S. Ambrazas. „Daiktavardžių darybos raida (lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai)“

S. AMBRAZAS. THE DEVELOPMENT OF NOUN FORMATION (VERBAL DERIVATIVES IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE). Vilnius, 1993, 296 pp. This is a substantial book examining word formation in Lithuanian; “here, most attention is devoted to the semantic aspect of word formation, which has hitherto been the least studied” (p. 4). Of course, the author is not undertaking this work from that perspective without precedent—he has P. Skardžius’s book “Word Formation in the Lithuanian Language” and Prof. V. Urbsys’s studies in view, on which he draws effectively here. From a variety of written sources, especially LKŽ and its card index, as well as the LKA volumes, S. Ambrazas gathered a great deal of material and sought to synthesize and examine it. The author has written an interesting book and, in some places, has made an original and substantial contribution. Most of the author’s claims have been carefully considered; various facts are appropriately presented and persuasively explained here. A great deal of work has gone into the book, which makes it all the more regrettable that it contains various inaccuracies that may mislead readers. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of examples. In many Samogitian dialects, nouns formed with the suffix -imas from verbs with an acute-root accent are regularly stressed on the root: lūžimas, dirbimas, and so on—in Krs, Rdn, Eig, Trš, Tl, Pj, Lkv, Šll, etc.—rather than merely “attestations are found” (p. 26). The locative tamsė(je) in many Samogitian dialects is the locative of the noun tamsis (p. 33), as are mėdie, kėlie, važie, and so on. The word maldą meant ‘request’ not only for M. Daukša (p. 37), but also, according to the expression g’i-va maldą pra-ša, for Samogitians today in Rdn and elsewhere. For some reason, kalčia, kerčia, verčia, grižčia ‘a place to return to’ and the like have not been assigned to the suffix -čia (p. 48)—no corresponding examples have been sought. The adverb risčia can hardly have anything to do with the suffix -čia (is it a loanword?)—p. 48. Straumė from Plng comes from the so-called Curonian villages and is no Lithuanian-language heritage (p. 56). It is quite a stretch to derive the noun imbingynės (p. 64) from the adverb imbinginiu in DP168 (cf. LKŽ IV 64). Why is smárvė derived from *smárdvė (p. 72), when this form is heard in the dialects of eastern Lithuania—Ukm, Ln? In Karklenuose the form is ajū’t’e~ėjūtė, not ėjūtė (p. 82). Why, among all the Samogitian -ynė (standard -ienė) derivatives naming foods, is only kritinė included (the relationship between -ynė and -ienė is not shown)—p. 96 (and it is not soup, but a variety of mashed, thoroughly cooked potatoes, šūtynės). The suffix -ita in the Samogitian word kūpita still needs to be demonstrated, yet it is presented without qualification (p. 94). The Tryškiai form griuženos (LKŽ III 627) is an uncertainly recorded form—the dialect has no consonant cluster -rū- (only -rū-). That word was formed from the singular griužena, which the author himself accentuated (p. 95). S. B. Chilinskis came from the area around Šventėzeris, so he could not have been a Central Aukštaitian (p. 113)—and that dialect subdivision no longer exists. In Veiviržėnai and Kalținėnai the form is krūokla||krūokla~krōkla, not kriókla (p. 118). The word pakarāila is used in Papilyje, not Papilėje (p. 123). The word išmėžena from Žd is entirely unclear (p. 126). What is its root, and where does this word come from? It is hard to say! The suffix -ina (alongside -ena) in Samogitian still requires proof and discussion in general (as does aditos)—p. 127. barškynė cannot be from Klp, Tl, or Užv (p. 128)—I have been in all those places and heard only barškynė (bār’s’k’ī’n’ė). The Dusmenys form krausóčius (p. 132) is nonexistent. 226 It is a form from the so-called liars’ “collection”; moreover, the form actually coined was kranksóčius(!). Nowhere is it demonstrated that the diminutive suffix -ikė had a paired counterpart -ikas (examples from Prussian can hardly support either the stem or even its existence)—p. 137. In Obėliai the form is kiščiukas, not kiščiukas (p. 138). The Kvėdarna word ėjuoks should be transcribed as ejókas, not ejókas (p. 141). In Jurbarke they say sudž’u·vūt’is, which should be written in standard Lithuanian as sudžiūvūtis, not sudžiūvūtis—p. 142. Samogitians (Kl, Slnt, Yl) no longer have the suffix -inykas (p. 146). Merūnas (p. 149) is an entirely borrowed word, not a derivative with the suffix -ūnas (note that plyšūnas in Rmč (p. 149) is incorrectly recorded; only plyšūnas exists). Šiaulėnai is a Western Aukštaitian dialect, so it seems inappropriate to assign pakarūklius (p. 156) exclusively to Samogitian. The word paist(u)oklis from Šd, Pl (LKŽ IX 124) should not have been assigned to Samogitian (Sd, Kl) (p. 156). M. Valančius’s girtuklis (p. 157) is undoubtedly a respelling of the word girtūklis, used by many Samogitians and even Prussian Lithuanians: Krš, Užv, Rdn, Pvn, Tl, Plt, Klp, Sg, StngŽ. Nesūdera from Dglš (p. 159) is nesūdėra. It is difficult to say why, despite the hiatus, a+e=a is regarded as an unattested archaic example nepaitūvas < *nepaitūvas (p. 160). In southern Dzūkija (Nč, Knv, Rtn, Drsk) the word is bad_l kšl’is with ⊥, not budikšlis (p. 178), while Samogitian kaišėklis (p. 174) should be written kaišėklis, since the vowel ė~ė here has undergone regressive assimilation. The dialect form (Vkš) dėglas ‘torch’ is a neologism (see LKŽ II¹ 248, 1947; cf. also LKK XXVI 15), learned by people at festivals. The same applies to papuošalas from Kairiai and Baisógala (p. 192). Such innovations should hardly be relied on in historical research. The word atāšlina (pp. 195, 231) is certainly not the only derivative with the suffix -ina that is presented—is the root really only -šl- (after all, atā- is a prefix)? It is doubtful whether the word dengėja ‘tool for roofing’ used by bilingual residents of the Vilnius region, like the fishermen’s word vedėja, can serve as a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the suffix -ėjas, -a in names of tools or objects (pp. 202, 230). The name of a part of a millstone in Kuršėnai, pá.tvara, cannot be reconstructed as pervarà (p. 204). The form adýklis, recorded almost exclusively in Grūžiai (from dialectal ad’ž.kl’/s) (pp. 229, 230), may well be a non-transcribed form introduced by lexicographers. You will not find the form augintuvė (p. 211) in Tryškiai, Pāvand enė, or elsewhere—only augtūvė is used; and sandėlis, sandėlyš in Užv, Vl (p. 216) are outright innovations (about 50 years old), lacking even the relevant phonetic rule in Užv an>on, so they are hardly useful for historical research. The accentuation of forms is substantially deficient, often ahistorical and in violation of important rules. The historical, archaic accentuation is šilauogė, not šilāuogė (p. 9). The rare, recent accentuation suvéizdėjo, pavéizdėti (perhaps even learned from Žemaitė’s writings) is used for Marijámpolė (pp. 23, 101, etc.), whereas the inherited Samogitian forms are veiz(d)ėti, véiz(d)a, -(d)ėjo; išdūkenia (p. 65) = išdūkenia (the form itself needs correction); párteklius (p. 70) = párteklius Rsn; láisvas (p. 72) = láisvas; dōras (p. 79) = dōras; gīrnkelis (p. 80) = gīrnkelis; gniūžtė (p. 90) = gniūžtė; plėšti (p. 93) = plėšti (unless this is some kind of printer’s error); ārklas (pp. 153, 171, 173, 207, 292) (a new form learned by townspeople removed from the dialects) = ārklas; žvejóklis Tv (p. 155) = žvejóklis; kerėkšla (p. 156) = kerėkšla; pakartūvė (p. 160) = pakartūvė; lebeida (!) (pp. 161, 227) = a form recorded by unreliable informants, nonexistent 227 fact; čiupėiza (p. 163, 227) = čiupėiza; nemėiša (p. 167) = nemėiša; mūgšis (p. 166) = mūgšis (regressive vowel assimilation) Kl et al., nakviša (!) (p. 167) = nakviša; bėris etc. (p. 170) = bėris; irklas (p. 172, 207) = irklas; dėklas (p. 172) = dėklas; rėklės (p. 173) = rėklės; salykhlas (p. 177) = salykhlas; salykla (p. 176) = salykla; vežėčios (p. 186) = vežėčios; grąžtas (p. 189) = grąžtas; piesta (p. 188) = piesta; place name Upytė (p. 197) = Upytė; dažyve (p. 198) = dažyve; preikalas (p. 203) = preikalas; skiedra (p. 223) = skiedra; duokle (p. 223) = duokle; terliuža (!) (p. 227) = terliuža; kramuila (!) (p. 228) = kramuila; pakarukla(!) (p. 228) = pakarukla; turėkla (!) (p. 229) = turėklą or perhaps turėklė etc. What is most problematic is disregard for F. Saussure’s law in some of the examples, which may mislead many younger researchers. There are also many other accentuation cases not known hitherto, for example: šūnui (p. 36) = šūnui; álstogos (p. 84) = álstogos; mėšlas (p. 98) = mėšlas; spjāudalas (p. 99) = spjāudalas; pýliava (p. 101) = pýliava; grūodas (p. 104) = grūodas; grūdas (p. 104) = grūdās; šlūžė (p. 107) = šlūžė; riekė (p. 107) = riekė; gimdývė (p. 135) = gimdývė; raudónas (p. 138) = raudónas; viršūnė (p. 150) = viršūnė; palydōvas (p. 153) = palydōvas; palýda (p. 153) = palydā; valdōvas (p. 153) = valdōvas; veltūžas (p. 164, 229) = veltūžas; nusodīntojas (p. 202) = nusodīntojas; Tūrmantas (p. 234) = Tūrmantas; mušėika (!) (p. 290) = mušėika or mušėikà; baidýklė (p. 290) = baidýklė; lebedā (p. 291) = lėbedā; landýnė (p. 294) = landýnė; sostà (p. 294) = sósta etc. Incorrect spelling: atgrāžčios (p. 48) = atgrāžčios; bjurti (p. 49) = bjurti; pražutuvės (p. 50) = pražutuvės; pražutis (p. 50) = pražutis; neužauga (p. 126, 156, 163) = neužauga; nudvėsėlis (p. 133) = nudvėsėlis; vyliūgas Vkš, Vdk (p. 162) = viliūgas; smalyžius (p. 162) = smaližius; vašīukas (p. 200) = vašiūkas; sandėlys (p. 211) = sándėlis etc. The young scholar put in considerable effort and drew much from the literature he inherited from his teacher, Professor V. Urbutis, but paid less attention to the facts; as a result, the material analyzed and its interpretation suffered in many places. Vytautas Vitkauskas 228