Dėl Zietelos šnektos priklausomybės ir kilmės

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVI (1996) LIETUVIŲ KALBA: TYRĖJAI IR TYRIMAI Aloyzas VIDUGIRIS ON THE AFFILIATION AND ORIGIN OF THE ZIETELA DIALECT The Zietela dialect (Дятлово, Дзятлава, Здетела, Зецело, l. Zdzięcioł) is perhaps the most mysterious of all Lithuanian dialects known to date. It does not coincide with any present-day Lithuanian dialect or subdialect. Various opinions have been expressed about the Zietela dialect and its origin. Most of them, however, lack sufficient substantiation. The aim here is to examine in greater detail the relations between the Zietela dialect and other Lithuanian dialects, provide more authentic data on the Zietela dialect, and offer a few hypothetical reflections. Of all the peripheral Lithuanian dialects, the Zietela dialect lies farthest to the south. It is separated from the Lithuanian state border by more than 100 km, about 20 km beyond the Nemunas, halfway between Lida and Slonim, near the Zietela River (a left-bank tributary of the Maučėdė (Maučadė)). Many linguists of various nationalities have taken an interest in and studied the Zietela dialect: E. Volteris, J. Rozwadowskis, K. Būga, P. Arumaa, J. Gerulis, Chr. Stangas, E. Frenkelis, J. Balčikonis, J. Senkus, T. Sudnik, A. Nepokupnas, and others. Before the Second World War, one of the most prominent Lithuanian and German Balticists and dialectologists of the time, Jurgis Gerulis (G. Gerullis), had probably amassed the largest body of material on the Zietela dialect. He devoted particular attention to the Zietela and Lazūnai* dialects. He visited both dialect areas twice. J. Gerulis first went to Zietela in 1928 or 1929, but on that occasion, because of obstruction by the then Polish authorities, he stayed for only three days (the Polish police expelled him from the village of Zasečiai because he did not have all the necessary documents and permits). He came a second time in 1930 with his assistant, the Norwegian Balticist Chr. Stangas, and stayed for almost a month and a half (from mid-August to the end of September). They were hosted by Kotryna Žukelytė-Juodienė, formerly a teacher in the village of Zasečiai. Unfortunately, all the material collected was lost along with the linguist during the war. Only a few slips of paper bearing words recorded by J. Gerulis for the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language have survived. Prof. J. Gerulis made a deep impression on many with his striking appearance, quick perception, sharp intellect, and wit. In addition, he impressed the people of Zietela because he slept only in the garden, in a sleeping bag (since fleas would bite inside the house). He generously compensated informants for the time they spent. Teacher K. Žukelytė-Juodienė would often repeat that “no one studied the Zietela dialect as well as Professor Gerulis.” In 1958, Chr. Stangas published, together with J. Gerulis, material he had collected in the Zietela area—a brief description of the phonetics and morphology of the dialect of the village of Zasečiai (Stang 1958: 171—201). Probably not without J. Gerulis’s influence, in accordance with the original intention, the Zietela dialect is considered an isolated and the most detached of the eastern Lithuanian dialects. However, because of the pronunciation of the nasal vowels ą and ę and the diphthongs an and en, it is not strictly eastern and stands apart from the other dialects of the Vilnius region (Stang 1958: 173). * J. Gerulis and Chr. Stangas came to Lazūnai from Gervėčiai (DW 1930:176) 127 Indeed, the speech of the Lithuanians of Zietela today does not coincide in its entirety with any existing dialect of Lithuanian. It is as if it were composed of features from various Lithuanian dialects: in some respects it comes closer to the eastern Highlanders, the Vilniškiai, in others to its nearest neighbors, the southern Highlanders, and in still others to the southern western Highlanders (Kauniškiai) and others. Most often, particular features, depending on their distribution or the area occupied by the phenomenon, cover several subdialects or only part of one. Therefore, before beginning to classify the individual features of the Zietela speech according to their differing distributions, it should first be noted that in many general respects, like other dialects, the Zietela speech coincides with and does not differ from the main Lithuanian dialects. The Zietela speech has the same inventory of sounds, mostly the same word-formation and inflectional patterns, and much of the same lexicon and syntax. I. First, the relations between the Zietela speech and the other Lithuanian dialects should be reviewed. Individual features of the Zietela speech are compared in turn with corresponding features of the eastern, southern, and western Highlander dialects, according to their areas of distribution. To locate phenomena shared by Zietela and the speech varieties being compared, data from the phonetics (LKA II), morphology (LKA III), and lexicon (LKA I) volumes of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” (hereafter —LKA) are used. 1. The Zietela speech is associated with the southeastern Lithuanian dialects (i.e., the southern and eastern Highlanders, or only certain parts of them) by the following p h o n e t i c features: a) the vowel a is pronounced instead of word-initial e, e.g. aglė~eglė, aikit~eikit(e), ažeras~ežeras, aža~ežė (cf. LKA II 26—28, map No. 9, 10); b) after a hardened l, the quality of e-type vowels changes, i.e. a, ɛ is pronounced instead of e, ė, e.g., lākia~lėkia, laidžia~leidžia, sāulė~saulė, sāulą~saulą, žolė~žolė (cf. LKA II 33—35, 48—50, map No. 15, 16, 31, 32); c) the unmonophthongized preposition and prefix in ‘į’ are retained, e.g., in lauką~į lauką, in rudenį~į rudenį, in turgu~į turgų, in(t)āugo, inbėgo, inlindo (cf. LKA II 68—69, map No. 53, 54); d) genitive plural forms of ē-stem nouns without affricates bitį~bičių, mergytį~mergyčių and the 1st person singular past simple forms of ē-stem verbs jėdiau~ėdžiau, metiau~mečiau are used (cf. LKA II 95—96, map No. 80); e) the archaic ending stress is retained in the 1st and 2nd person singular forms of future-tense verbs, e.g., aisù~eisiu, aisi~eisi, nešù~neštu, nešì (cf. LKA II 177, map No. 108); f) nouns with the suffix -ėja are stressed according to the third accent paradigm, e.g., audėja, pjovėja (cf. LKA II 128—129, map No. 110); m o r p h o l o g y: a) forms of įo-stem nouns are used instead of įo-stem forms, e.g., jaučias ”jautis”, medžias ”medis” (cf. LKA III 23—24, map No. 2, 3); b) oxytones are used instead of nouns of the įįo stem with barytone stress, e.g., sprindys, žvirblýs (cf. LKA III 24, 26, map No. 5, 8); c) the dative singular ending of masculine nouns is -(i)u (standard Lithuanian -ui), e.g., árkliu ”arkliui”, piemeniu ”piemeniui”, žmogù ”žmogui” (cf. LKA III 40—43, map No. 36, 39); d) the inessive and illative forms of motion toward an interior location are used, e.g., tanà laukàn ”į tą lauką”, pirkčion, laukiuosna, tvartuosnan (cf. LKA III 54—55, map No. 48); e) the nominative forms of personal pronouns are ānas, -à, ānys, -os ”jis, ji, jie, jos”. 128 Certain identical words (lexemes) or their variants are used: a) akėčia ‘an implement for loosening soil, harrow’ (cf. LKA I 107—108, map No. 47); b) apušė~epušė ‘aspen’ (cf. LKA I 165—166, map No. 92); c) brauktuvė ‘an implement for scutching flax, scutching tool’ (cf. LKA I 122, map No. 59); d) dalgė ‘a tool for cutting grain or grass, scythe’ (cf. LKA I 111, map No. 50); e) niekočia ‘a hollowed-out elongated vessel, trough’ (cf. LKA I 67—68, map No. 21); f) pirčia ‘a peasant dwelling, house’ (cf. LKA I 34, map No. 2), and so on. 2. No features have been recorded that link the Zietela speech exclusively with the eastern Highlander Vilniškiai dialect while distinguishing it from the southern Highlanders. There are only morphological features. From a diachronic perspective, however, these are mostly archaisms, once widely used, as old written sources show: a) forms of the subjunctive with postpositions -be, particles that have lost their morphological meaning, e.g., būčiabe, nešččiobe, būtbūbe, sukčiobės. In the Zietela speech, the consonant of these particles has become voiceless, e.g., būčiap, dirpčiap, aičiapė, sukčiapės, siktųsčpės. The Gervėčiai dialect has k instead of the particle b(p): būčiak, naveičiak, aitųk. sūčkiakės (cf. LKA III 107—108, 111—112, map No. 103, 104, 107); b) four locative cases have survived only in the peripheral Lithuanian speech varieties (Dieveniškės, Gervėčiai, Lazūnai, and Zietela), of which most are disappearing forms—the present adessive, e.g., arklėp, bėrnip, manip, mūsip, kárveip, vištàip, and the directional allative, e.g., arkliop, josp, mūsumųp, namóp (cf. LKA III 55—56, map No. 48); c) among the speech varieties of eastern Lithuania, the athematic 3rd person present-tense verb form ait or aĩt ‘goes’ is used only in Zietela and Lazūnai (cf. LKA III 89—90, map No. 87). This correspondence, however, is not fundamental, since the Lithuanians of Lithuania Minor had this form, and western Samogitians have developed an entire paradigm on its basis. In general, the Lazūnai and Zietela speech varieties share quite a few other features as well, e.g., the form būsta is used instead of būva or būna (cf. LKA III 91, map No. 84); gỹsta instead of gỹja (cf. LKA III 91—91, map No. 88); giema, alongside Zietela giėsta ‘sings’ (cf. LKA III 88—89, map No. 85); diminutives with the suffix -àitas, -(i)ù, e.g., Lazūnai mergutà, mergùtos, Zietela kiškùtas, mergùčios, vaikùtas; the word žáisti, žáidžia, žáidė: 1. to play (a musical instrument), 2. to play (cards, chess), 3. to frolic, run about, and so on. 3. Several features link the Zietela speech with the southern and southern western Highlanders, or certain parts of them: in phonetics, the mixed diphthongs am, an, em, en are retained intact, e.g., kãmpas, lángas, penkì, sémti (cf. LKA II 83—88, map No. 68—71); in morphology: a) the 1st person singular forms of athematic verbs in the future tense are used, e.g., būsu ‘I will be’, aisù ‘I will go’, sakỹsu ‘I will say’ (cf. LKA III 104, map No. 102); b) 2nd person singular subjunctive forms with the “Dzūkian” ending -ai, e.g., būtài, sakýtai, sùktai, atsiuktái, and only occasionally būtum, būtumei (cf. LKA III 108—109, map No. 105); c) diminutives with the suffix -ùkas, e.g., arklùkas, bernùkas, grūdùkas, occasionally bernùkas (cf. LKA III 130—131, map No. 116); d) generalized formation of verbs with the suffix -yti, e.g., augỹti, kabỹti, lỹgyti, skūbyti 129 (cf. the distribution of the latter derivative in LKA III 151, map no. 142); in vocabulary: a) kiemas “an open area beside a dwelling” (cf. LKA I 45, map no. 9); b) klonis “an elongated depression in the ground, a valley” (cf. LKA I 178—179, map no. 103); c) vežimas “a horse-drawn vehicle, cart” (cf. LKA I 89—90, map no. 34). 4. There are more features by which the Zietela dialect is distinguished from the southern and eastern Highland dialects and coincides with the southern subdialects of the Western Highland dialect, both with the so-called Kaunas dialects and with the dialects of the white-aproned and striukių speakers of the former Lithuania Minor. Several such common features are worth mentioning: The phonetic features in common are essential: a) the shortened acute-stressed ending vowels a (<*ǫ́<*án), e (<*ę́<*én) remain unchanged, e.g., the instrumental singular forms of ā-stem and ē-stem nominal words used adverbially — ā, į ā ir ē — basaminčia “barefoot,” nakčia, pakluone, tadā (cf. LKA II 23—24, 35—36, map nos. 5, 17), and the inessive singular forms of o-stem nominal words — o — kelē “on the road, on a journey,” klūone, tvārte (cf. LKA II 35, map no. 17); b) the circumflex nasal vowels ą, ę (<*an, *en) in roots and endings are generally preserved unchanged, e.g., grąžtas, grąžtēlis, tęsa “it continues,” tęsiotis, tę kārvę, raṅką, pripūvę (cf. LKA II 61—67, map nos. 44—51). Only the circumflex nasal vowel ą is mostly reflected by the diphthong -ai, as in Lithuania Minor, and more rarely in the Kaunas dialects, e.g., gelāistuwas “scraper,” pagelāisk “scrape,” kaisnūs “a splinter,” kāisni “the splinter,” inkāisk “bury” (Gerullis, Stang 1933: 9,11), and perhaps the instrumental singular forms of ā-stem and ē-stem nominal words ā, į ā ir ē sa baltā rankāi, sa didelai kārvei. The word áržuolas “oak” is pronounced exactly as in the southern Western Highland dialects, the Kaunas dialects (cf. LKA II 61—62, map no. 44); c) the first element of stressed circumflex mixed diphthongs i, u + l, m, n, r does not lengthen, e.g., dirba, kūlsim, pilnas, stūmti (cf. LKA II 38—39, map no. 20); d) in the future tense, the 3rd-person endings in y of secondary ā-stem verbs with the suffix -yti are not shortened, e.g., ā darȳs, prašȳs, sakȳs (cf. LKA II 60—61, map no. 42); e) like Western Highland speakers, the Zietela speakers do not dzūkify, i.e. they say, for example, áudžia, jáučiai, nakčia || nakčiái, dvi, marti, pati (cf. LKA II 93—97, map no. 80); f) the consonant t in shortened infinitives is always pronounced as a hard consonant, e.g., dirbt, nėšt, pjāut (K. Būga even wrote the Russian hard sign ъ after this t — būt, sakytō, siūtō (cf. LKA II 106—107, map no. 90). In morphology, the use of momentary verbs with the suffix -telėti is noteworthy, e.g., áikštelėti, bāchtelėti “to make a little bang,” žvīltelėti “to glance” (cf. LKA III 152, map no. 143): southern Highland dialects have only -terėti or -terti. Individual words (vocabulary) also distinguish the Zietela dialect from the southern Highland dialects and sometimes link it to Western Highland and other dialects: giriā “a wooded place, any kind of forest” (cf. LKA I 191—192, map no. 113), vedegā “an axe with a curved blade for hollowing out troughs and tubs” (cf. LKA I 187, map no. 33), as well as various other words whose distribution has not been studied, e.g., kārtis “a long, thin, limbed tree trunk”: southern Highland šatrā; mélžti “to milk”: southern and eastern Highland Vilnius dialects láidytį; mūlkti “to swallow” (a word from the dialects of Lithuania Minor), etc. 130 5. There are few features that link the Zietela dialect exclusively with the southern Highland dialects. Among the phonetic features shared by the southern Highland dialects and the Zietela dialect, one may point to the fairly widespread pronunciation of e lengthened under stress in all syllables, regardless of the composition of the following syllable, e.g., dėst “puts,” gėrt, gėria, kėlia, nėša, párneše, svẽčias, vaikẽlis, vẽda; J. Rozwadowski transcribes 'a: d'ága, šilt'ális. Probably as a result of contact with southern or eastern Highland speakers, some speakers of the Zietela dialect used į, ų instead of the nasal vowels ą, ę, e.g., ištįst, prispejį “ripe,” tį~tę “there,” tusýt~tusýt, or they dzūkified, e.g., padžuk(u)odavo, e.g., ciesą~tiesą, cionáik~cionáik, dzieškà~dzieškà (Slavic “bread tub”), skaudžia~skaudžia instead of skaust, skaūsti “it hurts,” and so on. In morphology, a feature shared by the Zietela dialect and the southern Highland dialects is the ending -sa in the plural locative (inessive), e.g., juosà, klūonuosà, namuosà, savosà pirkiosa, vienuosà marškinuosà (cf. LKA III 72—73, map no. 67); in vocabulary, some words or their forms, e.g., dirgėlė “nettle” (cf. LKA I 167—168, map no. 94), priemnė “vestibule” (cf. LKA I 38, map no. 5), etc. 6. There is considerable temptation to link the Zietela dialect with the so-called priedžūkis (in the old dialect classification, the southern part of the Central Highland dialect area around Birštonas, Jieznas, and Stakliškės). These localities lie within the area of hardening of į, which is crossed by several isophones narrowing the nasal vowels ą, ę; they exhibit the aforementioned forms without affricates (bìtų, áudiau), and diminutives with the suffix -utas are used (kiškūtas, vaikūtas), among other features. The problem, however, is that the Zietela dialect, with its variety of phenomena, cannot be confined solely to the priedžūkis area. 7. In some of its individual features, the Zietela dialect also extends beyond all the dialects discussed. For example, the lengthened e in the comparative degree links the Zietela dialect with the northern dialects of Lithuanian: brangẽsnis, garãšnis, mažãšnis. Other features, for example the 3rd-person form of the past simple tense bìt, bìti “was,” as well as the use of the preposition and prefix sa instead of su, direct attention to the now-extinct Lithuanian dialects of Lithuania Minor. All the comparisons and contrasts presented here between features of the Zietela dialect and those of the principal Lithuanian dialects are, of course, tentative. Many of the items being compared are undoubtedly separated by a vast span of time. Over many years or centuries, the distributions of these features may have changed substantially; the isophones or isoglosses separating or connecting these phenomena may have shifted considerably in one direction or another, and innovations may have arisen. The Zietela dialect, too, has no shortage of new features, especially borrowings. At the same time, it has preserved many old features that have largely disappeared from the principal Lithuanian dialects. A comparison of the more characteristic features of the Zietela dialect with corresponding phenomena in the eastern, southern, and western Highland dialects shows that the Zietela dialect is distinctive and does not fully coincide with any one Lithuanian dialect. In the Zietela dialect, as in the neighboring southern Highland dialects, two distinct strata or streams seem to have merged: eastern (southern) Highland and western Highland. When the Zietela dialect is compared with the southern Highland dialects, the difference is that the southern Highland subdialect has been overlaid by a fairly thick layer of the eastern Highland dialect, while 131 The Zietela dialect still retains a predominant Western Aukštaitian dialectal basis. This indicates that, as the Zietela dialect was forming, its ties with the Southern Aukštaitians were limited. II. The question of the origins of the Lithuanians of Zietela is considerably more complicated. Until now, the prevailing view has been that Zietela is a dialect of Prussian migrants, which became fossilized amid the Slavs from the 13th century onward. The entry in the Hypatian Chronicle, which appeared around 1276, helped give rise to this view: it records that Traidenis received Prussians who had fled German bondage, settling one group of them in Gardinas and another in Slanimas (PSRL II:874). Some scholars believed that Prussians had settled around Zietela (Keppen 1927: 39; Volter 1912: 151—160), while others thought they were Sudovians (Yotvingians) (Kamiński 1953: 63; Otrembskij 1961: 7—8). The first researcher of the Zietela dialect, E. Volter, also cited further passages from the Chronicle of Dusburg, which discuss inhabitants of the regions of Pogesania and Barta who fled to the Gardinas region under Lithuanian rule after the suppression of the Prussian uprising. He was the first to point out several distinctive features of the Zietela dialect that recall the Western Balts (Volter1912: 152—160). Of course, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Prussian or Sudovian refugees settled around Zietela. Perhaps, however, scholars have accepted the chroniclers’ allusions too uncritically, as a ready answer to the question of how Lithuanians came to be around Zietela. No one asked how Western Balts who had entered a Slavic environment could have become Lithuanian. As if the name of the Lithuanian duke Traidenis alone were enough. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that those settlers must have been influenced by the Lithuanian state, into which this region was incorporated from the mid-13th century. However, given the self-government and administrative apparatus of the time (whose Lithuanian character, if such an apparatus even existed, is highly doubtful), it is difficult to imagine such an isolated transformation of Sudovians or Prussians into Lithuanians (their becoming Lithuanian). The Zietela dialect system itself, its relations with other Lithuanian dialects, and its geographical location all compel us to pose the question of the origins of the Lithuanians of Zietela in an entirely different way. Geographically, the Zietela dialect lies in the former ancient lands of the Sudovians (Yotvingians, or Dainavians; for their names, see Būga 1961: 126—130; Zajączkowski 1940: 57—76), which the Eastern and Western Slavs began colonizing early. From the southeast, Eastern Slavic fortresses were built one after another here in the 11th century—Valkaviskas, Slanimas, Zditovas, Zaslavlis, Minskas, Naugardukas, and Gardinas—from which tribute was collected, Christianity was proclaimed, and the local population assimilated. From the southwest, the Poles pushed aggressively into Prussian and Sudovian lands. Unable to overcome Prussian and Sudovian resistance on their own, in 1230 they called on the Teutonic Order for help from Hungary (Dundulis 1968: 38). In 1254, an alliance of Galicia-Volhynia, the Duke of Masovia, and the Teutonic Order was formed specifically against the Sudovians, with the aim of dividing the conquered lands (Tautavičius 1994: 4). The territory inhabited by the Sudovians gradually shrank. To the south, historians distinguish three more prominent boundaries—the Bug, its tributary the Narew (Narvis), and finally the Narew’s tributary, the Biebrza (Tautavičius 1994: 6). In the 13th century, just before their extermination, the Sudovians are located north of the Biebrza and Łuk rivers, between the middle Nemunas and the Raminta Forest (Nalepa 1964: 60; Ivinskis 1990: 43). Beyond these boundaries, Sudovians were for the most part merely migrants (Kamiński 1953: 63 ff.; Nalepa 1964: 11—60). In our view, these Sudovian boundaries were more political than genuinely ethnic. In lands colonized by outsiders, both Lithuanians and Sudovians and Prussians undoubtedly remained for a long time— 132 —both Lithuanians and Sudovians and Prussians. Was it not because of the Baltic tribes living here and their resistance that the upper southern Nemunas region (the areas of Valkaviskas, Słanimo, Zditovo, Naugardukas, and Gardinas) came to be called Black Ruthenia?! The memory of the Sudovians who lived in the western part of this area survived until the mid-19th century (Gaučas 1974: 21—24). Place names also attest to the long-standing presence of the Sudovians here. Besides the well-known Kšna, a left tributary of the upper Bug Kirsna (see V. Toporov 1959: 251—261), and compounds containing the element -da (Jaselda, Sokolda; Būga 1961, 601—602), river names worth mentioning include Žėlva (a left tributary of the Nemunas and a town in the Gardinas region), Žietela (a left tributary of the Maičėdė, formerly a lake and a town, now Diatlovas in the Gardinas region), and the villages Dainava, Zasėčiai (in the Zietela area). The name of the lake in the birthplace of A. Mickevičius, Svitezj (or Svitiazi), which literally corresponds to the Sudovian name of a lake in the Alytus district, Svaitingis (A. Nepokupno’s comparison), attests to long-lasting Baltic-Slavic bilingualism. The origins of these hydronyms alone cannot be explained by Western Baltic migrants. In southern Lithuania, the use of s instead of š is apparently archaic (and Sudovian in the case of the river name Visinčia, a right tributary of the Šalčia in Šalčininkai district); compare Vaišėtis (a lake in Trakai district), Veisiejis (a lake in Lazdijai district), Vėžintas (a lake in Anykščiai district), and Viešintà (a river in Kupiškis district) (Skardžius 1973: 70; differently, Vanagas 1981: 388). In the dialects of the Šalčia and Visinčia river basins, the diphthongal sequence ie often becomes a monophthong i, e.g., gìdó ‘sang’, prìmė ‘accepted’ (cf. LKA I 38, map no. 5). Interestingly, the upper course of the Visinčia exactly coincides with the isophone of tautosyllabic diphthongs am, an. Perhaps place names without affricates should be classified among Sudovian names, e.g., Minàitai (a village in Lida district; compare Mináičiai, a village in Šiauliai district), Skubėtai (a village in the Jasiūnai area of Vilnius district), Žlàuktai<* Žlàugtai<* Žliaugtà river (a village in Šalčininkai district); compare Pabėtai (a village in the Labguva area), Šuketai (a village in Šakiai district), and others. Elements of language characteristic of (or attributable to) the Western Balts have also survived in the Zietela dialect. These are mostly features that have disappeared elsewhere or whose traces are found in the presumed former Western Baltic lands, particularly those of the Sudovians. Most of them are phonetic in nature. The Zietela dialect, like the southern subdialects of Western Aukštaitian, has perhaps best preserved the Western (Sudovian) vowel system: 1. The previously mentioned “un-darkened” tautosyllabic diphthongs am, an, em, en, nasal vowels ą, ę, and shortened acute-stressed endings -a, -e (incidentally, the modern standard Lithuanian language, formed on the basis of the southern subdialects of Western Aukštaitian—those of the so-called Kapsai, Zanavykai, present-day Kauniškiai, as well as the Baltsėrmegiai and Striukiai in Lithuania Minor—sometimes makes it difficult to perceive the archaism of those dialects); 2. The ongoing process of the diphthong ei changing into ie (e.g., svìėkas, sviekatà, pasvėik and sveikas, sveikatà, šievà, less often tìep (< teip), more often tep, and only vie-kest, vi-kėst ‘rather’; 3. Perhaps also the change of vowel u to i before the consonant v in the words brivai ‘in the blink of an eye’, liežùvis ‘tongue’, žìvis ‘fish’ (Volter 1912: 158); 133 4. Irregular shortening of the singular nominative ending, e.g., arkliukas ”arkliukas”, nieks, vaiks (Būga 1961: 136; Zinkevičius 1987: 262). Among the more characteristic remnants of ancient consonantism, the following should be mentioned: 1. Regular pronunciation of the consonant z instead of ž in the words bažnyčia, žąsis ”žąsis”, or alternation with žemė, žėⁱmà, žuvis, žvaigždė, more often žvėris, zverys, žėmė, žamė, žiemà, žiùvs, žvaigždė, less often žvėris, etc. The consonant s instead of š is most often pronounced before the consonant v, e.g., svéntina, svỹ(k)ščia, svìr(k)ščia alongside švéntina, švỹ(k)ščia, švìr(k)ščia ”švilpia”. It is possible that the consonants s, z instead of š, ž have been preserved or have arisen through analogy with the corresponding sounds of Slavic languages, but it is unlikely that this can entirely rule out the role of the West Baltic substrate. All the more so since this phenomenon has also survived along the southern fringes of the Southern Aukštaitian area (around Druskininkai, Kabeliai, etc.); 2. Probably an archaism dating from the Sudovian period is the use of the consonant clusters st(rt.), šč, št, žd without intrusive consonants k, g (if this is not a reverse development, i.e. simplification; cf. Endzelīns 1974: 430–431), e.g., aúštas, sometimes áukštas, paũštė ”paukštis”, mỹstė ”ryškstė” (cf. Prussian ryste), rúštas, rũštus ”rūgštus”, skráždė ”kregždė”, suìrščia~suìrščia, žvìrždos ”smėlis, žvirgždas”, but usually anksti, mègsta, mińkštas; 3. The emergence of the consonant j in place of v in the singular instrumental and sometimes singular adessive forms of personal pronouns, e.g., sajĩm ”savimi”, tajĩm ”tavimi”, less often sajĩp, tajĩp ”tavip” (cf. Prussian màim and the Lazūnai dialect maimì, taimì, maimīn, taimīn); 4. Irregular consonant changes, among which the consonants t, d somewhat more often become k, g before front vowels, as also occurs along the southern fringes of the Southern Aukštaitian area, e.g., less often girgėjau, dialectal girdėjau, gĩrsa < dĩrsa, dĩrsė, kìltas, dialectal pàdegė, dialectal pàdegė, šìlkis, dialectal šìltis ”šiluma, ugnis, žiburs”, viršùkinė, dialectal viršùtinė; 5. Limited use of affricates, e.g., dañčio ”danties”, danteĩ ”dantys”, gaidỹ, gardỹ, gaidžiãmì ”gaidžiams”, jáutìus, ramteĩs, žodeĩ ”žodžiai”, žodžius, žodeis, alongside dañčio, gaidžių, žodžiais, not counting regular forms explicable by analogy—bitù, éduau, metùai, etc. Some features mentioned here among phonetic phenomena may be treated as morphological, e.g., o the nominative singular ending -as of stem nouns is sometimes shortened, as are the distinctive singular instrumental forms of personal pronouns. Among morphological phenomena should be included the second-person singular form of the subjunctive with the ending -ai, e.g., būtai, aitai, sakytai. The fact that this innovative ending is quite old is indicated by its preserved acute stress in Southern Aukštaitian and its distribution from the Curonian Lagoon in Lithuania Minor (Gerullis, Stang’as 1933: 48) to the isogloss am, an and Zietela in the southeast (LKA III 108—409, map no. 105), i.e. in the presumed lands of the former Sudovian, Nadruvian, and Skalvian tribes. The third-person past-tense form bit(i) (cf. Latvian bija ”buvo”), the preposition and prefix sa(-), etc., were probably inherited from the language of the West Baltic tribes. Unfortunately, too little is currently known about the Sudovian language itself. At present, individual relics and archaisms are mostly being sought. It is thought that Sudovian was intermediate between Lithuanian and Prussian, but it is unknown how much it retained in common 134 features both with one language and with the other. It is also unknown how many and what features the assimilated descendants of the Sudovians today inherited, and how many new ones they acquired from the Lithuanians and Slavs. The influence of the Lithuanians and their language on the Sudovians and their nearest neighbors is thought to have begun to make itself felt from the 5th–7th centuries AD, when the East Slavs began to press into the eastern (central) Baltic lands (Mažiulis 1994: 6). Among the West Balts, quite a number of Lithuanian refugees from the eastern regions probably also settled. Other Baltic tribes were soon drawn into the process of Lithuanian ethnogenesis. Apparently, by the beginning of the 13th century, even before the Teutonic Order arrived, many Sudovians, like their nearest neighbors, the Nadruvians and Skalvians, had already become strongly Lithuanianized or assimilated into the Lithuanian population. The process of Sudovian assimilation must have taken place in much the same way around Zietela. It is possible that, at some point, a boundary between the Sudovians and the Lithuanians, who were under intense pressure from the East Slavs, ran through Zietela. This is suggested by a village in the vicinity of Zietela that has two names: in Lithuanian Dainavà, and in Slavic Jatviaž (Jacvež). Both names are of ethnonymic origin and refer to the same Sudovian tribe. For this reason, the Lithuanian origins not only of this village but also of the Lithuanians in the Zietela area are often explained by reference to the Prussian or Sudovian refugees mentioned in the Hypatian Chronicle. However, since Lithuanians and Sudovians began mixing early on, the Sudovians need not be regarded as the only newcomers. After all, the Slavs themselves are also thought to have been newcomers. On the other hand, even if there were villages here founded by migrating Sudovians, the double name of the village of Dainava alone reveals that they had settled among their Lithuanian or Lithuanianized kinsmen. In this way, over time, other isolated Sudovian settlements farther south and southwest (around Gärdinas, Slänimas, Valkaviskas, Prużanas, Bälstogė, etc.) apparently became Lithuanianized as well. This is evidenced by the considerable surviving strata of Baltic and Lithuanian toponymy, anthroponymy, and loanwords, as well as traces of Baltic and Lithuanian culture (Nepokupnyj 1976: 5—198; Nepokupnas 1983: 5—199; Laučiūtė 1982: 9—150; Kondratiuk 1985: 10—250; Zinkevičius 1987: 43—135; 1993: 84—89; 1994: 15—23; Gaučas 1988: 195—213; LTE IX: 241). The Zietela Lithuanian dialect, which early came under the rule of the East Slavs (the princes of Halych-Volhynia) and within their cultural sphere, was separated for a long time from the main Lithuanian dialects. The broad belt along the Neman had been severely depopulated and turned into wasteland as a result of the constant raids and fighting by the East Slavs and even the Tatars against the Sudovians and Lithuanians (Łowmiański 1931: 56—57). During the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, when the wars subsided, those areas were resettled, but now largely by a mixed population. From the 14th century to the middle of the 17th century, the areas inhabited by Lithuanians extended—though not always continuously—as far as Zietela and beyond (cf. Zinkevičius 1993: 31—39; 1994: 19—23 and the maps included there). Unfortunately, as Lithuanian statehood weakened and the Lithuanian nobility and Church rapidly Polonized, conditions for the survival of the Lithuanian language became extremely unfavorable. The wars with Russia and Sweden cost many lives, especially the cruel Russian military occupation in the 17th century, the ensuing famine, and several plague epidemics. Large areas inhabited by Lithuanians between Zietela and the Southern Aukštaitians declined. Consequently, many sound changes and other changes that took place in the Southern Aukštaitian dialect did not reach the Zietela dialect. 135 LITERATŪRA Būga K. 1961: Lietuvių tauta ir kalba bei jos artimieji giminaičiai. — Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 126—156; Jotvingių žemės upių vardų galūnė -da. — Ten pat, 601—602. Dundulis B. 1968: Lietuvių kova dėl valstybinio savarankiškumo 15 amž. Vilnius: Mintis. DV 176 — Dzienik Wileński, 176, 1930. Endzelīns J. 1974: O savočných k i g v baltijskich jazykach. — Endzelīns J. Darbu izlase 2, Rīga: Zinātne, 420—433. Gaučas P. 1974: Jotvingiai 19 a? — Mokslas ir gyvenimas 2, 21—24. Gaučas P. 1988: K voprosu o vostočnych i južnych granicach Litovskoj etničeskoi territorii v srednevekovje. — Balto — slavjanskie issledovanija 1986, Moskva: Nauka, 159—213. Gerullis J., Stangas Chr. 1933: Lietuvių žvejų tarmė Prūsuose, Kaunas. Ivinskis Z. 1990: Lietuvos istorija. Lietuvos kraštas ir kaimynai. — Tautinė mokykla 5, 42—45. Kamiński A. 1953: Jaćwież. Łódź. Keppen P. 1827: O proizchoždenii, jazyke i literature litovskich narodov, SPB. Kondratiuk M. 1985: Elementy bałtyckie w toponimii i mikrotoponimii regionu Białostockiego, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Polskiej akademii nauk. Laučiute J. 1982: Slovarj baltizmov v slovianskich jazykach, Leningrad: Nauka. LKA I — Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1, Lek­sika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. LKA II — Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 2, Fonetika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. LKA III — Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 3, Morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991. Lowiański H. 1931: Studja nad początkami społeczeństwa i państwa litewskiego 1, Vilno. LTE I — Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 9, Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis V. 1994: Prūsai ir kiti vakarų baltai. — Prūsijos kultūra, Vilnius: Academia, 4—9. Nalepa J. 1964: Prowizoryczna mapa plemion jaćwieskich. — Nalepa J., Jaćwięgowie. Nazwa i lokalizacja, Białystok: Panstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe — Warszawa. Nepokupnas A. 1983: Baltai slavų giminaičiai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Nepokupnyj A. 1976: Balto — severoslavjanskie jazykovyje sviazi, Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Otrembskij J. 1961: Jazyk jatviagov. — Voprosy slavianskogo jazykoznanija 5, Moskva. PSRL II — Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej 2, SPB, 1908. Salys A., Ivinskis Z. 1963: Sūduviai. — Lietuvių enciklopedija 29, Boston, 114—125. Sedov V. V. 1987: Balty. Finno—ugry i balty v epochu srednevekovja, Moskva: Nauka, 411—419, Karty 1, 48. Skardžius P. 1973: Lietuvių vandenvardžiai su -nt-. Jų daryba, kilmė, reikšmė. — Lituanistikos darbai 3. Brooklyn, 9—72. Stang Chr. 1958: Die litauische Mundart von Zasėčiai im Gebiet von Wilna. — Norsk Tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 18, Oslo, 171—201. Tautavičius A. 1994: Jotvingiai, dainaviai, sūduviai, polekšėnai ir... — Lietuvos mokslas 2, Kn. 1(2), 4—14. Toporov V. N. 1959: Dve zametki iz oblasti baltijskoj toponimii. — Rakstu krājums, Rīgā: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība, 251—261. Vanagas A. 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Volter E. 1912: Sledy drevnich Prusov i ich jazyka v Grodnenskoj gub. — Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk 1911, 16, Kn. 4, SPB, 151—160. Zajączkowski S. 1940: Kajp jotvingiai buvo vadinami viduriniais amžiais. — Lietuvos praeitis 1, sąs. 1, Kaunas, 57—76. 136 Zinkevičius Z. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 2, Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius Z. 1993: Rytų Lietuva praeityje ir dabar, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Zinkevičius Z. 1994: Kur prieš šimtmečius lietuviškai (baltiškai) kalbėta... — Lietuvos mokslas 2, Kn. 1(2), 15—23. ZUM STAND UND ZUR HERKUNFT VON ZIETELA Zusammenfassung Aus dem Vergleich der charakteristischeren Besonderheiten der Mundart von Zietela mit den entsprechenden Erscheinungen der östlichen, südlichen und westlichen hochlitauischen Mundarten sieht man, daß die Mundart von Zietela eigentümlich ist und völlig mit keiner Mundart der litauischen Gegenwartssprache zusammenfällt. In ihr haben sich zwei verschiedene Schichten oder Reihen der Mundarten vereinigt: das Ost-(Süd-) und Westhochlitauisch. Beim Vergleich der Mundart von Zietela mit der südlichen hochlitauischen Mundart sieht man, daß die letztere von der dicken Schicht der östlichen hochlitauischen Mundart zugedeckt wurde, aber in der Mundart von Zietela dominiert noch klar Grund der westlichen Mundarten (südlichen Untermundarten) des Hochlitauischen (”kapsų”, ”baltsėrmegių” und ”striukių”). Sie haben sich im Land der Sudauer, Nadrauer und Schalauer formiert und am wenigsten von den anderen litauischen Mundarten beeinflußt waren. In der Mundart von Zietela erhaltengebliebene dicke Schicht sudauischer Hydronyme erlaubt uns nicht ihre Herkunft nur durch die in Jahrbüchern erwähnten westbaltischen Flüchtlinge zu erklären. Obwohl eine Übersiedlung der Sudauen oder Preußen gewesen sein könnte, so mußten sie in die von Ostslawen (Dregoviči), früh kolonisierte westbaltische Länder zu den noch nicht slawisierten eigenen Stämmen übersiedeln. Die Letzteren sollten noch früher mit den von Ostslawen gestoßenen Litauen zusammentreffen und die ganze Zeit der Konsilidation der litauischen Sämme und ihrer Volksformierung Kontakte haben. Später wurden die Verbindungen von Zietelern mit den südlichen Hochlitauern infolge der verschiedenen politischen Ereignisse, der Unglücksfälle und der früh slawisierten einzelnen Umgebungen begrenzt. Die große Zahl der Veränderungen im Lautbestand und andere, die sich in der hochlitauischen Südmundart befanden, erreichten die Mundart von Zietela nicht. Auf dieser Weise haben sich in der Mundart von Zietela viele charakteristische Elemente der Westbalten erhalten. 137