LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997)

LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

Elena GRINAVECKIENĖ

ADAPTATION OF LITHUANIAN LOANWORDS IN BELARUSIAN DIALECTS AND METHODS OF IDENTIFYING THEM

For various political, social, and economic reasons, Lithuanian dialects that in historical times found themselves surrounded by Belarusian dialects and subjected to their assimilating influence adapted to the Belarusian language system, assimilated, and lost many essential features of their native language—especially its vitality, correctness, and expressiveness—while at the same time leaving relatively clear traces of their real existence in those territories. The subsequent development of Lithuanian-origin words that entered and took root in the Belarusian language system is highly varied and, generally speaking, complex. It most often depends on when the Lithuanian loanword was borrowed and on the geography of its appearance. Loanwords that are older and found in Belarusian territories farther from Lithuania have changed and become Slavicized to such an extent that they are often genuinely difficult to recognize. More recent ones, used nearer to the Lithuanian border, have so far succumbed less to this influence, and are generally easier to identify.

Many years of expeditions searching for Lithuanian loanwords in Belarusian dialects (especially in dialects bordering Lithuania and Lithuanian dialect areas) and their detailed study (1956–1996) have provided a considerable amount of new data, reliably bringing to light features of their adaptation to the Belarusian language system, revealing Belarusian overlays, and helping to identify them with fairly high accuracy.

First of all, Lithuanian loanwords usually gradually begin to lose their original (borrowed) Lithuanian form and adapt it unconditionally to the Belarusian language system. Significant qualitative shifts and departures from Lithuanian occur in their form and content; the roles and functions of their constituent parts begin to change, and they acquire features that were initially unfamiliar to them in Belarusian.

A Lithuanian loanword that enters and takes root in Belarusian dialects immediately and suddenly loses its pitch accent. This is because the Belarusian language has no pitch accents. Thus, on merging into them, it sheds its greatest marker of Lithuanian and national identity—its distinctiveness—loses its adornment and becomes impoverished. We have merely observed that, for example, in the vicinity of Kamojys (Pastovys district, Belarus) and elsewhere in Belarusian dialects, Lithuanian-origin place names, river names, surnames, and the like have retained their native acute pitch accent on diphthongs i, u + l, m, n, r and are pronounced clearly (LKK XXX 126–128). But this is, of course, already an atypical, temporary phenomenon. In our view, the disappearance of pitch accents is the clearest sign of the approach of the accentual system of Lithuanian loanwords to that of Belarusian dialects.

171

When it loses its pitch accent, a Lithuanian loanword also immediately and very rapidly loses its Lithuanian stress pattern—it at once obeys the laws governing mobile stress in Belarusian.

For example, the Lithuanian loanwords койш < káušas, лойж < láužas, and others, which had fixed root stress in Lithuanian dialects (e.g., káušas, káušo, káušu, káušai, etc.), now have mobile stress according to the laws characteristic of Belarusian, e.g., койшу, кайша́, кайшо́м... The Lithuanian loanword бо́нда < bandà and others, which formerly had mobile stress (: bandà, bandõs, bandái, bandà...), now have fixed stress (: бо́нда, бо́нды, бо́ндай...), and so on.

Along with the disappearance of pitch accents in Lithuanian loanwords and the erosion of their accentual system, their stressed and unstressed long syllables are also found to become completely levelled with short ones. All the vowels in a Lithuanian loanword lose the distinction between long and short. They all become qualitatively identical, as in Belarusian, e.g., ата́дурам ‘separately’ (< atódurom ‘in isolation’) (СБГ I 103), баже́лка ‘small beet’ Lis. (< buoželė + ka), гаруды (< arúodai), г’ілонь¹ Rod. (< gyluonìs), г’іве́лка ‘pempė’ Achr. (< gyvėlė + ka), Г’убін (LKK XXX 116) ‘forest name’ Rod. (< Guobýnas), кукуць ‘piglet’ (LKK XXX 116); ‘whistle’ (Мат., 86), (< kūkūtis, kaukūtis), купене́ць Rod. (< kopinėti), падзі́нка Kur. (< puodýnė + ka), шніпе́ць Kam. (< šnýpšti), тру́кзель Kir. (< trúkžolė), визикава́ць Bok. (< vyzdėti) ‘to search’, and others.

It has been established that those Lithuanian loanwords whose phonetic system (mainly dialectal) and stress coincide with Belarusian generally do not change their form when becoming Belarusian, e.g., апі́кула ‘lazybones’ (СБГ I 87) (< apýkula ‘same’), бумбе́ла (< dialect bumbėla, b embėlė), кяту́рка ‘slit at the front of men’s trousers’ (СБГ II 597–598) (< ketūrka ‘same’), кумша́ ‘branch paving used to fill ruts in a road’ Rag. (< dialect kumšà, kamšà ‘same’), стадба́ ‘mass’ Kam. (< mišà ‘same’), вяпла ‘scatterbrain’ (СБГ I 389) (< vėpla ‘same’), вягела (СБГ I 389) (< dialect vėgėlà, vėgėlė), вапсва́ (СБГ I 281) (< vapsvà ‘same’), кипа́пла (СБГ II 464) (< kerépla), and many others.

The entire ending -as is dropped only in older Lithuanian loanwords, e.g., apýд (< arúodas), бронкт/брункт ‘branktas’, койш (< káušas), карш (< kéršas), лойж (< láužas), ройст (< raìstas), сцимбу́р (< stim̃būras), склют/шклюот ‘skliutas’, жа́г’ar (< žágaras), and others. If dropping this ending results in two consonants that are harder to pronounce, э(a) is inserted between them, e.g., сві́рэн/сві́ран (< sví̃nas).

There are Lithuanian loanwords in which only the consonant -s is dropped from the ending -as. Masculine nouns are thereby turned into neuter nouns. In this way, Lithuanian words with two genders become Lithuanian loanwords with three genders, e.g., бро́нкта (< bránktas), бе́рала (< bėralas), ‘unwinnowed grain’, ро́йста (< raìstas), шва́рка (< švárkas), хо́хла ‘bristles on an animal’s nape’ (< kák las ‘nape’), ко́та (< akúotas), жлу́кта/жлу́та/жлу́хта ‘žlūgtas’ (СБГ II 1481) < žlúgtas),

¹ In the article, the Belarusian loanwords’ plosive г is represented by a modified letter г with an acute accent—г’.

172

О́пса² (< Ápsas) etc.

Lithuanian loanwords’ endings -is, -ys are generally dropped altogether. The consonants ж, ш when they occur in the ending are pronounced hard, while all the others are soft. For example, г’ир’эль (< gigėlis), г’иль (< gylỹs), куль (< kūlỹs), курмёль ‘a kind of fish’ (< kurmėlis), лаг’ёс (< lagėsis), кукуць (< kukūtis ‘piglet’ and kaukutis ‘whistle’), бродзень (< bradinỹs), пар’гойш (< ragaišis), Абаль ‘surname’ (< Ábuolis ‘Obuolỹs’ < obuolỹs), etc. However, there are cases in which only the ending -s is dropped, for example, скилүндзи (< skilándis), and the loanword form becomes plural; or the ending -is is replaced by -a, for example, шкilėnda (СБГ V 479) < skilándis, and the noun becomes feminine. Closer to the Lithuanian border, loanword endings –as, -is relatively rarely remain intact, e.g., kápklic (< karklỹs) ‘willow’, г’ór’ic ‘an uninvited guest at a wedding’ (< gúogis) Vid., р’эзас (< réžas) ‘a strip of land’, báг’anac ‘hawk’ (< vánagas) Rod., etc.

The ending -a of Lithuanian words generally remains intact in loanwords, e.g., но́шита (< naštà), кумша́ (< dialectal kumšà, standard Lithuanian kamšà), бо́нда (< bandà), стабда́ (< stabdà), вяпла (< vėpla ‘fool’), and others. Sometimes, however, alongside it, the ending -ia also occurs in different dialects, e.g., пу́тра/пу́тря (< putrà). The dialectal ending -a of a Lithuanian word likewise remains intact in the loanword after l has hardened, e.g., бумбяла (< dialectal bumbėla, standard Lithuanian bambėlė).

Since the Belarusian dialect system lacks the vowel ė characteristic of Lithuanian (dialectal ė), it is the first to disappear from Lithuanian loanwords. All loanwords of the ė-stem class, as they become Slavicized, most often turn into the io-stem class, and less often into the o-stem class, e.g., пі́мпа (< dialectal pímpė, standard Lithuanian pėmpė), pav’ге́ня (< raugiénė), сауcéня (< sausiénė), кру́шня (< krūšnė), ду́лька (< dùlkė), Паці́лта (< Patìltė ‘name of a meadow’ Vid., Гертоклі́ня (< Girtuoklýnė) ‘part of a forest’ Vid., пасакі́ля (< rasakìlė), Падру́кша (< Padrūk-šė) ‘name of a meadow’ Vid., вирці́ня (< virtinė), etc. There are cases where the ending ė of a Slavicizing loanword (especially one borrowed long ago) can also be dropped, e.g., я́хждель ‘a kind of sedge’ (< júodžolė ‘ditto’), and its feminine gender becomes masculine.

The ending i-stem loanwords’ ending -is is also generally dropped; the consonant that comes to stand at the end is usually soft, e.g., клець (< klėtis), сверць (< svirtìs), не́марасц (< nėrimastis), etc., although there are cases where their -is is replaced by the ending -ia, e.g., виршня/шивиршня/сибирня ‘a lever’.

Loanwords have also dropped the ending -(i)us (in our material, only surnames), while also eliminating the suffix consonant -v-, e.g., Куле́йч (< Kulėvičius), Лунке́йч (< Lunkėvičius) Rod. This loss of the consonant -v- in the suffix -evič- most likely arose when these surnames were borrowed from Lithuanian (cf. analogous surnames in the vicinity of Dieveniškės, Uscineiči’us ‘Ustinavičius’, Vaškėleiči’us ‘Vaškelevičius’,

2 There are cases where researchers studying the dialect in 1985–1987, without considering the other case forms of the place name О́пса ‘Apsas’ (e.g., édy da О́пса; жыў пад О́псам, etc.), quite irresponsibly treated this neuter place name as feminine and did so throughout their article (see LKK XXVIII 99–117).

173

dar plg. Turska 1982: 67).

Very few Lithuanian loanwords with the ending -uo have been noted, and as they become Slavicized their endings develop in different ways, e.g., стума́ (< stuomuo, or perhaps from stumā) ‘trunk’, шаламянь (< šelmuo, or perhaps from šelmenys).

The nominative plural ending of Belarusian loanwords is always the Slavic -і(ы) and, as in Belarusian, has no gender, e.g., рэзґіні (< rėzginės), бразґуны́ (< brazgūnai), пумпо́лакичы ‘marsh marigolds’ (< dialectal pumpólakščiai), páґуці ‘little sleds’ (< rāgutės), лӯпы (< lūpos), зяўны (< žiāunos), ато́жалы (< dialectal atāžalos, standard Lithuanian ātžalos), бальзе́ни (< balžienai, balžienos), го́хты (< gāktos), жэгґіні (< žaginiai), etc.

Belarusian diminutive suffixes are often added to Lithuanian loanwords, but generally do not give the derivatives a diminutive meaning, e.g., кілічка (< kielė + ічка), капу́шка ‘small mound’ (< kaũp-ti+ушка), ко́йрачка ‘left-handed person’ (< kairỹs+ачка), кло́ўсичка ‘someone who likes listening beneath windows’ (< klaus-ýti+ічка), бу́рбалка (< burbulas+ка), бру́нтачка ‘a pack’ (< бру́нта+ачка, бру́нкта+ачка), подзі́нка (< puodynė+ка), кумпячо́к (< kumpis+ачок), etc.

Although the roots of Lithuanian loanwords are the last to yield to Slavicizing influence and are the easiest means of identifying them, they too undergo various changes and follow a relatively hard-to-predict course of development; their vocalism and consonantism display features often unfamiliar to Lithuanian. As we have already established, in almost all cases the stressed vowel a narrows and becomes o, both in roots and as the first element of diphthongs and diphthongoids, e.g., бо́нда (< banda), бронкт (< brañktas), кро́уш (dialectal kraušas) ‘pear’, ло́уж (< lāužas); пойсать (< paišyti), го́хты (< gāktos), сто́ці (< stāčias), ро́йст (< raistas), сомиц (< sāmtis), etc. (see LKK XXVII 124).

The diphthongs uo and au also disappear from Lithuanian loanwords, since they are not characteristic of Belarusian. As it disappears, the diphthong uo has yielded three types of reflexes in different dialects and at different times: o, a, u, e.g., Ёдлавічы (< dialectal Júodek-nai, standard Lithuanian Júodelėnai), г’а́ба (< guõbas), ару́д (< arúodas) (see LKK XXVII 125–128); au yields four: oy, o, a, u, e.g., ло́уж (< lāužas), ложа́виска (< lāužas+ависка), капу́шка ‘small mound’ (< kaũpti + ушка), куку́цъ ‘whistle’ (< kaukutis³, etc. (see Baltistica 1989: 70–80).

In Belarusian dialects, we find loanwords with an irregularly palatalized root consonant, e.g., кло́ня ‘kneeling’, сюптня ‘suktinis’, кло́мбы ‘clogs’, etc.

The velar n before k and g and the stop g in Lithuanian loanwords undergo Slavicization somewhat less readily; their presence indicates that words retaining them are most often of Lithuanian origin, e.g., инг’ірічнік ‘rainbow’, Ві́нг’ра ‘Vingra, the name of a river near Kamojai Pastoviai.

³ Examples kóūła and k’óūłe ‘pig’ in the texts of the Zietela Lithuanian dialect, published in 1995 and recorded in 1901–1903 by the eminent Polish linguist Prof. J. Rozwadowski, suggest that probably under the influence of Belarusian dialects, the Lithuanian diphthong au may have begun to be monophthongized in the Lithuanian dialect itself while it was still spoken.

174

raj’, púnkili ‘beets’, etc. The areas of Belarusian and Polish territories where such n is encountered are regarded by the Polish linguist H. Turska as areas of Lithuanian substrate (see Turska 1982: 64 et seq.); and the distinguished Polish dialectologist Prof. Stanisław Glinka, having found a velar n, foreign to the Slavic languages, in the Belarusian and Polish dialects around Augustów, rightly considers it a relic of the Lithuanian language spoken in those areas in historical times (Glinka 1990: 119–120 and the map appended).

It has also been observed that Belarusian Lithuanisms have the consonant ch in place of the Lithuanian consonant k, e.g., го́хты (< gáktos), ху́рстацца ‘to move’ (< kùrstytis), рjóхаць ‘to grunt’, хо́хла ‘bristles on a pig’s neck’ (< kákłas), хлúба (< klúbas ‘a mallet’), хайлуха ‘a loose woman’ (< kiaulė+уха), хурну́ (< kurniau), etc. This is nothing other than an indicator of the Slavicization of a Lithuanism; compare also the reverse pattern in Slavic borrowings in Lithuanian dialects: káta (< br. хата), koč ‘although’ (< br. хоць). It is worth noting that some Belarusian dialects also frequently use the Slavic consonant ch in place of k in borrowings from other Slavic languages or from other Belarusian dialects, e.g., ху́ртка ‘jacket’ Sal. (< рус. куртка ‘ditto’), ха́тар ‘inflammation’ (< рус. катар ‘ditto’), хвадра ‘a quarter of a month’ (< рус. квадра ‘ditto’), харму́шка (< рус. кармушка ‘ditto’), хорт Mal. (< рус. курт), хо́хлюш (< рус. коклюш ‘ditto’). In our view, this is a particularly valuable feature, making it possible to suspect that all Belarusian words containing such a ch are either of another origin or have been borrowed from other Belarusian dialects.

Thus, when identifying Belarusian Lithuanisms, it is essential to bear these effects of their Slavicization in mind, take them into account, and apply them.

Lithuanisms are quite difficult to identify when the initial consonant of their root is replaced through non-etymological alternation by another consonant, distorting their original form. The following more frequent cases of such consonant alternation have been observed:

a) Word-initial s- is replaced by š-: шмі́рак ‘crackling’, шклюот ‘skliutas’, шме́рг’я ‘snot’, шло́кшына ‘a layer, bark’, шкіле́нда ‘a small intestine’, шклузбо́к ‘a small intestine’, швіршну́ ‘a spindle’, etc.

b) Word-initial p-, as well as v-, is replaced by the voiced b-, e.g., бу́кшты ‘branches lowered into water for fish to hide in’, бо́йсаць ‘to heed’, бірба́ты ‘drooping’, etc.

c) Word-initial k- is replaced by the voiced g-, e.g., г’яблы (< kėblas), ‘unsuccessful’, глу́мбы/глу́бы (< klùmpės), etc.

d) More rarely, word-initial g- is replaced by d-; l- and n-; j- by l-, e.g., драбе́сты (< grebėstai), ну́рба (< люрба) ‘a thick wood shaving’, лютру́ца (< jùdrė+ца) ‘a weed that twists flax’, etc.

e) Lithuanisms also occur with a stem consonant that has undergone non-etymological change, e.g., пацуба́йла ‘someone who keeps touching things for a long time’ (< dial. рацига́ла, standard Lithuanian pačiupáila), ре́звины (< rėzgìnės), рóyг’aч ‘one who mourns’ (< raudóti+ач), кульня/кульжа́ (< kùlsė), каптано́сы ‘turned-up noses’ (< karkanósis), etc. Belarusian dialects also contain borrowings of this type from other Slavic languages, e.g., трудні (< рус. тру́тни), ярмарка (< рус. ярмарка), etc.

Cases of analogous non-etymological consonant alternation also occur in Lithuanian and

175

among borrowings in Belarusian dialects from other languages or dialects, e.g., šėkštas (< kėkštas); ко́бачка ‘a small hollow below the chest’ (< ко́бачка ‘ditto’), крымытник ‘a certain medicinal herb’ (< Russian трыщутник ‘ditto’), кужу́рка ‘vest’ (< Russian тужурка ‘ditto’), батла́шка ‘a military metal water bottle’ (< Russian баклажка ‘ditto’), etc.

Considerable difficulties in reconstructing Lithuanianisms also arise in cases where the initial consonant of the word, usually a root consonant, has been dropped, more rarely a vowel, e.g., капа́ч (< skaročius), про́га (< spragà), клу́нкі ‘joints’ (< шкулу́нкі < шлу́нкі < šlaunys), рюхаец (< kriūks), иксба́ (< viksva), инг’иру́чник (< vingiarykštis), ко́ткі (< akuotai), виршня ‘lever’ (< свиршня), расхле́йдацца ‘to spread’ and others. Borrowings of this type also occur among borrowings in Belarusian dialects from other Belarusian dialects and from Russian, e.g., япру́к (< вяпру́к), яntroбы (< вентро́бы), ярушка (< дзяру́шка), яўкі (< ва́йкі), and others.

Despite the original form of such lexemes, if it is not sought, rather erroneous and unfounded etymologies sometimes arise. This is what, for example, happened with the aforementioned KÓTKI (akuotai) (ЭСБМ I: 102; V: 104).

As it adapts to Slavic, a lituanism sometimes acquires an additional vowel or consonant, e.g., acbép/ acbíp ‘lever’, rapýd ‘granary’, etc. In these cases, its root remains almost unchanged; the lituanism sounds Lithuanian, and is relatively easy to recognize.

Sometimes a consonant is inserted into the stem of a lituanism, e.g., гу́льшта (< gūžta), клу́нкі ‘joints’ (< шклу́нкі), etc. In general, the consonant inserted into the stem does not greatly affect recognition of the lexeme—its meaning and the Lithuanian sound of the whole word are especially helpful.

Belarusian dialects contain quite a number of lituanisms in which a consonant or even an entire syllable has been omitted (syncope), e.g., непу́м ‘anxiety’ (< restlessness), бру́нта ‘branktas’, шу́мята (< šūmėtė), шу́я (< šunauja), шалау́я (< šalavija), кýраčki ‘heels of the feet’ (< кýкараčki < каūkaras+ачки), etc. Borrowings of this type in Belarusian dialects are also of Slavic origin, e.g., калалу́ха ‘bird cherry’ (< халаха́луха ‘ditto’), калма́шка ‘a type of cart’ (< калама́шка ‘ditto’), мана́рка ‘jacket’ (< мары́нарка ‘ditto’), самаре́ска ‘a machine for harvesting potatoes’ (< саламаре́ска ‘ditto’), ячнíška ‘barley porridge’ (< ячмені́шча ‘ditto’), etc.

The change in the role of a lituanism’s constituent parts within a word, brought about by Belarusian dialects, is clearly illustrated by cases in which the entire lituanism (including its ending) is treated merely as a stem, to which Belarusian endings are attached. For example, dialects spoken by Belarusians living mainly along the Lithuanian border have yielded lituanisms with double endings: the Lithuanian ending is usually the invariant singular nominative ending generalized for all cases, while the Belarusian ending changes as the lituanism is declined, e.g., го́гіцы прышлі да васёлі. Vid. ‘uninvited guests—the guogiai—came to the wedding’; гу́ча го́гіцаў сабралась. Vid. ‘many guogiai gathered’; плялі ко́шчыкі з ка́рклісаў. Vid. ‘they wove baskets from willows’; ба́г’анасы ку́ры ла́паюць. Rod. ‘hawks catch chickens’; тры ре́засы зямлі меў. Rod. ‘he had three strips of land’, etc.

Thus, the function of the Lithuanian word ending is completely isolated in this case, while the word stem is artificially extended. Such a modification of lituanisms, apart from

176

undoubtedly, can often complicate their precise reconstruction.

This also sometimes occurs when, as a result of metathesis, the consonant at the end of a Lithuanian word stem shifts farther toward the beginning of the Lithuanianism, and a different stem consonant comes to stand at its end, e.g., брунткі < брункты (< dialect. brunktai, standard Lith. brañktai), брунтко́у < брунто́ў, прышчы́ць ‘to smart’ (< першы́ць ‘per-šti’), сквярстуне́ (< skerstuvės), карла́па (< кера́пла) ‘clumsy person’, ро́скач (< skaročius), мórва (< мóyра) ‘mud’, ві́схва (< viksva).

Similar cases occur in borrowings from other Slavic languages as well, e.g., ко́блік ‘small tub’ (< ко́блік ‘same’), прае́рх ‘scion’ (< прапе́рх ‘same’).

In fact, other metathetic changes in Lithuanianisms, most often unrelated to their stem-final consonant, also make their reconstruction difficult. Thus, for instance, the Lithuanianism лю́рба ‘thick wood shaving’ (СБГ II 314) has in some places changed into ру́льба ‘same’ (СБГ IV 314), ва́наг’ас into ва́ганас, адбуле́йка ‘contrarian’ into абдуле́йка ‘same’, вірці́нка ‘little cooker’ into вянце́рка ‘same’, не́рымась ‘anxiety’ into не́марась ‘same’, and so on.

Analogous syllable metatheses are characteristic of borrowings in both Belarusian and Lithuanian dialects that entered them from other languages or dialects, e.g., Belarusian лянде́рак ‘small pot with a handle’ (< Polish radełek/rondełek ‘same’), халма́ны ‘poor rags, torn clothes’ (< Polish łakmany ‘same’), радзю́ра ‘coarse sheet’ (< дзярю́ра ‘same’), хруста́лкі ‘strawberries’ (< Polish truskalki ‘same’), etc.; Lithuanian šašvóklė ‘redcurrant’ (< vašóklė ‘same’), etc.

Without knowing the original form of such lexemes and identifying their original root, the possibility of reconstructing them is in practice greatly complicated or disappears altogether. Therefore, in such cases, especially when they are suspected of being borrowings but no further derivatives of them are found in either Belarusian or Lithuanian dialects, it is important to remain convinced that their root is different and to search for it intensively, varying the lexemes in accordance with the combinatory rules of their phonetics.

It is particularly difficult to reconstruct words in Belarusian dialects suspected of being Lithuanianisms when they exhibit not just one but several comparatively complex changes: monophthongization of the root diphthong, non-etymological consonant alternation, deletion of sounds and syllables (syncope), metathesis of syllables, and so on. Thus, after lengthy analyses and comparisons of the lexeme я́дждаль ‘hard marsh grass’ (and its variants), and taking linguistic geography into account, it seems that we have managed to establish that it is probably a compound (яжд-жаль) and should be considered a Lithuanianism. Its source was probably Lithuanian juódžolė ‘baneberry, Actaea spicata’. In its first constituent, ж was probably inserted through assimilation or for other reasons. Thus я́дждаль < я́джаль. For a comparable origin, compare the Lithuanian borrowing šekštárnė ‘gear’ (< šeštarnė ‘same’, LKŽ XIV 617). Its second constituent, жаль, must undoubtedly have arisen from dialectal Lithuanian žálė ‘grass’. The Lithuanianism я́дждаль (with variants) is used in Belarusian territories sufficiently distant from the Lithuanian border (see the map accompanying ABS XX 328); to this day it has preserved in its phonetics the old Lithuanian *ā(> o), and, being comparatively strongly affected by Belarusian dialects, it undoubtedly belongs to the oldest stratum of borrowings. Another compound lexeme with the same meaning

177

ляжджа́й probably arose through metathesis from the variant жяжджэў of its cognate жяжджаль (see ABS XX 326–327). Thus ляжджа́й < жяжджэў; compare Lithuanian šãmalas < mãšalas.

If we have indeed managed to prove this, future etymological analyses of these Lithuanianisms may avoid the mistakes made at the outset of the research, when their Lithuanian counterparts were sought somewhat amateurishly (see Веци 1969: 123–134).

Or consider the sound of the rare, probably also compound lexemes шынтыклёр ‘old-fashioned festive long, narrow skirt with numerous gussets widening toward the bottom’, шантаклёр ‘same’, and other variants: it made us suspect that they might be Lithuanianisms. These words from Belarusian dialects were analyzed for a long time, and we concluded that they are probably once again Lithuanianisms, although they are no longer attested in our language. However, given that it contains semantic equivalents of analogous formation, such as šimt akloščiai (šimtaraukiai, šimtarūkšliai, taip pat šimt akvóldžiai) ‘hundred-fold’ skirts (LKŽ XIV 815, 817), and considering the decidedly Lithuanian ring of the Belarusian lexemes under discussion, there is reason to think that they may indeed once have existed in Lithuanian. We had already suggested (LKK XXII 197–198) that their first constituent could be the word šimtas ‘hundred’, and the second, skliūras ‘piece, patch, strip of cloth’ or kliūrmas ‘piece’ (the latter, we suspect, may also have lost its initial s-; compare also skliùmbas ‘piece’, skliùmbė/sklium̃bė ‘same’). As for the possible derivation of the first constituent шанта of шантаклёр from šim̃tas ‘hundred’, compare Lithuanian šañšūdis < šuñšūdis (LKŽ XIV 505), as well as Lithuanian borrowings šimkarkà (< šinkorkà) ‘woman who pours drinks in a tavern’, šimkúoti (< šinkuóti) ‘to pour drinks’ (LKŽ XIV 811).

The lexemes г’ужалки, бужалки, жужалки, all with the same meaning, namely ‘tadpoles’, also sound Lithuanian to us. However, not only their Lithuanian-sounding form but also their diphthong -al-, which, unlike the full vocalism (polnoglasie) characteristic of Slavic languages (cf. Belarusian галава, Lithuanian galvà, ‘head’), is just like the Lithuanian one, allows us to suspect that their origin may also be Lithuanian. It is noteworthy that no cognates with this meaning have been found in either Belarusian or other Slavic languages. We began comparing these lexemes with one another and analyzing them syllable by syllable. The results of the analysis allow us to regard all three as undoubtedly cognate. All three should be considered compound words. The lexeme г’ужалки probably began with Lithuanian búožgaly(iai) ‘tadpole(s)’ plus the Belarusian suffix – ki. As the Lithuanianism was further Slavicized by the Belarusians, considerable changes to its form occurred under strong superstrate influence. First, the diphthong uo, foreign to the Belarusian language system, was monophthongized; then its initial b, because of the distant regressive assimilation caused by the plosive г’ in the middle syllable of the word, also changed into a plosive г’. Thus: búožgalv(iai) + ki > *буожг’алвкі > бужг’алвкі > г’ужг’алвкі. The preservation of the plosive г’ in this lexeme indicates that it is a Lithuanianism (the plosive г’ does not occur in Belarusian words). Later, as the lexeme became further Belarusianized, its consonant clusters -жг’- and -лвк-, which are in fact difficult to pronounce and unfamiliar to Belarusians, were simplified to -ж- and -лк-.

178

Thus *rūžgalvki > rūžalki (see LKK XXVII 128; LKK XXX 120–121). The lexeme žužalki must likewise have arisen from rūžalki, either through regressive assimilation (:rūž- > žuž-) or through a non-etymological alternation of the word-initial consonants (considered less likely).

It was particularly difficult to demonstrate the Lithuanian origin of the lexeme kykiški ‘heels’ and the many other lexemes with the same meaning (kókawki, kópkiški, etc.). After a detailed analysis and comparison of these forms with one another, in our view we were able to establish with reasonable confidence that they are in fact cognate and genetically related to Lith. kaūkaras, kūkaras ‘hump’ (see LKK XXVIII 162–164).

After lengthy analyses and much deliberation, we have finally, it seems, probably succeeded in establishing the Lithuanian origin of Br. pár’i, lar’а́пы, cypár’i, cypýi and their many variants, all with the same meaning, ‘jets, streams, furrows’. We had long suspected pár’i of being of Lithuanian origin and persistently sought its Lithuanian counterpart, but with little success (Весці 1969: 128, LKK XVI 187, LKK XXVIII 164–165, LKK XXX 116). Later, encountering its variants cypár’i and cypýi with the same meaning, and drawing on the possibility that the Lithuanian diphthong uo regularly changes in Belarusian dialects to i, a, and u (СБГ V 20, 21, LKK XXVII 126–127), we seem at last to have found their precise Lithuanian counterpart. It is Lith. srūogos, which gave rise to various forms in different Belarusian dialects. These borrowings are indeed old in Belarusian dialects and have undergone a long process of development. Thus Lith. srūogos must initially have changed in some places into *cпár’i, elsewhere into *cпýi (cf. г’аб < guóbas and Губін < Guobýnas), which over time may have changed into cypár’i or cypýi, perhaps for ease of pronunciation or due to the law of pleophony (polnoglasie) characteristic of Belarusian, and persisted in these dialects in that form. When Lith. srūogos was still pronounced in Belarusian as *cпár’i, in some of the dialects its initial s- was apparently dropped as the word’s meaning became blurred (cf. their про́г’a < spragà). This is how pár’i arose from *cпár’i. The diminutive form of the variant lar’а́пы is par’а́лы < <sruogelės (СБГ II 603), formed through metathesis.

Considerable insight is also needed when demonstrating the Lithuanian origin of the lexemes pocкач (< skaročius), трыбла́ты (< driblà), чэйдаць (< čiáudėti), шаплукі (< šapelūkai), ярушка (< eriūkas), чвыр (< žvyras), перар’i ‘reviews’, ру́паль ‘toad’, ранцкі ‘grooves in a cow’s horn’, the hydronym Mapút’a, and others. Their meaning and relatively close phonetic similarity to Lithuanian forms of the same meaning provide the clearest evidence. Thus, pocкач is clearly a metathetic formation derived from Lith. skaročius; the lexeme трыбла́та (каро́ўка) is undoubtedly derived from Lith. driblà+атый, cf. also driblià ‘a person of stocky build’. Its initial t- is the result of non-etymological consonant alternation, caused by the process of Slavicization when the Lithuanian link between its sound and meaning had been obscured. The lexeme чэйдаць ‘to chatter nonsense’ probably acquired its figurative meaning already on Slavic soil, while its Lithuanian dialectal root -au- was reduced in the course of Slavicization (cf. Sl. Or. 1990: 317). The lexeme шаплукі ‘worn-out shoes’ is undoubtedly Lith. dialectal šapelūkai, with the unstressed e dropped. We believe that the Lithuanian source of the lexeme ярушка ‘little ewe’ is—

179

eras, eriùkas, which acquired a Slavic suffix. And Belarusian dialect чвыр ‘gravel’ is a derivative of Lith. žvyras formed through non-etymological consonant alternation (cf. also Sl. Or. 1990: 317). The Lithuanian source of the lituanism пераг’і ‘visits to the prospective bridegroom (before the wedding)’ is probably related to the root reg-(-eti), cf. pér-regeti ‘to look over’, pérregos ‘reviews’. The Lithuanian sources of the lituanism pūpaць are undoubtedly our rùpė ‘toad’, rùpečka ‘same’ (LKŽ XI 984); ранцякі, with the same meaning, derives from our rañčiai ‘grooves in a cow’s horn’ plus the Slavic suffix -aki. We have demonstrated that the root -a- in the hydronym Мару́ра ‘a river flowing through Vidžiai’ derives from the diphthong au, and that the root itself is genetically related to maũrai (see LKK XXXII 27) and has nothing to do with the hydronym Marià, as other researchers have maintained until now (see LHD 1970: 192).

There are cases where the phonetics of certain lituanisms has changed more extensively and been affected by the law of pleophony (polnoglasie) characteristic of the Belarusian language system, e.g., шаланя́нь (< šelmenys) ‘grain head’, сивірня ‘lever’, до́ражник (< daržiny-kas), шпірак (< spìrgas), со́мец (< sámtis, СБГ IV 447), and others. They show that these are indeed lituanisms borrowed into Belarusian long ago, old enough to have been affected even by the relatively ancient process of pleophony. Their forms make them fairly difficult to recognize, so in this case their meaning should be relied on more heavily.

The difficulty of recognizing old lituanisms in Slavic languages is also clearly illustrated by some findings from the Lithuanian studies of the distinguished Russian linguists V. Toporov and O. Trubačiov. Identifying the Upper Dnieper hydronym Лоша with a river of the same name in the Astravo district of Belarus, right by the Lithuanian border, and suspecting it to be a lituanism, they derive it, among other possibilities, from Lith. lašìs ‘salmon’, and compare it with Lašupė or the verb lošti ‘to romp, rage’ (see ЛАГВП 1962: 194). However, the Ло́ша, a tributary of the Neris in the Astravo district (and probably also the Upper Dnieper Лоша), derives from Lith. Aluošà/Aluošià. As we have already demonstrated (see LKK XXVII 125), its diphthong uo, being unfamiliar to Slavs, can often become the monophthong o in their dialects, e.g., ако́цця (< akuotai), Ёдупка (< Júodupė), and others. In other Belarusian dialects (or at another time), the uo of a borrowed lituanism may have changed into a (e.g., прывака́ць ‘to lure with a privoklis’ (< privokuóti ‘same’). Sometimes Lith. uo may also correspond to u in Belarusian dialects (this occurs mainly in lituanisms borrowed earlier, e.g., клу́ня ‘hay barn’, etc.). When searching for and studying lituanisms, we should also bear in mind these possible adaptations to the Belarusian phonetic system.

Or take another hydronym from the same Upper Dnieper region, Лампадь. The aforementioned linguists also suspect that it may be a lituanism, but offer no Lithuanian counterpart. Yet Лампадь is probably also undoubtedly a lituanism, with a Lithuanian counterpart of its own. Having established that the diphthong (i)au has yielded the vowel (i)a through Slavicization in certain Belarusian dialects and at certain periods—for example, бля́ць (< bliáu-ti), Мару́ра (< Maurũgà), and others—we are inclined to think that the Lithuanian reflex of Лампадь is most likely a word with the root *Laum-, and that the entire hydronym may well be the compound *Laũmpėdis.

180

We have established that, surrounded by Belarusian dialects and under their strong and ever-increasing influence, the Lithuanian dialect system, still virtually fully alive, is beginning to become Slavic rapidly, abruptly changing its way of expressing thoughts to a Slavic one. Its Lithuanian distinctiveness is being relinquished, and thoughts are being formed on the model of Belarusian expression. Thus, for example, instead of the usual Lithuanian juodmargis (šuo), juodmargė (karvė), following the Belarusian model, isolated Lithuanian dialects first develop expressions that are unnatural in Lithuanian and also rather rare or not entirely usual in Belarusian: juodai baltas (šuo), juodai balta (karvė), and so on; compare Belarusian чёрна-бе́лы (саба́ка), чёрна-бе́ла (каро́ўка). Later, following the common Belarusian expressions рабу́ (саба́ка), раба́ (каро́ўка), Lithuanian speakers also say only márgas (šuo), margà (karvė). Thus, unusual calques from Belarusian dialects arise in our isolated dialects. On the other hand, speakers of those dialects have also contributed some of their own calques to the neighboring Belarusians. For instance, under the influence of Lithuanian, the same adjective juodmargis is rendered in Belarusian, rather unusually, as чернарабу́ (саба́ка), чернараба́я (каро́ўка). In some Belarusian dialects, purely on the Lithuanian model, снег сняжыць is said instead of снег ідзе́ць; the former is not recorded in ТСБМ V 228. Compare Lithuanian sniñga. Or, instead of their own тайнік ‘hideout’, they again use the calque скру́тка from Lithuanian (compare Lithuanian slėptuvė), which is likewise not recorded in Belarusian dictionaries (compare ТСБМ V 186). They also use other calques from Lithuanian dialects, e.g., скра́бачка ‘scraper’ (СБГ IV 457), which their dictionaries likewise lack (compare ТСБМ V 180), and so forth.

As the way of expressing thoughts in isolated Lithuanian dialects in Belarus becomes especially intensively Slavicized, their expression also rapidly becomes Belarusian, and the semantics of individual words changes noticeably. The Lithuanian meanings of some words seem to begin to appear insufficient or imprecise, as though lacking completeness; consequently, influenced by Belarusian dialects, these dialects begin artificially to broaden those meanings. As a result, products of these artificial meanings—Belarusian semantic calques—become especially noticeable in them; these begin to take the place of Lithuanian means of expression and push them out of use. For instance, here, following the model of Belarusian dialects, instead of apkáli (grebėstais), nepavýko dúona, nepàkeliu kvapų and the like—абабіц (г’рабёстамі), не ўда́ўся (хлеб), не знясу́ (запаха́ў)—people now say aprmúzdžic’ (grabėstais), neišdavė (dúona), nesunėšų (kvapų), and the like. In the Slavicized dialects’ Lithuanianisms, such changes in word meanings are already universal. For instance, Lithuanian speakers formerly said here suburbuliávo (balà), užtirpo (pirštai), apgrabėstáu (stógų), prišakal’áų (pirk’ų), whereas now they say only забурбу́ляла (не субурбу́ляла) бало́та, паце́рпнули (не заце́рпнули) па́льцы, награбяста́ў (не аг’рабяста́ў) страху́, нашакаліняу́ (не пры-шакаліняу́) ха́ту, and so on. Calques undoubtedly contribute most to the final integration of Lithuanianisms into the Belarusian dialect system and to the demise of isolated Lithuanian dialects. They are the most dangerous for a dialect undergoing assimilation, but are probably the hardest to notice and recognize.

On the other hand, isolated Lithuanian dialects have passed a considerable number of their own calques on to Belarusian dialects. Thus, following the example of Lithuanian dialects, they say: сасе́кла

181

(булъбы) Kur., сащпіліць (спадніцу) Achr., сасніла (спадніцу) Kur., сасніла (яго́) Sal., сасо́х (часно́к) Vid., саспе́ла (да аўто́буса) Vid., (яна́) састарэла Val., etc., instead of their usual пасёкла (булъбы), зашпіліць (спадніцу), пасліšnila (спадніцу), прысніла (яго́), пасо́х (часно́к), паспе́ла (да аўто́буса), (яна́) пастаре́ла. Compare Lithuanian sukapójau (bùlves), susègti (sijóną), suseiliójo (sijóną), susapnavau (jį), sudžiūvo (česnakai), suspėjau (prie autobùso), (jį) susèno, and so on. This most likely occurred at the very beginning of the assimilation of isolated Lithuanian dialects in these territories, when Belarusian dialects were only then taking shape here. These calques still persist in those Belarusian dialects, although new formations are no longer being made in the same way. And, in fact, they have not harmed those Belarusian dialects.

The features of Belarusian Lithuanianisms raised and discussed here highlight the paths and methods of their becoming Belarusian; reveal the character and tendencies of adaptation and change in a great many of their forms and, in part, meanings; show how to recognize words of Lithuanian origin; provide a basis for establishing their identity with corresponding Lithuanian words; and allow us to better understand the phonetic relations between Lithuanian and Belarusian dialects, which until now have neither been established nor explicitly described. Taken together and considered in light of the differences and similarities between the two language systems, these features constitute a relatively important and reliable source, as well as new concrete material for further dialectological studies of both languages, for research on substrate and superstrate problems, and for the study of Baltic-Slavic language contacts.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

АБС XX: Г р и н а в е ц к е н е Э., М а ц к е в и ч Ю. Ф., Р о м а н о в и ч Е. М., Ч е б е р у к Е. И. Linguogeographical data from Belarusian dialects on Balto-Slavic linguistic relations. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 20, 323–332.

Achr. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1974 expedition to the Achremovcy dialects (Braslaw district, Belarus) (author’s archive).

Baltistica 1989: G r i n a v e c k i e n ė E., M a c k e v i č J. Reflexes of Lithuanian -(i)au vocalism in Belarusian Lithuanianisms. – Baltistica 3 (1). Supplement, 70–80.

Bok. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1972 dialectological expedition to the Bokštai dialects (Vyžiai district, Belarus) (author’s archive).

ЭСБМ I – Этымалагічны слоўнік беларускай мовы 1, Мінск: Навука і тэхніка, 1978.

ЭСБМ V – Этымалагічны слоўнік беларускай мовы 5, Мінск: Навука і тэхніка, 1989.

Glinka S. 1990: Lituanizmy fonetyczne w gwarach białoruskich i polskich Białostocczyzny. – Balto-słowiańskie związki językowe 81, 115–127.

Kam. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1989 dialectological expedition to the Kamojai dialects (Pastovys district, Belarus) (author’s archive).

Kir. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1976 dialectological expedition to the Kiraliai dialects (Ščiūčinas district, Belarus) (author’s archive).

Kur. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1974 dialectological expedition to the Kurapolė dialects (Pastovys district, Belarus) (author’s archive).

ЛАГВП 1962: Т о п о р о в В. Н., Т р у б а ч е в О. Н. Лингвистический анализ гидронимов Верхнего Поднепровья, Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР.

Lis. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1974 dialectological expedition to the Lisno dialects (Verkhnedvinsk district, Belarus) (author’s archive).

182

LHD 1970: V a n a g a s A. Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKK XVI – G r i n a v e t s k i y E., M a t s k e v i c h Yu. F., R o m a n o v i c h E. M., C h e b e r u k E. I. Everyday vocabulary of Lithuanian origin in western Belarus. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16, Lietuvių terminologija, 1975, 163–195.

LKK XXII – G r i n a v e c k i e n ė E. Lithuanian-origin vocabulary in the Belarusian dialects of Lithuania’s border region. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 22, Lietuvių kalbos specialioji leksika, 1983, 182–204.

LKK XXVII – G r i n a v e c k i e n ė E., M a c k e v i č J. Phonetic features of some Belarusian lituanisms. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 27, Lietuvių kalba ir bilingvizmas, 1988, 121–131.

LKK XXVIII – Г а р ш в а К., П о л я к о в О. Lithuanian dialect in the vicinity of Opsa, 99–117; G r i n a v e c k i e n ė E. New lituanisms in Belarusian dialects, 162–166. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 28, Kalbų ryšiai ir sąveikos, 1989.

LKK XXX – G r i n a v e c k i e n ė E. Lituanisms in the Belarusian dialects of the Kamojys area (Pastavy district, Belarus). – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 30, Periferinės lietuvių kalbos tarmės, 1993, 113–133.

LKK XXXII – G r i n a v e c k i e n ė E. Lithuanian-origin place names in the vicinity of Vidžiai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 32, Baltų onomastikos tyrinėjimai, 1993, 21–33.

LKŽ XI – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 11, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978.

LKŽ XIV – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 14, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1981.

Mal. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1980 dialectological expedition to the Malių dialect area (Astravas district, Belarus) (author’s archive).

Mat. – Materials for a dictionary of the Minsk–Molodechno dialects, Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1974.

Rag. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1977 dialectological expedition to the Raguliškiai dialect area (Daugavpils district, Latvia) (author’s archive).

Rod. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1972 and 1982 dialectological expeditions to the vicinity of Rodūnia (Grodno region, Belarus) (author’s archive).

R o z w a d o w s k i J. 1995: Litewska gwara okolic Zdziecioła na Nowogródczyźnie. – Prace Komisji językoznawstwa 59, Kraków.

Sal. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1979 dialectological expedition to the Salos dialect area (Smurgainys district, Belarus) (author’s archive).

СБГ I – Dictionary of the Belarusian Dialects of Northwestern Belarus and Its Borderlands 1, Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1979.

СБГ II – Dictionary of the Belarusian Dialects of Northwestern Belarus and Its Borderlands 2, Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1980.

СБГ IV – Dictionary of the Belarusian Dialects of Northwestern Belarus and Its Borderlands 4, Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1984.

СБГ V – Слоўнік беларускіх гаворак паўночна-заходняй Беларусі і яе пагранічча 5, Мінск: Навука і тэхніка, 1986.

Sl.Or. 1990: Г р ы н а в е ц к е н е А. И., М а ц к е в и ч Ю. Ф., Р а м а н о в и ч Я. М., Ч а б я р у к А. И. Вачыма аўтараў. – Slavia Orientalis 39 (3–4), 309–317.

ТСБМ V – Тлумачальны слоўнік беларускай мовы 5, Мінск: Беларуская савецкая энцыклапедыя імя Петруся Броўкі, 1983.

T u r s k a H. 1982: O powstaniu polskich obszrów językowych na Wileńszczyźnie. – Studia nad polszczyzną kresową 1, Prace językoznawcze 98, 19–121.

Val. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1974 dialectological expedition in the Valyncai dialect (Verkhnedvinsk District, Belarus) (author’s archive).

Вестві 1969: А р а ш о н к о в а А. У., Г р ы н а в е ц к е н е Е. И., К а в а л ь ч у к И. П., М а ц к е в и ч Ю. Ф., Р а м а н о в и ч Я. М., Ш т а л а в а Л. Ф. З лексікі беларускіх гаворак заходняй зоны. – Весці Акадэміі Навук БССР, Серыя грамадскіх навук 4, 123–134.

Vid. – Notes from E. Grinaveckienė’s 1991 dialectological expedition in the Vidžiai dialect (Pastoviai District, Belarus) (author’s archive).

183

THE ADAPTATION OF LITUANISMS TO THE BELARUSIAN DIALECTS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING THESE LOANWORDS

Abstract

This article examines the principal phonetic features of Lituanisms occurring in Belarusian dialects and the processes of their transition into Belarusian. The Belarusian adaptation of Lituanisms is expressed in numerous forms, partly also through the adaptation of meanings to the system of Belarusian dialects, as well as in the concrete character and tendencies of these changes. We also attempt to show how Lituanisms that have penetrated into or been adopted by Belarusian dialects can be recognized and identified as such. The article presents, above all, principles intended to make it possible to interpret the phonetic correspondences between Lithuanian and Belarusian dialects. In this connection, it details the results of long-term research into Belarusian dialects that are significant for the use and theory of loanwords, the problem of substrate and superstrate relations, and contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages.

184