Dėl baltarusių šnektų lituanizmų vertinimo ir vartosenos

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXV (1995) LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOLOGIJOS TYRINĖJIMAI Reviews. Review articles. Notes Opinions. Reviews. Observations Overviews. Reviews. Notes ON THE EVALUATION AND USAGE OF LITHUANIAN LOANWORDS IN BELARUSIAN DIALECTS When identifying newly found Lithuanian loanwords in Belarusian dialects as belonging to the Lithuanian 1substrate, throughout our research we consistently adhere to the definition of the term established in dictionaries of linguistic terminology. However, we sometimes encounter cases in which our approach is interpreted in a distorted way. For instance, the Polish linguist E. Smulkova criticizes us2 for considering the words we recorded in the living Belarusian dialect of the area around Senieji Smilgini (Varanavo district, Belarus)—antaráplusci “comb,” asiūkli “horsetails,” skiardži “the place of stabbing when slaughtering a pig,” and others3—to be elements of the Lithuanian substrate. These are supposedly merely occasionalisms used by chance, because, she argues, we disregard the chronology and geography of the words’ emergence in Belarusian dialects and their functioning in the Belarusian dialect system, and act less than entirely correctly by assigning them to the newest layer of substrate vocabulary4. In other words, she denies the presence of new substrate elements in the dialects. But can a language not contain older and newer substrate units? Clearly, it can. After all, for example, in Belarus the assimilation of the old Lithuanian territories did not take place everywhere at the same time—in areas farther from the Lithuanian border, earlier; in areas nearer to it, later. Thus, in both cases, the result of assimilation is substrate, irrespective of its age. One thing is clear: the chronology of the substrate does not alter the essence of the term and is not part of its content. What matters is only that a particular element of the old language, adopted by the new language, is alive in it, functions, and has already become substrate. H. Turska and Z. Zinkevičius understand and use the term substrate in precisely this way5. Thus, sub- 1 A c h m a n o v a O.S. Slovar’ lingvističeskich terminov. Moskva: Sovetskaja enciklopedija, 1966, 461—462; G o l ą b Z., H e i n z A., P o l a ń s k i K. Słownik terminologii językoznawczej. Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1970, 542—543; G a i v e n i s K., K e i n y s S. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1990, 193—194. 2 S m u l k o v a E. K vyprosu o belorusskich lituanizmach — Balto-slavianskije issledovanija. Moskva: Nauka, 1981, 203—213. 3 G r i n a v e c k i e n e E., M a c k e v i č J u. F., R o m a n o v i č J. M., Č e b e r u k J. I. Bytovaja leksika litovskogo proischoždenija v Zapadnoj Belorussiji — Lietuvių terminologija. Vilnius: Mintis, 1975, 164, 165, 189. 4 S m u l k o v a E. Min. veik., 204—205. 5 T u r s k a H. O powstaniu polskich obszarów językowych na Wileńszczyźnie — Studia nad polszczyzną kresową I. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź: Os- 218 The meaning of the term substrate is not distorted by us. Nevertheless, E. Smulkova believes that a substrate can only be ancient. Here is her position: ”Termin ”belorusskije baltizmy”...sledovalo by upotreblyat’ liš’ v... smysle, čto k staromu substratnomu sloju mogut byt’ otneseny baltijskije relikty... (prežde vsego jatviažskije...)”6. She gives examples of such Baltic substrate elements from the Belarusian dialect of Bobrovniki village (Białystok Voivodeship, Poland), first noting that Bobrovniki village ”... v prošlom eto službenoje poselenije, osnovannoe na rubeže XV—XVI vv. liudmi, prišedšimi so storony Nemana”7 (this assertion, incidentally, would still need to be proved). By treating the linguistic remnants of immigrants as a substrate (!), E. Smulkova fundamentally distorts the meaning of this term, disregarding the linguistic theory of the concept of substrate. E. Smulkova’s principal claim that the linguistic remnants of immigrants, rather than those of autochthonous peoples, constitute a substrate is a complete anomaly. Among other things, in the dialect of Bobrovniki village she identifies the lexeme tókšyny, “homemade noodles,” as supposedly Baltic in origin; she considers it Lithuanian in origin and proposes connecting it with Lithuanian lakšalai, lakščiai, lakšenas, lakšinys, and these with lãkštas, “a plant leaf”8. However, tókšyny (like lapšá) entered Slavic territories from Turkic languages9, incidentally, at least 100 years after the immigrants from the Nemunas region settled in Bobrovniki. Thus, Lithuanian lãkštas and tókšyny are hardly related, and the identification of Baltic substrate elements of this kind, as well as their chronology, is scientifically unfounded. Where, in this case, is the Yotvingian substrate? E. Smulkova does not classify the Lithuanianisms she mentions as substrate elements also because they were recorded in a bilingual area. Even today, one or another older person in the village of Senieji Smilginiai still knows their parents’ language, but the whole village and its environs no longer understand Lithuanian and speak only Belarusian among themselves. Moreover, there are no centers of Lithuanian culture here—no Lithuanian school, press, or radio, and the church is Polish only. Thus, all the Lithuanianisms from these environs presented in our article were recorded without exception from local elderly people whose parents and ancestors became Belarusians through assimilation here. In our view, the situation and usage of Lithuanianisms in the Senieji Smilginiai area are no obstacle to classifying them as substrate elements. As our later research shows, the environs of Senieji Smilginiai are not the only place where Lithuanianisms that E. Smulkova calls occasionalisms are found. We now know that they also occur elsewhere in the Voronovo district, as well as in the districts of Iwye, Ashmyany, Breslauja, and Pastavy. Thus, they are neither accidental nor words of individual use and restricted meaning, but genuine elements of the Lithuanian substrate, firmly integrated into the Belarusian dialect system. This is shown, among other things, by the naturalness and correct usage of the illustrative sentences in our article solineum, 1982, 86—119; Z i n k e v i č i u s Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis, 1966, 24—25; Z i n k e v i č i u s Z. Rytų Lietuva praeityje ir dabar. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993, 249ff. 6 S m u l k o v a E. Min. veik., 205. 7 S m u l k o v a E. Min. veik., 206. 8 S m u l k o v a E. Min. veik., 208. 9 F a s m e r M. Etimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka 2, Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ”Progress”, 1967, 460. 219 and word formation, and a clear meaning. The Lithuanianisms of the Senieji Smilginiai Belarusian dialect under consideration, unquestionably forming an integral part of the Lithuanian substrate, are also neither products of interference nor of convergence, as E. Smulkova attempts a priori to call them 10. They are all inherited, not brought in. One may also dispute the Lithuanian equivalents given for some Lithuanianisms. For instance, E. Smulkova derives the Lithuanianism asiūklė not from Lithuanian asiūkliai, but from asiūkliainiai, the scientific term for all plants of this genus (which she mistakenly marks with even two accent marks—asiūkliainiai)11, a word in fact wholly unknown in folk speech. This methodological error shows that here, too, E. Smulkova fails to select the most appropriate equivalent from among the Lithuanian words she offers. She is inclined to consider the lexeme prasėšč, “the length of cloth on the loom between the reed and the beam,” found in the Belarusian dialect of Bobrovniki village, to be Lithuanian in origin, and rather amateurishly links it, without further ado, to the Lithuanian verb prasiskėsti12. But this is entirely impossible: between Lithuanian (prasi) skėsti, “to (un)fold, to (un)spread,” and Bobrovniki (pra)šėšč there is certainly no grammatical (or derivational) or phonetic connection—and, most importantly, no semantic connection. In our view, prašešč is probably a word of Slavic origin; compare also its likely Russian cognate prisiest’, “a period during which people sit down one after another and work without getting up”13. Elena Grinaveckienė 10 Smulkova E. Min. veik., 205. 11 Smulkova E. Min. veik., 204. 12 Smulkova E. Min. veik., 208. 13 Dal’ V. Tolkovyj slovar’ živago velikorusskago jazyka 3, S.Peterburg-Moskva: Izdanie knigoprodavca-tipografa M.O.Wolfa, 1882, 450. 220