Lituanizmų prisitaikymas baltarusių šnektose ir jų atpažinimo būdai

XXXVII (1997) PROBLEMS OF LEXICOGRAFY AND LEXICOLOGY Elena The Lithuanian šnektas, which for various political, social and economic reasons in historical times found themselves surrounded by Belarusian šnektas and were affected by their assimilatory influence, adapted to the system of Belarusian language, assimilated, lost many essential features of their native language, especially its liveliness, regularity, visuality, and at the same time gave them comparatively bright traces of their real existence in those territories. The subsequent development of words of Lithuanian origin that have entered the Belarusian language system and have settled in it is very uneven and, in general, complicated. It usually depends on the time of borrowing and the geography of its origin. The Lithuanianisms of the older and further Belarusian territories from Lithuania are so changed and glorified that it is often really difficult to recognize them. The newer and closer to the Lithuanian border consumers have not yet given in to this influence, and they are usually easier to identify. Long-term expeditions to search for Lithuanianisms in Belarusian dialects (especially in the vicinity of Lithuania and Lithuanian dialects) and their detailed studies (1956-1996) provide a lot of new data, which quite reliably highlight the features of their adaptation to the Belarusian language system, reveal Belarusian plaques and help to identify them relatively accurately. First, lituanisms usually gradually begin to lose their original (casual) Lithuanian form, begin to unconditionally adapt it to the Belarusian language system, there are substantial qualitative distances and deviations of their form and content from the Lithuanian language, the role and purpose of their component parts begin to change, they immediately acquire unusual, new features from the Belarusian language. Lithuanianism, having entered the Belarusian dialect and settled in it, suddenly loses its anticipation. And this is because the Belarusian language has no whims. Thus, by becoming a part of them, it throws away the greatest sign of its Lithuanianness and nationality – its distinctiveness, loses the garment that adorns it, becomes poorer. We only noticed that, let's say, Kamojo apyl. (Pastovių raj., Belarus) and elsewhere in Belarusian dialects, place names, river names, surnames, etc. of Lithuanian origin still retain their natural firm prefix 7 u + /, m, nm, r in diphthongs, and are pronounced clearly (LKK XXX 126-128). But this, of course, is already an atypical short-term phenomenon. In our opinion, the disappearance of adverbs is the most striking approximation of the accentological system of Lithuanianisms to Belarusian dialects. 171 When Lithuanianism loses its pretension, it very quickly loses its Lithuanian pronunciation — it immediately obeys the Belarusian laws of pronunciation jumping. For example, Lithuanianisms xoym < kšušas, noyx < Idužas, etc., which in Lithuanian dialects used to have a constant pronunciation in the root (e.g., kaušas, kaušo, su kaušu, kaušai, etc.) now become jumping pronunciation according to the laws of the Belarusian language, e.g., kom, kayjmd, Kaijurom... Lithuanianism Odra < banda, etc., which used to have a jumping pronunciation (: banda, bandos, baidai, su banda...), now becomes a constant pronunciation (:60ryra, 60781, Odai...) and so on. Along with the disappearance of Lithuanianisms and the Slavification of their accentuation system, the complete alignment of their pronounced and unpronounced long syllables with short ones is also observed. All Lithuanian vowels lose their length and shortness. They all become qualitatively the same as they are in Belarusian, e.g. aramypam ‘separately’ (< atddūrom ‘isolatedly’) (CBT I 103), 6ax3nka “buoželė’ Lis. (< buožėlė + ka), rapynsi (< arūodai), r'inéus' Rod. (< depth), riBénxa ‘pempé’ Achr. (< gyvvėlė + ka), T'y6in (LKK XXX 116) “forest name’ Rod. (< Guobynas), xykyus ‘parSiukas’ (CCC XXX 116); ‘švilpukas' (Mar., 86), (< kūkūtis, kaukūtis- ), xynenéup Rod. (< climb), nauziuka Kur. (< pottery + ka), mminčip Kam. (< $nypsti), tpykaens Kir. (< trūkžolė- ), BizixaBams Bok. (< search) "search" etc. It has been found that Lithuanianisms whose phonetic system (mostly dialectal) and pronunciation coincide with Belarusiy usually do not change their appearance when translated into Belarusian, e.g., amikyna ‘lazy’ (CBI I 87) (< akukhula ‘etc.’), Gym6sina (< dialect bumbéla, bk. bambéle), xarypka ‘front graft of men’s trousers’ (CBI IT 597-598) (< keturka ‘etc.’), xymiua ‘iSgrindimas kelio nelygumų Sakomis’ Rag. (< tarm. kumsa, bk. kamsa ‘t.p.”), crabnd ‘misa’ Kam. (< mass ‘t.p. ), Bsimna “Žioplys' (CBI 1389) (< vépla‘t.- p.’), Bar'exa (CBI I 389) (< tarm. végéla, bk. ), Banca (CBT I 281) (< wasp ‘etc.’), cypress (CBI II 464) (< kerépla) et al. The whole ending -as is dropped only in older Lituanizmy, e.g. apyx (< ardodas), OpoHkT/- OpyHKT 'priced', KxoYu (< bucket), kaput (< kersas), noyx (< ldužas), poiicr (< raiistas), cuiMoyp (< stirhburas), ckmot/mkimioT 'arch', xarap (< Zagaras) and others. If this end is dropped, it makes it more difficult to pronounce iTwo consonants are suggested, and 3(a) is inserted between them, e.g. cseipan/- cBipax (< swifnas). There is a lituanizmy, whose endings -as are dropped only the consonant -s. Such masculine nouns are thus transformed into anonymous nouns. Thus, Lithuanian words of two genders become Lithuanianisms of three genders, e.g., 6pdOxxra (< brafktas), 6épana (< béralas), 'unsweetened grains', poiera (< raistas), mBapra (< Žarkas), xOxna 'Series on the neck of an animal' (< kak/as 'neck'), KOTa (< akūotas), xnykra/xunyrra/xnyxra “Žlugtas' (CBI II 1481) < Zlugtas),! The explosive r in Belarusian lituanism is represented in the article by the modified letter r with the acute sign-r". 172 Duck? (< Asp) etc. ir The endings -is, -ys of Lithuanianisms are usually dropped altogether. The x, nr consonants in the ending are pronounced hard, all others are pronounced soft. e.g. riréns (< gigélis), rin (< depth), xyx» (< cock), kypsėns ‘such a fish’ (< kurmėlis- ), nar'ėcs (< lagésis), KyKyub (< kūkūtis ‘parSiukas’ and kaukūtis ‘Svīpukas’), 6pOn3ens (< bradinys- ), par'dOūm (< ragaišis), A6ams ‘pvd.’ (< Abuolis ‘Apple’ < obuolys) etc., but there are cases where only the ending -s falls, e.g., ckinyunsi (< skilandis), and the form of Lithuanianism becomes plural, or it happens when the ending -4 is used instead of the ending -is, e.g., mxinéuna (CBI' V 479) < skilandis), the noun becomes feminine. Closer to the Lithuanian border, the endings —as, -is are relatively rarely healthy, e.g., képkiic (< karklys) ‘harrow- ’, r'ér’ic ‘unprepared guest at a wedding’ (< gūogis) Vid., p33ac (< rėžas) ‘réZis’, Bar'anac ‘vanag’ vanagas) (< Rod. ir kt The ending -a of Lithuanian words remains mostly intact in Lithuanianizations, e.g., HOwTa (< burden), kymima (< pron. kumsa, bk. kamsa), 66una (< band), crabna (< stabda), ssiuna (< vépla ‘vépla’) and so on, but sometimes the ending -72 occurs alongside it in different dialects, e.g. myTpa/nyTps (< putrd). The dialectal ending -a of the Lithuanian word after the hardened / is also healthy in Lithuanianism, e.g. 6ym6sina (< dialect bumbéla, bk. bambėlė). Since the Belarusian dialect system does not have the Lithuanian-specific vowel € (pronunciation ė), it disappears from Lithuanianism first. All é-kam. Lituanisms become 7o-kam., less often —o-kam., e.g., mimMna (< pron. pimpė, bk. pėmpė), payréus (< raugiéné), caycéus (< sausiéné), xp$ums (< krūmė), nyneka (< dūlkė), Ilaninra (< Patiltė) “name of a meadow’ Vid., T'eproxxius (< Drunken) “part of a forest’ Vid., pacaxina (< rasakilė), Tlankukhua (< Padrūksė) “name of a meadow’ Vid., sipuina (< virtinė) and others. There are cases when the ending € of a Slavonic (especially a long-borrowed) Lithuanianism can fall, for example, SDKIPKEJIL “takia viksva' (< fuūodžoleė ‘etc.’) and its feminine gender becomes masculine. Arms. The ending -is of lituanisms is usually also dropped, and the consonant in the ending is usually soft, e.g. kein (< klėtis), ceepin (< svirtis), KHėMapacIp (< nérimastis), etc., although there are cases where jy -zs is replaced by the ending -1a, DVZ., BipUIHS/IIBIpIIHS/CIBipHS svirtis". The ending -(s) us is also dropped in Lithuanianisms (only surnames have been recorded), along with the adverbial consonant -v-, e.g., Kynéiu (< Kulévicius), Jlykkčių (< Lunkėvičius) Rod. This dismissal of the suffix -evičpriebalsio -vi probably was obtained by borrowing these surnames from Lithuanians (cf. The Goddess. * There are instances when the nameless place name Onca ‘Apsas’, not paying attention to its other variants (e.g., éxy na Onca; xsrš nan Oncam and others) in 1985-1987, was rather irresponsibly supported by the researchers of its schnets as a feminine name, and throughout the article it was regarded as a jj (see LKK XXVIII 99and Turska 1982: 67). The endings -u Lithuanianisms have been observed very little, and the fate of their endings is not the same in Slavonic, e.g. cryMa (< stuomud, or perhaps from stama) ‘stuomuo’, ura3raMAnKb (< selmuo, or perhaps from Selmenys). The plural ending of Belarusian Lithuanianisms is always Slavic -7(s1) and, like Belarusian, has no gender, e.g. p3ar"iki (< rėzginės), 6pasr'yusi (< brazgūnai), nymnonakurde! ‘purienos’ (< pron. pumplets), par'ymi ‘rogutes’ (< ragutės), nYnsI (< /ūpos), 349 (< gills), arėxansir (< pron. tails), 6ans3ėni (< balZienai, balžienos), rėxrx1 (< jaws), x3r'imi 1177). 173 (< Zaginiar) ir kt. Lithuanisms are often accompanied by Belarusian diminutive suffixes, which usually do not give the noun a diminutive meaning, e.g., Kuūriuka (< kielė + iaia), kanymka ‘a bunch’ (< kadp-ti+- ymka), KOūpaura ‘left’ (< kairys+auka), xioyciuka ‘who likes to listen under the windows’ (< klaus-yti- +iuka), 6ypbanka (< burbulas- +xa), 6pynrauka ‘dear’ (< OpyHra+- auka, OpyHKTa- +auka), mousinka (< puodyné- +xa), KyMnsuoK (< kurūpis+- auox), etc. Although the root lituanizmy resists the influence of Slavization for the longest time and it is the easiest to identify them by it, it also undergoes various changes, acquires a relatively difficult to predict direction of its development, and distinguishes itself by vocalism and consonantism, which are often unusual for Lithuanian. As we have already determined, in almost all cases the accentuated vowel a and the a of the first démens of the diphthongs and diphthongs narrows and turns into o, e.g., 60xxa (< flock), 6ponxr (< brankt), xpoyu (pronounced “kraušas”) “pear”, moyx (< /dužas); nėūcams (< to look at), r’éxtel (< cheeks), créui (< erect), poiicr (< raised), comus (< to squeeze), etc. (see LCC XXVII 124). The diphthongs zo and au of Lithuanianisms also disappear, as they are not characteristic of Belarusian. As the diphthong uo disappeared, it has given three-sided reflexes in different dialects and at different times: o, a, u, e.g., EjyraBiusi (< pronunciation Juodek nai, bk. Jūodelėnai), r'a6a (< guobas), apyn (< arūodas) (see LKK XXVII 125-128), au — keturi — oy, 0, a, u, e.g.,noyx (< laužas), noxaBicxa (< /duzZas+- asicka), kanymka ‘a bunch’ (< kadpti + yma), kykyus ‘a whistle’ (< kaukutis- )®, etc. (see LKK XXVII 125-128). Baltistica 1989: 70-80). In Belarusian $nektos, we have lituanizmy with an incorrectly softenedStintu root consonant, e.g. xwxr10Hsx ‘clown’, cionTEIHa ‘spinning’, KUIIOMOKI ‘clumpy’, etc. Somewhat weaker are the words slavéja lituanizmy gomurinis 77 against kir gir explosive g, which show that the words that have preserved them may be mostly of Lithuanian origin, e.g., igr'ipsraxik “vingiarykštis', Binr'pa “Vingra, the name of a river near Kamojai Pastovių 3 The examples k'0f/a and k'oulé “piggy' (Rozwadowski 1995: 42) from the texts of the Lithuanian schnekt of Zietela, recorded in 1901-1903 by the famous Polish linguist prof. J. Rozvadowski, published in 1995, show that probably due to the influence of Belarusian schnekts, the Lithuanian diphthong au could have been monophonized in the Lithuanian dialect itself, while it was still alive. 174 raj’, pYHKIJII ‘betkeliai’ etc. The Polish linguist H. Turska considers the Belarusian and Polish territories, where such a z is found, to be places of Lithuanian substrate (see Turska 1982: 64 et al.), and the famous Polish dialectologist prof. Stanislavas Glinka, having found a gomurin] a in the Belarusian and Polish dialects of Augustava, rightly considers it a relic of the Lithuanian language spoken in those areas in historical times (Glinka 1990: 119-120 and the map attached). At the same time, it has been noted that Belarusian Lithuanianisms instead of the Lithuanian consonant 4 have the consonant ch, e.g., r'OxrxI (< jaws), xypcranua ‘to move’ (< to stir), proxae1nb ‘to cry’, xoxxra ‘pig’s neck hair’ (< neck), xmo6a (< kliūbas ‘to chase’), xaitnyxa ‘slippery’ (< kiadle +yxa), xypxyY (< kurniad), etc. This is nothing more than an indicator of the glorification of Lithuanianism, cf. also the reverse law in Slavic borrowed words in Lithuanian dialects: kata (< br. xara), koc ‘nors’ (< br. xomrs). It is relevant to note that some Belarusian schnekts often insert the Slavic consonant cA instead of borrowed £ from other Slavic languages or other Belarusian schnekts, e.g., xYprxa “jacket” Sal. (< Russian xyprka 'e.g.'), xarap 'inflammation' (< Russian rarap 'e.g.'), xBangpa 'quarter of the month' (< Russian kBampa 'e.g.'), xapMmymka (< Russian kapmyuika 'e.g.'), xopT Mal. (< rus. Kypr), xoxmow (< rus. koxmou ‘t.p.”). This, in our view, is a particularly valuable feature, which allows us to suspect all Belarusian words with such a ca as having either a foreign origin or being related to other speakers. Thus, when recognizing Belarusian Lithuanianisms, it is necessary to bear in mind these consequences of their glorification, to respect them and to apply them. It is quite difficult to recognize Lithuanianisms when the initial consonant of their root is replaced by another, distorting their natural form, due to non-etymological change. The following more frequent cases of such consonant changes have been observed: a) The beginning of the word is replaced by $mmipak ‘spike’, mxmor ‘arch’, mMdpriia ‘snore’, nUIOKIN5IHA ‘layer, karna’, mkinénna ‘splinting- ’, nrkryn3iok ‘splinting- ’, mBipias ‘lever’, etc. b) The pat the beginning of the word, as well as the v-, is replaced by a sharp b-, e.g., GYKuIThI ‘a broken branch dropped into the water for fish to hide’, 60icaup ‘to watch’, 6ipOATHI ‘to shake’, etc. c) The beginning of a word is replaced by a sharp g-, e.g., r's6mst (< kéblas), ‘nevykes’, riymMOB/- ITy OBI (< klumpės), etc. d) In rarer cases, the beginning of the word g occurs replaced by d-; /in n-; For example, npa6čcerTkI (< grebėstai- ), uypba (< mopba) “a thick chip”, xuOTpBInA (< judre +ina) “such a flax-twisting weed”, etc. e) There are also Lithuanianisms with non-etymologically altered stem consonants, e.g. nanyOaiura ‘one who grabs for a long time’ (< pron. pacupžila, bk. paciupdila- ), p33BiHbl (< rėzginės), péyriau ‘the one who reds’ (< raudoti+au), Kyusua/Kynsxa (< Kulse), KapraHKOcE ‘the one who rises’ (< karkanosis) and others. In Belarusian dialects, there are also borrowings of this type from other Slavic languages, such as Tpyasi (< Russian TpyYTHH), sipMaJIKa (< Russian sipMapka), etc. Analogisky neetymologines cases of consonant change occur in both Lithuanian, and 175 in Belarusian dialects in borrowings from other languages or dialects, e.g., szėkštas (< kékstas); KOGaura "hole under the chest" (< x6mauka 'e.g.'), KpbIBITHIK "such a herb" (< Russian TpbLINnyYTHHK 'e.g.'), Kyxypkxa "vest" (< Russian TyXypka 'e.g.'), 6aTiamka "military metal bottle" (< Russian 6axmaxka 'e.g.') and others. The difficulty of reconstructing Nemaza in Lithuanian is also present in cases when the initial, usually root consonant, or more rarely —vowel, is dropped, e.g., Kapay (< skarocius), npor'a (< spraga), KiyHki “joints” (< IWIKTYHKI < IUTYHKI < šlaūnys), proxaem (< kriuksi), ikcBa (< viksva), iar'ipsraxix (< vingiarykštis), kOTKi (< akuotai), Bipnras ‘lever’ (< cipins), pacxxėžyranua ‘to spread’, etc. This type of loanwords is also found in Belarusian loanwords from other Belarusian languages and from Russian, such as smpyk (< BaripyK), sHTpOGbBI (< BeHTPOOHI), SpyLIKa (< maspyuika), siyki (< Bayki), etc. In spite of the original form of such leksemy, it neieSkant, there are quite false and unmetoty their etymologizavimy. This is, say, what happened with the aforementioned xOrxi (acutely) (BCBM I: 102; V: 104). Lithuanianism sometimes acquires a vowel or a consonant when it is praised, e.g., acBėp/ acBip ‘lever’, rapyx ‘plough’, etc. In these cases, their root remains almost unchanged, the Lithuanianism sounds Lithuanian and is relatively easy to recognize. Sometimes a consonant is inserted into the Lithuanian stem, e.g., ryneira (< guzzling), XiyHki “joints: (< nKJIIYKHKI) etc. The inserted stem consonant, in general, does not have a great influence on the recognition of the lexem — this is particularly helped by its meaning and the Lithuanian sound of the whole word. In Belarusian dialects there are a number of Lithuanianisms with a discarded consonant or with the whole stem (synkopė- ), e.g., HepyM ‘anxiety’ (< restlessness), OpynuTa ‘dear’, mryMsaTa (< Suamete- ), mys (< Šunauja), manays (< Sage), kypauki ‘heels’ (< rYKapauri < kaūkaras+aukxi) and others. In this type of borrowed Belarusian dialects, Slavic origins are also found, e.g., kananyxa 'ieva' (< xazaxamyxa 'etc.'), Kanmanka'such a car' (< kaamaka 'etc.'), MaKapra 'jacket' (< MapbrHapka 'etc.'), caMap3cera 'capping machine' (< caxaMap3era 'etc.'), suHiurda 'barley' (< sumeniurga 'etc.') and others. The change in the role of Lithuanian components in the word caused by Belarusian dialects is well illustrated by the fact that sometimes the whole Lithuanian (including its ending) is considered only as a trunk to which Belarusian endings are attached. Let’s say, from Belarusians, who live mostly on the border of Lithuania, I have heard Lithuanianisms with double endings —Lithuanian —it usually goes to all verbs generalized invariant vns. ward. The ending is Belarusian, which varies with Lithuanianization, e.g. r'éricel NMpbIunMNi a Bacdii. Vid. ‘uninvited guests—the crowd came to the wedding’; Your r'Or'icašy ca6paurace. Vid. “a lot of good things gathered’; RUUISUTI KOIbIK 3 KAPKITicay. Vid. “weaving baskets from the yard”; Bar'aackI cooked Jiarraronb. Rod. ‘vanagai vištas gaudo’; May 34th. Rod. ‘tris rėžius žemės turéjo’ and others. Thus, the function of the Lithuanian word ending is completely isolated in this case, and the word stem is artificially expanded. Such a modification of Lithuanianisms, 176 of course, can often complicate their accurate reconstruction. Sometimes it also happens here, when the stem consonant of the Lithuanian word moves more to the front of the Lithuanian word due to metathesis and its stem becomes another stem consonant, for example, 6pyHTki < 6pyHKTH (< pron. hrunktai, bk. branktar), 6pyHTKOY < GpyHKKTOS, npbnurabine 'perstėti' (< meplusiup persti'), ckBaperTynė (< skerstūvės), Kapxarna (< Keparura) 'kerépla', pdckau (< skarocius), Mėpsa (< MOVpa) maurai, BicxBa (< viksva). Similar cases occur in borrowings from other Slavic languages, for example, k66mik 'kilbuk' (< rOxGik 't.p."), npaėpx 'inoculation' (< mpap3x 't.p.*). The reconstruction of Lithuanianisms is actually complicated by other metathetic changes, which are usually not related to its stem. Here, for example, Lithuanianism mop6a “thick chip” (CBI II 314) has in places turned into pyas6a ‘etc.’ (CBI IV 314), and Barar'ac — into Bar'akac, anbynéiika ‘for defense’ — into a6uynėnška ‘e.g.’, Bipuinka ‘virtinė’ — into BaHUEpPKa e.g. ', HÉpbIMacIL ‘anxiety’ —in HéMapacup ‘etc.’ and so on. Similar substitutions of syllables are characteristic of both Belarusian and Lithuanian loanwords, which have entered into them from other languages or dialects, e.g., br. isan3paxk ‘cup with a handle’ (< le. radelek/- rondelek ‘etc.’), xaxman ‘bad rags, torn clothes’ (< le. fakmany ‘etc.’), pansiora ‘coarse blanket’ (< m3spyra ‘etc.’), xpyctéinxi ‘braskes’ (< le. fruskatki ‘etc.’) and others, lit. “Red currant” (< vasokle ‘etc.’) and others. Without knowing the original gender of such leksemy, without determining the exact jy root, the possibility of reconstructing them becomes actually complicated or completely disappears. Therefore, it is especially important in such case, if you feel that they are borrowed, but you do not find more jy vediniy than in Belarusian or Lithuanian $nektos, to maintain the conviction that their root is different and to intensively search for it, alternating those lexics according to the combinational laws of jy phonetics. It is particularly difficult to reconstruct words of Belarusian dialects suspected of being Lithuanianisms, which are characterized not by one, but by several complex changes —consonantization of the root diphthong, non-etymological change of consonants, ejecting of sounds and syllables (syncope- ), substitution of syllables (metathesis) and so on. After long analyses, comparisons, and language geography of the lexicon sokmxantpb "hard balus grass" (and its variants- ), it seems that we have managed to determine that it is most likely a compound word (sx1-xans), which is considered to be Lithuanianism. Its source will probably have been lie. jizodZoIė‘medicinal bald herb, Actaea spicata’. In the first element of the sequence, probably due to assimilation or other reasons, a x has been inserted. Thus, SDKIPKAJIb < SŪUDKAJIb. For similar origins, see Lie. borrowed Šekstarnė ‘wheel’ (< Šeštarnė ‘etc.’, LKZ XIV 617). The second point —xa, will undoubtedly have come from lie. dialekta Za/€ 'žolė'. The Lithuanianism sbxypkans (with variants) used in Belarusian territories, sufficiently far from the borders of Lithuania (see ABS XX 328 map attached) has preserved the old Lithuanian *a(> 0) in its phonetics to this day, being relatively strongly influenced by Belarusian dialects, undoubtedly belongs to the old borrowed layer. Another compound lexicon of the same meaning 177 JLDKIĮXAH —probably derived from the sDKIPK3Y variant of its relative SDKJDKAUJIb (see ABS XX 326-327). "Soxmxay, plg. lie". Samalas < bait. If we really succeed in proving this, in the future, etymologizing these Lithuanianisms, it is possible to avoid those mistakes that were already made at the beginning of the research, while still somewhat amateurishly searching for their Lithuanian equivalents (cf. Becui 1969: 123-134). Or here the sound of rare, probably also compound lexicon IIBIHTHIKIIOp ‘antique iSeiginis long narrow skirt with platejanis to the bottom abundant jdiirimais’, maHTraKJIėp "etc.: and others. variants caused us suspicion, whether they are not Lithuanianisms. These words of Belarusian speakers were analyzed for a long time and the conclusion was reached that they are probably Lithuanianisms again, which are no longer recorded in our language. However, given the existence of semantic counterparts of similar origin, such as s7mtaklosčiai (centtaraūkiai, šimtarūkšliai, as well as Simtakvoldzial) sijonai (LKZ XIV 815, 817) and the fact that these Belarusian lexical elements are nevertheless Lithuanian in origin, there is reason to believe that they could indeed have been present in the language. We had already expressed the opinion (CCC XXII 197-198) that their first point could be the word širūtas, the second —skliūras ‘sheet of cloth, plot, ridge’ or kliurmas ‘piece’ (the latter, in our suspicion, may also have dropped its initial s-, cf. also skliumbas ‘piece’, skliūmbe- /skliumbe ‘etc.’). Sanšūdis < šunšūdis (LKZ XIV 505), also lie. šimkarka (< šinkorkė) “beverage filling machine in the kareema- ’, simkiioti (< Sinkiioti- ‘to fill beverages’ (LKŽ XIV 811). And the lexems r’yxanki, 6yxanki, Xyxanki, being unambiguous, namely ‘buozgalvial’, in our opinion, also sound Lithuanian. However, not only their Lithuanian sounding, but also their absence of pleophony (polnoglasija, plg. br. raxasa, lit. head) typical of Slavic languages, just like their Lithuanian diphthong -ax, suggests that their origin could also be Lithuanian. It is important to note that their relatives of this meaning have not been found neither in Belarusian nor in other Slavic languages. These lexems are compared with each other and analyzed in a sequence. The analysis of the data allows them to consider all three as undoubted relatives. All three are considered to be enriched words. The lexems ryxanki will have given the beginning lie. buūožgal/- v(iar) and the Belarusian suffix —ki. As Lithuanianism continued to Belarusize, relatively significant changes in its form occurred due to the strong influence of the superstrat. Initially, the diphthong uo of this lexicon, which is foreign to the Belarusian language system, will be monophonic, and its initial 6, due to the distant regressive assimilation of the explosive of its middle syllable I’, will turn into an explosive r'. Thus: buožgalv(- jai) + xi > *Oyoxr'aiBki > Gyxr'a/IBKi > yxr'aIIBKI. The explosive r' of this lexem speaks that it is a Lithuanianism (the explosive r' does not occur in Belarusian words). Later, even more lexical elements were actually difficult to pronounce in Belarusian, and the uncommon consonant combinations -r’ and -JIBK were simplified into -xir -JIK-. 178 Thus *r'yxr'anski > ryxaiki (see LCC XXVII 128; LCC XXX 120-121). The lexicon XyxXaJki may also have originated from r'yxanki either by regressive assimilation (:r'yx-> xyx-), or by a non-etymological change of the initial consonants (less likely). It was particularly difficult to prove the Lithuanian origin of the lexicon xyximki ‘heels’ and numerous other lexicons of the same meaning (x6xamki, kOpkimiki, etc.). After detailed analysis, comparison and approximation, in our opinion, it was quite reliable to establish that they are actually related and genetically related to lie. kaūkaras, kukaras ‘couple’ (see LCC XXVIII 162-164). After long analyses and considerable deliberations, we will probably finally be able to identify Mr. par'i, Jiar'apsI, cypar'i, cypyr'i and other numerous variants with the same meaning ‘circles, streams, rieves’, Lithuanian origin. We have long suspected that the lexicon par'i is of Lithuanian origin and we have persisted in searching for its Lithuanian equivalent, but quite unsuccessfully (Beciu 1969: 128, CCC XVI 187, CCC XXVIII 164-165, CCC XXX 116). After encountering the variants of the same meaning cypar’i and cypyr’i and relying on the possibilities of the Lithuanian bivowel uo transformation into a and u in Belarusian šnekta (CBI' V 20, 21, LKK XXVII 126-127) we finally, it seems, finally discovered their exact Lithuanian equivalent. And he—he is lying. srūogas, which in different Belarusian dialects have given various variants. And these debts in Belarusian conversation are really old, having gone a long way of development. So lie. srūogos first turned into *cpar'i, elsewhere into *cpyr’i (cf. r'a6 < guobas and Ty6in < Guobynas), which eventually, possibly for convenience of pronunciation or because of the Belarusian law of pleophony (polnoglasija), turned into cypar’i or cypyri and remained as such in those dialects. Kai lies. strings were also pronounced as *cpar'i in Belarusian, in some of their conversations the s at the beginning of their word will have been dropped due to the fading of the word's meaning (cf. their npoėr'a < gap). This is how *cpar'i became par'i. Variant minor gender Jrar'apbr < par'aJIbI < sruogéles (CBI II 603) due to metathesis. A considerable insight is also necessary in proving the Lithuanian origin of the lexicons pocrau (< skarocius), TpHIOJIATEI (< dribla), atukranas (< sneeze), marnyki (< shapeliukai), apYuka (< lamb), usblp (< gravel), mepar'i ‘reviews- ’, pymaup “toad”, paHusKI “cow horn wageles”, river nickname Mapyr’a and others. This is most clearly evidenced by the meaning of all of them and their relatively large phonetic closeness to Lithuanian sources of the same meaning. Here, p6cxax is a clear metathesis derived from lie. Scarocius, the lexicon TpIr6xūarTa (kapOyka) is undoubtedly derived from lie. dribla+ ater, cf. also driblia “someone of large stature". Her word beginning £— a non-etymological consonant change caused by the process of slavization, when the Lithuanian connection of her sound with meaning was disrupted. The lexical word w3itnaus “plepėti niekus” probably has already acquired a figurative meaning in the Slavic soil, and the Lithuanian dialectic -auslavėdamas of its root has been reduced (see SI. Or. 1990: 317). The lexicon mrarnTyki 'used?, no doubt —lie. intestine. šapelūkai with the fallen non-pronounced e. We are of the opinion that the Lithuanian source of the lexem spYmxa ‘avyte’ — 179