Belarus, and Poland (Būga 1961: 126–156; 601–602; Zinkevičius 1987: 40–46; Vidugiris 1996: 1–2). LITERATŪRA B ū g a K.: Lietuvių tauta ir kalba bei jos artimieji giminaičiai. – Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 128–156; Jotvingų žemės upių vardų galūnė -da. – Ten pat, 601–602. LKA I – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1, Leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. P a v e l V. K. 1983: Leksicėskaja nominacija, Kišinev: Stiinča. V e l o k o s k i H. 1984: O kal'kach po nemeckoj modeli v russkom jazyke. – Studia slavica 169 Finlandensia 1, Helsinki, 221–232. V i d u g i r i s A. 1995: Iš veiksmažodžio rinkti semantikos lietuvių ir baltarusių paribio šnektose. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 28. V i d u g i r i s A. 1995: Vlijanije jazykovich kontaktov na razvitije leksičeskoj semantiki. – Badania dialektów onomastyki na pograniczu polsko-vschodniosłowiańskim, Białystok, 175–180. V i d u g i r i s A. 1996: Sūduviai (jotvingiai) ir jų gyventos teritorijos. – Voruta 12(246). Z i n k e v i č i u s Z. 1978: Mintys pasirodžius Lietuvos kalbos atlaso I tomui. – Baltistica 14(2), Vilnius: Mokslas, 147–151. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 2, Vilnius: Mokslas. ON THE COMPARISON OF THE VOCABULARY OF THE LAZŪNAI AND ZIETELA SUBDIALECTS Summary The vocabulary of the two furthest south–east removed Lithuanian subdialects – Lazūnai and Zietela – locations which are now part of the Gardinas region, Bielorussia, are compared. The comparison is based on the vocabulary of ‘Lietuvių kalbos atlasas’ (The Atlas of the Lithuanian Language) – 150 names of objects which are compared according to their origin, coincidence or non-coincidence of their forms in the two subdialects. The Lazūnai subdialect has retained more vocabulary of Lithuanian origin (53%), which is outbalanced in the Zietela subdialect by loanwords (54%). The spread of Lithuanian origin names shows that the Lazūnai subdialect is a typical east-aukštaitish Vilnius subdialect with certain peculiarities of the southern and, sometimes, western aukštaitish subdialects, while the Zietela subdialect, despite a number of common features with southern and eastern aukštaitish, is closer to the southern-western aukštaitish. 170