Lietuvių kalbos kuopinių ir vardažodinių vietų pavadinimų darybos raida

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXIII (1995) GRAMATIKA IR LEKSIKOLOGIJA SAULIUS AMBRAZAS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMATION OF COLLECTIVE AND NOMINAL PLACE NAMES IN LITHUANIAN Collective names Collective names (nomina collectiva, hereafter — NC) are one of the oldest derivational categories, inherited from Proto-Indo-European. In Lithuanian, as in many other related languages, this category is rapidly disappearing. Indeed, with the formation of the morphological category of number, collective names became a kind of surplus in the language. In Lithuanian they are formed with derivational affixes originating from the derivational ending *-ā-, and the adjectival suffixes *-no-, *-to-, *-io-. In addition, names of qualities (nomina qualitatis) sometimes acquire a collective meaning. Derivatives with *-ā- -a In Lithuanian, collective names with the old derivational ending -a have almost disappeared. Only a few barely recognizable relics remain. Among these, first of all, the derivatives álksna/alksnà “alder grove” Skd; Smln; Als; Vdk; Grg; VšR; “marsh, hollow, valley” BB 1 Mak 9,45; Mžk (LKŽ I² 104, cf. 1a. álksna “marshy place”, see Būga 1961:407; ME I 67), kárkla “willow thicket” Ms, Kv (LKŽ V 291), kaimýna “neighbors” JD 850; JV 413, should be mentioned. On the basis of the hydronyms Léndra NmŽ; Šln, Švėndra Vdk, A. Vanagas (1970:44) reconstructs the derivatives *léndra “reedbed”, *švėndra “reedbed”. Possibly, the nouns daũsos: *dausas are also collective in origin (cf. Slavic dъzъ “spirit”, see Būga, 1958:553—554), dervà (cf. Old Slavic nom.pl. dreva “trees”: nom.sg. drevo “tree”, as well as Greek δόγυ “tree trunk, firewood”, Gothic triu “firewood, tree”, etc.), nagà “hoof” (cf. Old Slavic noga “foot”): nãgas (ŽD 46), the adverb namõ (cf. Greek νομóς “place of being, dwelling; pasture”, see Schmidt 1889:39), numeral formations such as dvejó-pas (Brugmann 1911:234), keturió-lika, and the neuter forms of pronouns to, ko, šito, and the like (Valeckienė 1984:205 ff.). The Prussian language suggests that collective names with *-ā- were once still a productive derivational type in the Baltic languages. Indeed, the Elbing Vocabulary records a considerable number of neuter nouns of collective origin with *-ā-, for example, austo “mouth” (Munt) 89 (cf. Old Slavic ousta “mouth” and Sanskrit oṣṭhah “lip”), slayo “sled, sleigh” (Slete) 307 (cf. Lithuanian šlājos): slayan “runner”, wьrto “door” (Thore) 210 (cf. Old Slavic vrata “gate”), and so on (Mažiulis 180 1981; PKEŽ I 124–125; Дегтярев:1991). -ai Pastaruoju metu vėl bandoma atgaivinti G. H. Mahlowo (1879:49, 81) ir J. Schmidto (1889) hipotezę, pagal kurią tokios formos kaip lie. vilkai, gerai, kai, tai kilusios iš kuopinių pavadinimų su darybos galūne *-ā-/-ə- (plg. pr. warto ir lie. vartai, lo. loca greta loci: locus ”vieta”, gr. κέλευθα greta κέλευθοι ”kelias”). Antai V. Ilič-Svityčius (1963:53–55), kaip kadaise J. Schmidtas, rašė, kad kai kurie lietuvių kalbos o kamieno daiktavardžių nom.pl. formų (ypač pluralia tantum) kirčio vieta rodanti senąjį kuopinių pavadinimų su *-ā- kirčiavimą (pvz.: linai iš *linā, plaušai iš *pluosā ir kt.). A. Valeckienė (1978:69–81, 93; 1984:208–217, 220–221) pateikė naujų argumentų, remiančių įvardžių bevardės giminės formos tai kilmę iš *tā+-i. Kiek kitaip pastarojo įvardžio kilmę aiškina A. Rosinas (1988:183–188). B. Stundžia (1981) nustatė, kad nemaža dalis lietuvių kalbos (i)o kamieno daugiskaitinių oksitoninio kirčiavimo vietovardžių (ypač vakarų aukštaičių ir žemaičių tarmėse) kilę iš baritoninio kirčiavimo ā ir ē kamieno asmenvardžių (pvz.: Burbai: Būrba, Lapiai: Lāpė). Jis mano, kad jie galėtų būti kuopinės kilmės, nes kai kur tarmėse oksitoninėmis asmenvardžių (i)o kamieno nom. pl. formomis su -(i)ai pažymimas šeimos, giminės vardas (pvz.: dveji, treji Dūdai, Gudeliai ”dvi, trys Dūdōs Gudėlio šeimos”). Be to, tarmėse kartais kuopinę reikšmę turi bendriniai daiktavardžiai su -(i)ai (pvz.: liepai ”liepynas” Št: liepa, liepos; siuvėjai ”siuvėjų šeimyna” Ldvn; Jrb: siuvėjas, siuvėjai). Tuo remiantis daroma išvada, kad lietuvių kalboje, be paprastosios daugiskaitos, kadaise egzistavusi ir kuopinė daugiskaita, kilusi iš senųjų kuopinių pavadinimų su *-ā-/-ə-. Panašią hipotezę anksčiau kėlė ir J. Otrębskis (GJL III 28). M. L. Palmaitis (1989:126–128) lie. liepai ”liepynas” tipo formas susiejo su pr. Stat Gennai ”tos moterys” (die Weiber) III 93₁₂ ir atitinkamomis nom. pl. formomis graikų ir lotynų kalbose (pvz.: gr. χώραι, lo. terrae). Pasak jo, jos esančios ne naujadarai, kaip manė ankstesni tyrinėtojai, o archaizmai, kilę iš kuopinių pavadinimų su *-ā-. Be to, jis teigia, kad tiek įvardžių, tiek ir o kamieno vardažodžių nom.pl. formos su *-ei/-oi (pvz.: lie. jie, vilkai) išsirutuliojusios iš neutralią kuopinę reikšmę turėjusių prieveiksmių, plg.: lie. gerai, namie, pr. labbai ”gerai” (wol) III 49₁₆, bitai ”vakare” (Abends) III 77₂₃, sl. dobre ”gerai”, gr. οἴχοτο ”namie”. Thus it is becoming increasingly clear that the nom.pl. forms with -ai in East Baltic languages (or at least some of them, especially pluralia tantum, e.g., Lithuanian linai, Latvian lini) may have originated from collective nouns with *-ā-/-ə- or from other forms of collective origin. This accords with the long-standing hypothesis that Proto-Indo-European originally had no morphological plural forms; these developed later, primarily from collective nouns with the derivational ending *-ā-/-ə- (Schmidt 1889; Meillet 1934:291–292; Тронский 1946; Lehmann 1958:189 ff.; Гамкрелидзе, Иванов 1984:281–283, etc.). The derivational ending *-ā- laid the foundation for the emergence of several derived Lithuanian 181 language suffixes -(i)ava, -auja, -(i)uva, perhaps -ija, and partly -o-jas, -o-tas. -(i)ava With the suffix -(i)ava, characteristic of Baltic hydronyms and place names (Vanagas 1970:101 ff., with literature), several collective nouns have been formed, e.g.: brolavà Užp; Str; Ds, broliavà “brothers and sisters” Dgls (LKŽ I² 1069), gõniava “herd, flock, multitude” J; Upn; Užv (III 482), šašavà “a group of small children” Ml (XIV 537), šiukšlavos “rubbish, sweepings” Rmš (XIV 928), šunavà “a group of dogs, rascals, or wicked people” Švnč; Ml; Dv; Slk; Str; Lbv (LKŽ XV 354), velniavà (recorded since WP 156). The suffix -(i)ava developed from the stem-final sequence eu/ou/u, extended by forms of the ā-stem (ŽD 381; Мажюлис 1967:39—41). -auja The newer variant -ava, -auja (ŽD 88—89), of the suffix -ava is found in NC indaujã (LKŽ IV 105—106), šunaujã “a group of dogs, rascals, or wicked people” (XV 352, cf. šunavà), vilkaujà “a place where there are many wolves; a cold place” (Senkus 1972:150). -(i)uva Su priesagos -(i)ava apofoniniu variantu -(i)uva (Мажюлис 1967:40—41) padarytas NC velniuvà ”velniai; velnias; velniškas darbas” (plg. velniavà), paplitęs vakarų aukštaičių ir žemaičių tarmėmis pagristuose XVI—XVII a. raštuose, ir tarminiai vediniai: broliuvà Trg, bróluva ”broliai ir seserys” Ktk (LKŽ I² 1072, plg. brolavà), sesiuva ”seserija” Dgls (XII 438). -ija The suffix -ija is the most important means of forming collective names in Lithuanian. Derivatives of this type most often designate a group of persons, its entirety, e.g.: in old writings NC raitelija “knights, their entirety” Lex 71; C I 425; N; [K]; LL 57. However, quite long ago derivatives with -ija began to denote concentrations of plants or other natural objects in one place (as did derivatives with the suffixes -ynas, -ynė, see pp. 183–185). For instance, a derivative ąžuolijà “oak grove” is already recorded in K. Sirvydas’s dictionary, SD¹ 19 (also Ds; Tvr; Grg; Dglš; Dsn; Prng — LKŽ I² 535). Such derivatives are now most common in the Samogitian dialect, e.g.: grybijà “a place where many mushrooms grow” Šts (also Mrc — LKŽ III 584), išlynijà “land by the clayey soil, clayey ground” Užv (IV 206), kerpijos “a place where many lichens grow” Šts (V 619), lapijà “a place where there are many leaves” Tv (VII 148), lazdijà “a place where hazel trees grow” Grg (VII 213), lenkijà “a place with many hollows, ravines” Varn (VII 614), liūnijà “a bog, boggy ground” Šts; Kal (VII 614), molijà “clayey soil, clay ground” Trk; Slnt; Užv; Kv; Vvr; Vkš; “clayey seabed” Plng (VIII 337), rūdijà “iron-ore deposit” Kv; Šts; Brs; “ore deposit” S.Dauk (XII 707), smiltijà “sandy area” Grg (XIII 184). The derivative uošvijà, which is widespread in dialects, has a locative meaning. In some dialects the derivative seniūnijà is used to mean “a village unit administered by an elder” Grz; Grv (LKŽ XII 395). It is possible that from the dialects it entered written usage 182 as well, the derivative karaliją. For instance, in “Patar­lėse ir priezodžiuose,” V. Krėvė recorded the following sentence from Nedzingė: The kingdom of the blind and deaf fears neither lightning nor thunder. In the dialect texts of A. Baranauskas published by F. Specht, the derivative valstiją is recorded with the meaning “county” BM 24. In the nineteenth century and in some later writings, this derivative is used in the sense of “state.” K. Būga (1958:113) proposed using the derivative valstiją to denote a “union of states.” This gave rise to the now familiar term Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos (Dambriūnas 1960; 1966). Following these vernacular derivatives, as standard Lithuanian was taking shape, other administrative terms also began to be formed with the suffix -ija. The derivative vyskupiją was already used in eighteenth-century writings from Lithuania Minor (Būga 1958:545; Skardžius 1960:19). The derivatives kunigaikštiją, urėdiją, viešpatiją apparently originated with S. Daukantas. We also find the derivative vaivadiją already in A. Juška’s dictionary. Several other derivatives of this type are now used in the standard language, e.g.: eiguliją, girininkiją, naujasėdiją, tėvoniją (DaiktvDr 401; Keinys, 1975:52). Collective names with the suffix -ija have counterparts in many related languages (Brugmann 1966:647; Hirt 1927:176; Meillet 1934:285; Lohmann 1932:12 and others). For instance, Lithuanian broliją “brothers and sisters” Vst (LKŽ I² 1070) roughly corresponds to Slavic *brat(r)ьja “brothers,” Greek φρᾱτρίᾱ “kinship, clan; brotherhood.” However, the affix *-(i)jā- may be secondary, having arisen when the derivational ending *-ā- attached to a stem ending in i; compare Lithuanian hydronym Kirmiją Al: kirmis “worm,” Sanskrit kul’yā “stream, rivulet”: *kuli- (reconstructed on the basis of the hydronym Kuli-šā, cognate with Lithuanian kūlis “stone,” see Schmid 1990), as well as Greek φρᾱτρίᾱ and φρᾱτρά. Derivatives with *-(i)jō- -ijas That derivatives with *-(i)jā- may have originated from old collective nouns in *-ā-, rather than from adjectives with *-(i)jō-, is indicated, among other things, by the fact that adjectives with the suffix *-(i)jō- have almost disappeared in the Baltic languages (ŽD 80; LVG 276—277), whereas collective nouns with *-ij̄ā- are productive. On the other hand, the suffix *-(i)jō- itself is probably also of secondary origin, having arisen through the extension of stems ending in i (or other forms in -i) with o-stem forms (Benveniste 1935; Wackernagel, Debrunner 1954:816 with references), or through the mixing of i- and o-stems (cf. Mažiulis 1970:152). In the Slavic, Germanic, and Indo-Iranian languages, collective nouns are often formed with the suffix *-(i)jō-. By contrast, there are very few derivatives of this type in the Baltic languages. The pure suffix -ijas is apparently found in Lithuanian only in LC galvijai, which is cognate with Slavic *(po)golovъje “number of livestock” (Мартынов 1973:24). -ojas, -ynojas In the dialects, there are only a few collective nouns with the suffix -ojas, e.g.: liepėjas “lime grove” V.Krėv (LKŽ VII 426), riešutojas “hazel grove” Kč; Vvs (cf. also riešutojis Lzd; Sn — LKŽ XI 580), samanojai “clumps of moss, placed between 183 logs” B.Sruog; Pn (XII 90). In the Samogitian dialect, derivatives with the double suffix -ynojas are also found, e.g.: balunojas “pine grove” Plng (I² 596), beržynojas “birch grove” Užv (I² 777), kelmynojas “stump-covered area” J; Ms; Slnt (V. 525), žuvynojas “pond where fish are raised” S.Dauk (cf. žuvynas “same” J). In Latvian, there are considerably more corresponding derivatives with -ājs, e.g.: bērzājs “birch grove,” smiltājs “sandy area” (LVG 284). The collective-noun-forming ending *-ā- is probably concealed in the suffix *-ā-io-, extended by the adjectival affix *-io-; cf. Lithuanian álksna and Latvian álksnājs “alder grove.” -suffix The -ojas variant of the suffix -roje occurs in NC āpušroje “aspen grove,” Prk (LKŽ I² 276); cf. apušotas, apušrotas (p. 186). Derivatives with *-no- -ynas Derivatives with the suffix -ynas most often denote groups of plants or other natural objects, and less frequently groups of living beings in one place. Such derivatives are already common in old writings; cf. the derivatives recorded in K. Sirvydas’s dictionary: ąžuolynas SD¹ 19; SD³ 45, avietynas SD³ 162, mirtynas “a myrtle garden” 175, pušynas SD¹ 12; SD³ 21, 30, 414, ropynas SD³ 395, rožynas 383, skrudėlynas “anthill” SD¹ 83, žolynas 13, žolynynas SD³ 32. Derivatives with the suffix -ynas have not only a collective meaning but also a locative one. The latter meaning is particularly clear in derivatives formed: a) from certain nouns with the suffix -umas (or -uma), e.g.: gilumynas “a deep place,” Nč (LKŽ III 304), klampumynas “a boggy place,” Mrs; Trak; Kb; Rud (VI 958), tankumynas (widespread); b) iš būdvardžių, pvz.: klampynas ”klampi vieta” Ns 1851,2; Vkš; Rm (VI 955), tankynas ”tankumynas” Rmš; Pn; Ms; Sln (LKŽ XV 811). Therefore, some researchers, from a synchronic perspective, quite justifiably classify derivatives of this type as place names (DaiktvDr 396—397; Vidugiris 1969:155; Keinys 1975:50—51; Range 1977:129). Historically, however, they are fossilized collective nouns (ŽD 266—267; GJL II 199). This is demonstrated by the derivative žvaigždynas “constellation,” which has retained its purely collective meaning (recorded since DP 542a₅). Moreover, in the standard language new collective nouns are readily formed with the suffix -ynas, e.g.: balsẏnas, garsynas, žarnynas, etc. (DaiktvDr 419—420; Keinys 1975:52—53). Collective nouns with the suffix -ynas derive from substantivized adjectives formed with *-ī-no- (cf. Lithuanian mėlynas, Old Church Slavonic zvěrinъ, Latin ferīnus “of an animal,” Latin fiberinus, Old High German bibirin “of a beaver”; see Brugmann 1906:274 ff.). The substantivization of derivatives of this type and their conversion into collective nouns began quite early. Collective nouns with *-īno- occur not only in Baltic but also in Slavic and, to some extent, Latin (Brugmann 1906:278, 649; Lohmann, 1932:15). Lithuanian derivatives with the suffix -ynas are especially close to Slavic derivatives with -ina, 184 which also often denote forests, cf. Lithuanian beržynas and Slavic *berzina “birch grove” (Slawski 1974:121, 123). -yna There are only a few Lithuanian collective nouns with the suffix -yna that directly correspond to Slavic -ina. The derivative šeimyna has long been widespread (but cf. Old Prussian šeimin’s “family” (Gesinde) III 834 and, in part, Old Church Slavonic sěminъ “belonging to a family, slave”). Others are very rare, e.g.: molyna “clay pit” N; “clay hole” MŽ; N, pusnyna “snowdrift” R; MŽ, pušyna “pine forest” MŽ; N; N 336; RD 76, rūdynā “peat bog” RB Ez 47,11; MŽ; N; K, sąslavōnos “sweepings” JV 40; NdŽ. It is possible that derivatives of this type also existed in Prussian; cf. the place name Spandyno (Gerullis 1922:253). -ynė With the new paradigmatic variant -ynė of the suffix -ynas/-yna, which arose through the productivity of the ē stem, Lithuanian most often forms nominal derivatives of similar meaning to those formed with the suffix -ynas. They have long been characteristic of the Western Aukštaitian dialect. In the 17th-century lexicon of Lithuania Minor, Lexicon Lithuanicum, there are even more nominal derivatives with the suffix -ynė (7) than with -ynas (5): klampynė 85a, kadagynė 102a, elksnyne “alder grove” 30, drebulynė “aspen grove” 33, beržynė “birch grove” 18, ąžuolynė “oak grove,” skroblynė “hornbeam grove” 27. By contrast, in the dictionary of the eastern Lithuanian K. Sirvydas we find only one derivative of this type, kelmynė SD¹ 51. A locative meaning is more characteristic of derivatives with the suffix -ynė than of those with the suffix -ynas. In his Lithuanian-German dictionary, F. Kurschat clearly distinguishes the meanings of these word-formation types; cf. karklynas “a clump of standing willow shrubs” and karklynė “a large place overgrown with willow shrubs,” nendrynas “a clump of standing reeds, a reed bed” and nendrynė “a reed break, a place where much reed grows,” riešutynas “a hazel thicket or a clump of hazel bushes” and riešutynė “a large place overgrown with hazel bushes,” skroblynas “a small beech forest” and skroblynė “a place overgrown with beeches.” Only in describing the meaning of the derivative pušynė does he say that it means the same as pušynas. Moreover, in the Aukštaitian dialect, place names are formed from adjectives somewhat more often with the suffix -ynė than with -ynas. In addition to the widespread derivatives klampynė, tankynė, which have counterparts with the suffix -ynas, the dialects also use the derivatives dykynė “poor field” Bsg; Brt (LKŽ II² 537), gūžynė “deep place” Kt (III 299), sausynė “peat meadow” Rk (XII 217), slapynė “wet place” Dbk; Vžns; Sdk; Rk; Ggr; Ds; Prng (XIV 1019). In the Kapsai and Zanavykai subdialects, derivatives with the suffix -ynė formed from personal names often denote places where people live or have lived, e.g. Dubickynė “place, farm where Dubickas lived,” Glytynė “place where Glytas lived,” and so on (Senkus 1972:168). In the Samogitian dialect, the derivative patalynė, which retains its purely collective meaning, is widely used. By contrast, there are very few nominal place names with -ynė here. For example, V. Vitkauskas’s dictionary of the Dünininkai dialect (DünŽ) contains only five derivatives of this type: maurynė, varputynė, motinynė “mother’s farm,” 185 kėsynė “a place overgrown with weeds” (alongside 47 corresponding derivatives with the suffix -ynas). According to B. Vanagienė, they are also rare in the northern part of the Samogitian dialect area, around Mosėdis. On the other hand, names of dishes, mostly soups, with the suffix -ynė are widespread in the Samogitian dialect, e.g.: bulvynė “potato soup”, burokynė, lapynė “beet soup”, kopūstynė “cabbage soup”, kiaušynė “omelette”, etc. (LKA I Map no. 29. P. 83—84; III Map no. 125. P. 138—139), which, too, may have originated as collective nouns. Apparently, collective nouns with the suffix -ynė developed toward more concrete meanings in different ways in the Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects. In the Aukštaitian dialect (especially the western variety), they acquired a locative meaning. This may have been influenced by names of places where activities are carried out, formed with the homonymous suffix -ynė (probably originating from -inė under the influence of verbs with the suffix -yti, cf. DaiktvDrR 64, 214). In the Samogitian dialect, meanwhile, derivatives with the suffix -ynė came to denote names of dishes. -iena Lithuanian has only a few collective nouns with the suffix -iena, e.g.: mergiena Trgn, mergiena “girls” Al, moliena “clay pit” Lzp; LT III 512(Bs); LTR(Upn); Sn (LKŽ VIII 27, 337), rašiena Šl; Plv; Užp (XI 341). Place names with -iena that denote sites where cultivated plants grew may also be collective in origin, e.g.: agauñiena, bulviena, kopūstiena, etc. (ŽD 288; DaiktvDr 400). Meat names with the homonymous suffix -iena have a different origin, e.g.: aviena, jautiena, etc. These are names of bearers of a quality (nomina attributiva). Latvian forms more collective nouns with the corresponding suffixes -iens, -iena, e.g.: eglienas “spruce forest”, cielmiens “stump-covered place”, skā̄dzīena “chaff-covered place” (LVG 322—324; BKGF 79; MLLVG I 132, 137). It should be noted that Latvian has no collective nouns with *-īno-. -ēna The derivative mergiena has a variant with -ēna mergēna “girls” in the Samogitian dialect, Grg (LKŽ VIII 27), cf. Aukšt. aviena and Samogitian avēna, Aukšt. jautiena and Samogitian jautēna, etc. -ainė These dialectal derivatives with the suffix -ainė may also be collective in origin (an ablaut variant of the suffix -iena from Indo-European *-eino-/-oino-): diršainė “bread with diršės” JR 39 (cf. diršainis,-ė “made with diršės” S.Dauk; Skr — LKŽ II² 584), rataine “shed for storing carts and other items” Vaižg; Tl (XI 237). Latvian abundantly forms collective nouns with -aine, e.g.: eglaine “spruce forest”, alsknaine “alder grove” (LVG 327; MLLVG I 86—87). Collective nouns with the adjectival suffix *-eino-/-oino- also existed in Prussian. This is shown first and foremost by the derivative seweynis, i.e. suveinis ar svainis “pigsty” (Sewstal) E 229 (cf. Latin sūs, Greek ūs and Latvian suvêns “boar”, Old Church Slavonic svinъ “swine”, see Trautmann 1911:425—426; SV 46, 246; Mažiulis 1981:279), and partly by place names, cf. Prussian Alkayne, Alkeyne and Lithuanian alkas, Latvian ēļks, Gothic alhs “sanctuary”, Prussian Zanseynen: sansy “geese” (Gans) E 719, and others. (Gerullis 186 1922:252). -ina The adjectival suffix -ina is found in NC kaimina “heap, group” J. -inė Only a few derivatives with the newer suffix -inė can be partly assigned to the category of collective-name formation: kāpinės (recorded since R; MŽ II 76), kopūstinė “cabbage patch” Nč (LKŽ VI 357), krūminė “shrub thicket” Tvr (VI 699), kupstinė “place covered with hummocks” Rdm (VI 936), pātalinė “bedding” Mrj) (IX 602), malkinė “stack of firewood” S.Dauk; Sk; “heap of things thrown together” J; Škn; Šd (VII 801). However, derivatives in -inė most often have a clear locative meaning (see p. 190). Derivatives with *-to- -ta The NC béržta “birch grove” J; Š was formed with the suffix -ta, which derives directly from the Indo-European adjectival suffix *-to-/-tā- (cf. also the variant béržtva I). -(r)otas Only a few NC have derivatives with the suffix -(r)otas, e.g.: alksnōtas “alder grove” J I 96, apynōtas Kv; Rt; Šdv, apvynōtas “hop garden” J; JD 219, apušōtas J; Kp; Ds; Pg, apušrōtas “aspen grove” J; Krž; Kv; Ms; Brs; Užv; Gl, beržōtas “birch grove” Jd; Srv; Pc (LKŽ I² 105, 218, 277, 283, 778). Pasak K. Būgos (1958:160 tt.), kuopinės kilmės yra ir kai kurie baltų kalbų vietovardžiai, pvz.: lie. Apušotas, Liepalotai: liepālė, Pušalotas: pušālė, pr. Rickayot: rikijs ”viešpats” (Herr) III 371². Derivatives of this type may have arisen when the suffix -tas was added to collective names with the old derivational ending *-ā-, cf. alksnōtas and alksna/alksnā (see p. 179), as well as beržōtas and béržta. -ytė In some eastern and western Aukštaitian dialects, derivatives with the suffix -ytė have the same meanings as derivatives with the suffixes -ynas, -ynė, e.g.: alksnytė “alder grove” J; Šd; Rs; Pg; Klov; Rgv (LKŽ I² 105), ąžuolytė “young oak forest” J; Kp; Rm; Grk (I² 535–536), beržytė Rm; Rgv, beržytė “young birch forest” Rs; Grk (I² 777), eglyte “spruce grove” J I 694, karklytė “a place overgrown with willows” Rgv; Rm (V 294), kelmytė “stump-covered area” Grk; Kp; Dl (V 526), kemšytė “tussocky meadow” Vdšk (V 564), lazdytė “a place where hazels grow” Ėr (VII 214), liepytė “linden thickets” Rgv (VII 426), molytė “clay area” Kur; Ėr (VIII 340), nendrytė “reed bed” Rm (VIII 655), samanytė “moss-covered place” Ėr (XII 90). Hydronyms Beržytė Bsg, Javytė Btg, Kelmytės Vad, Žilvytė Šlv derive from this type of formation (Vanagas 1970:44). On the basis of place names Apsitė, Kelmitė, Žvirgždītė and the like, it is believed 187 that collective names with the corresponding suffix -īte also existed earlier in Latvian (LVG 388; BKGF 97). Derivatives of this type may also be connected with Germanic collective names bearing the suffix -ide (<*-īt̄io-), e.g.: Middle Low German pfūogide “a pair of plough oxen”, geveterīde “parents” (Meid 1967:149). Names denoting bearers of a quality (nomina attributiva) were probably initially formed with the suffix *-īt̄io- (<*-īto-+*-i̯o-), whose reflexes occur not only in Baltic and Germanic languages but also in Slavic languages. Later they acquired other meanings as well, including a collective meaning (aut. 1991:18–19). Derivatives with *-men- -menė, -mė Collective meaning is sometimes found in names of properties with the suffixes -menė, -mė, derived from *-men-, e.g.: mažmenė “small things” BM 433; Trgn (alongside “childhood, infancy” Dkšt; Aps — LKŽ VII 978), smulkmė “small children” J; Žem; Užv; Vkš; “smaller livestock, animals” S.Dauk; Slv; Krkl; Up; “insignificant, obscure people” Štk (XII 221). -(i)uomenė In the Aukštaitian dialect, collective names with the suffix -(i)uomenė are used, e.g.: kar(i)ūomenė, didūomenė, jaunūomenė and so on (LKA III Map no. 126. P. 139—140). P. Skardžius (ŽD 237) believed that this suffix arose from the adjectival suffix -uom-, extended by the suffix -enė. Thus, he associated the derivative didūomenė, like K. Būga (1959:338), with the derivative didūomis “nobleman” found in S. Daukantas’s writings; the derivative tikrūomenė “genuine people” is associated by Grz with Prussian starintickroms “sternly righteous” (eueriger) III 371₃. This, however, is quite doubtful, since apparently only two derivatives in Lithuanian have the suffix -uom-: the aforementioned didūomis and visuomis “universal,” known only from S. Daukantas’s writings. They may therefore be neologisms. Furthermore, collective names are not formed in Lithuanian with the suffix -enė. Įtikinamesnė atrodo J. Endzelyno (1979:408—409) hipotezė, pagal kurią lietuvių kalbos priesaga -uomenė kildinama iš *-ōmen- (*-men- varianto) ir siejama su tos priesagos vediniais germanų kalbose, plg. go. dat.sing. aldōmin ”senatvei”, s.angl. ealdom ”pagarba seniesiems”. Šį požiūrį remia ta aplinkybė, kad kai kurie priesagos -uomenė vediniai rytų aukštaičių tarmėje turi išlaikę ypatybės reikšmę, pvz.: jaunūomenė ”jaunystė” Ds (LKŽ IV 315), mažūomenė ”vaikystė” Ds; Str; Švnč; Tvr; Brsl (VII 978, plg. mažmenė). Tai leidžia laikyti priesagą *-ōmen- priesagos *-men- variantu, su kuriuo iš pradžių buvo daromi ypatybių pavadinimai ir tik vėliau, jau lietuvių kalbos dirvoje imta daryti kuopinius pavadinimus. The suffix -uomenė has several variants in the dialects. -(i)ūmenė In the Samogitian dialect and in some Aukštaitian subdialects, in place of the suffix 188 -(i)uomenė is used alongside -(i)ūmenė; cf. kar(i)ūomenė and kar(i)ūmenė, didūmenė and didūmenė, jaunūmenė and jaunūmenė (LKA III Map no. 126. P. 139—140). This suffix developed from *-ōmen- through the raising of the vowel *-ō- (Vitkauskas 1977:103). -(i)ūmenė Apparently, under the influence of the suffix -umė (or -umas, -uma), the variant -(i)ūmenė of the suffix -(i)uomenė/-(i)ūmenė arose. The most widespread derivative of this type is kar(i)ūmenė (mainly around Kaišiadorys, Jieznas, and Stakliškės). Others are quite rare, e.g.: didūmenė (around Kupiškis), didumenė Lkm, mažūmenė Pnd, mažumenė Mlg (LKA III Map no. 126. P. 141). -(i)uominė, -(i)ūminė, -(i)uminė In some dialects (especially Eastern Aukštaitian), variants -(i)uominė, -(i)ūminė of the suffixes -(i)uomenė, -(i)ūmenė also occur, e.g.: kar(i)ūominė, kar(i)ūminė; jaunūominė; varguominė; visuominė, visuūminė (LKA III Map no. 126. P. 140). A still rarer variant of the suffix -(i)ūminė is -(i)ūminė, e.g.: karūminė Drs; VIkv; Ndz; Žž, karūminė Mnj (LKŽ V 349; LKA III Map no. 126), diduminė Rmš, mažūminė Rmš; Lb, jaunum inė Lb (LKA III 141). V. Grinaveckis (1977:75—76) believes that -(i)uominė arose when the unstressed vowel e changed to i in the environment of heterosyllabic consonants m, n. These suffixes may represent a weaker ablaut grade of the corresponding suffixes -(i)uomenė, -(i)ūmenė, -(i)ūmenė, cf. Lith. akmuo, akmenas and akminas Krž; Krš; LT I 48, akmina WP 47 (LKŽ I² 82), Latv. akmens and akminis ‘stone’, OCS камъние alongside камение ‘stones’ (Brugmann 1906:233—234), as well as Lith. edmenė, édmenys ‘food, meal’, Latv. edmenis, edmanis and edminis ‘bait, lure’, Lith. juosmuo, juosmenys, Latv. juosmenis and juosminis ‘waist, waistband’, Lith. lekmenė, Latv. lekmenis and lekminis ‘bog, quagmire’, Lith. skiemuo, Latv. šķiemenis and šķieminis ‘space for the shuttle to pass through during weaving; a slat placed on a loom’, Lith. tešmuo, Latv. tesmens, tesmenis and tesminis ‘tešmuo’, and others (Urbutis 1981:187). -uomė Probably through contamination of the suffixes -uomenė and -umė, the suffix -uomė arose; cf. did(u)omė ‘did(u)omenė’ Ad (LKA III 140), jaunūomė ‘jaunuomenė’ Grz (LKŽ IV 314), mažūomė ‘childhood’ Ad; Krc; Jnšk (VII 978), and didumė, jaunumė, mažumė. Derivatives with other affixes of property names Sometimes property names of other derivational types also acquire a collective meaning: -umas: jaunumas ‘young people’ BB Ps 48,15; 78,63; Vln 47₁₇; DP 413₁₂, 587₆, tikrumai ‘closest relatives’ Srv (ŽD 213), žalumas ‘grassy vegetation’ Pžsl; Kp (LKŽK); -uma: diduma ‘diduomenė’ Pg (LKŽ II² 485), jaunuma ‘young people’ Grv (IV 313), senuma ‘old things’ Lz (XII 410); -umė: didumė ‘diduomenė’ Lkm (LKA III 140), jaunumė ‘jaunuomenė’ 189 NS 456, 522, 1288; BM 24; On; Al; Rk; Svn; Ldk; Vdn; Nmj (LKŽ IV 313; LKA III 140), mažumė “small folk” Bt ApD 26,29; Brs; Ds; Rk; Lkm; Gdr; Lzd (LKŽ VII 978; LKA III 140); -imas: jaunìmas (widespread since the beginning of written records), mažìmas “small children” Arm (LKŽ VII 969), senìmas “old people” Brt; Skp; Srj; Mrs; Dv (XII 390); -imė: jaunimė “young people” A.Baran; O; Kp; Pnd (LKŽ IV 310); -yba: kunigýba “clergy” J; -ybė: draugýbė “community” MT 1916; SE 1327; “friend, company” PK 80; MP 205; LzP, kunigýbė “clergy” J; LL 55, ponýbė “nobility, gentry” J; M.Valanč; Žem; Užv; Slnt; Pln; Brs; Rmč; Lnkv; Lg (LKŽ X 428), vyrýbė “menfolk” Vb (Būga 1958:544); -ysta: bendrystà “association” DP 449₂₂, 513₄₃, 578₄₁, žydysta “Jews” BB PvK 3,1; -ystė: bendrystė “association” DP 234₂₀, 351₁₁, 371₁₈, 403₂₁, krikščionystė “Christians” Vln 1917₂₀, kazokystė “Cossacks” SD³ 126; -atis: šeimatis “household members” DP 464₁₃; BB Jer 20,6; Job 19,15; J; NdŽ; KŽ; -astis: bažmastis “a multitude, a host” J, bjaurastis “ugly, angry words” Ds (LKŽ I² 795); -iškė: jauniškė “young people” BP I 169₁₇; K; Up; Kv; Pgr; Šll; Trg; Erž (LKŽ IV 312; LKA III 140); -ovė: bendrovė “household, family; association” J; JR 90, 82; -ė: draugė “community; association; group, heap; family; household” (in old writings, besides these meanings, the derivative draugė also had the meaning of a quality, “friendship” LKŽ II² 655–656; however, the collective meanings are apparently also old; compare Latvian dràudze “community, group, heap” ME I 491), linė “several flax plants grown together into one bundle” Dkk; Užp; LTR(Dglš) (LKŽ VII 524), mòlė Vlk; Lp; Grž; Bd, molė “a patch of moles” Mrs (VIII 335), tulė “a multitude, group, flock” (characteristic of the Samogitian dialect). Qualitative and collective names are very close in many other ancient Indo-European languages as well (Brugmann, 1906:644 ff.). These derivational categories apparently converged at the time when, with the formation of the morphological ā-stem, not only collective names but also abstract nouns began to be formed with the derivational ending *-ā- (later also the affix *-(i)jā-). N o u n - b a s e d p l a c e n a m e s The data discussed show that collective nouns (especially those with the suffixes -ynas, -ynė, -iena, -ija, -ytė) very often acquire locative meanings. This is one of the most important stimuli that encouraged the emergence of a separate derivational category of noun-based place names, which is entirely new and developed on Lithuanian linguistic soil. Derivatives with the suffixes -idė/-ydė, -udė, characteristic only of this derivational category, as well as the influence of Slavic languages, played an important role in this process. In Slavic languages, noun-based place names began to be formed even before the beginning of the written tradition, using the suffixes -(ь)на, -(ь)ница, -isče, which originated from adjectival pre- 190 sagų *-ino-, *-isko- (Бошкович 1984:245—266; Range 1977 su lit.). Vietų reikšmės lietuvių kalboje gavo ir dalis ypatybių pavadinimų (nomina qualitatis). Derivatives with the suffixes -idė/-ydė, -udė Derivatives with the suffix -idė/-ydė, of which there are about 20, most often denote barns, e.g.: arklidė/arklydė, karvidė/karvydė, kiaulidė/kiauly­dė, etc. (DaiktvDr 400—401; LKA I 50—52). Only a few derivatives are formed with the suffix -udė: aludė (the meaning “beer barrel” is already recorded in SD³ 106, 269; R II 74), pašarūdė “a place in a hayloft for storing fodder” PnmR (LKŽ IX 559), pelūdė (already recorded in SD³ 299). The suffixes -idė/-ydė and -udė derive from the root of the verb dėti (<*dhē-) (Prellwitz 1897:94; Specht 1936:95; Fraenkel 1936:204; LEW 92; ŽD 100—101; GJL II 268—269; Bammesberger 1973:35; Urbutis 1978:159 ff.). Derivatives with the suffixes -inė, -inis -inė Many place names are formed with the adjectival suffix -inė. They most often denote a vessel or a room (DaiktvDr 398). Derivatives of this type are already found in early writings, e.g.: avinė “sheepfold” SD¹ 117; SD³ 278; SP I 216, druskinė SD³ 106; Lex 144; C II 360, pašoginė “a shed attached to farm buildings” Lex 74; C II 400, rūbinė SD³ 433, vyskupinė “diocese” C I 357; Krz; S.Dauk; N. The place names in question may have been influenced by place names with a similar suffix, -(b)n’a, in neighboring East and West Slavic languages; cf. Polish owczarnia “sheepfold,” Russian конюшня “stable” (Бошкович 1984:250 ff.; Sławski 1974:138—139). -inis In some dialects, place is also denoted by substantivized adjectives with the suffix -inis, e.g.: kiaūlinis Skdt; Ds; Vdn; Mrc, kiaulinis “pigsty” Ktk (LKŽ V 69; LKA I 52), vištinis Mrc, vištinis “henhouse” Drsk (LKA I 52), bar kštinis Sk; Grz; Gšč, bar kštinis “barrel for fermenting cabbage” Žg, girin is “barrel for making kvass or beer” On (LKA I 70), šaukštinis “spoon cabinet” Vlk (LKŽ XIV 566). Derivatives with the suffix -(i)nykas(-ė)/-ininkas(-ė) In the Samogitian dialect and some Aukštaitian subdialects, place names are sometimes formed with the suffix -(i)nykas(-ė)/-ininkas(-ė), characteristic of names denoting possessors of a quality. They most often denote animal sheds, e.g.: arklinýkas(-ė)/arklininkas “stable,” bandinininkas, karvinýkas/karvininkas “cow shed,” kiaulinýkas/kiaulininkas(-ė) “pigsty,” vištinykas(-ė)/vištininkas “henhouse,” etc. (LKA I 50—52). Some derivatives of this type, however, have other meanings as well, e.g.: gardinykas “animal pen” LTR(An) (LKŽ III 122), pelūdnykas “chaff room” (widespread in the eastern Aukštaitian dialect, see LKŽ IX 777), salyklinykas S.Dauk; Mit II 262, salyklininkas “room for drying malt” Lnk (XII 79), šaukšnykas 191 “small cupboard for putting spoons in” Ob (ŽD 145), tarpininkas “space dividing a barn into two parts” Žg; Trk; Mžk; Brs; Skr; Vlkj (LKŽ XV 896). It is possible that place names began to be formed with the suffix -inykas/-ininkas under the influence of the Slavic suffix -(b)nica (<*-inьka-), which is characteristic of place names. In general, the suffix *-inьko- (<*-ino- + *-iko-) may have developed in the Slavic languages and only later entered the Baltic languages (aut. 1991). Derivatives with suffixes of Slavic origin -(i)nyčia The suffix -(b)nica is the direct source of the suffix -(i)nyčia (ŽD 357—358). Place names with the latter suffix were already being formed in the 16th—17th centuries. Especially many derivatives of this type are recorded in K. Sirvydas’s dictionary. Some of them are still used in dialects: karvelinyčia “dovecote” SD³ 72, kaulinyčia “place for putting bones” SD¹ 61; SD³ 123, plytnyčia “brickworks” SD¹ 10, varpinyčia “bell tower” SD³ 59, vištinyčia “henhouse” 110, 143. The derivative drusknyčia “salt storehouse” SD³ 115 has the meaning “salt cellar” in other old writings and dialects: Lex 72a; C II 360; K; Gs; Rg; Lnk; Vvr (LKŽ II² 769); and the derivative sūrinýčia “cheese workshop” SD³ 400 is now known in dialects with the meanings “room for storing cheese” Mrj; “cheese press” Vad; VšR; “basket for storing cheese” N; [K]; Krok (XIV 214). Other derivatives have become obsolete: knyginyčia “library” SD³ 137 (also Sut; A 1884,19; “bookshop” Lex 20a; A.Baran; “bookshelf” K), paukštinyčia “birdhouse” SD³ 110 (also K; J), plytinyčia “brickworks” SD³ 27 (also K; J), raštinyčia “office” SD³ 94 (also S.Dauk; J; K I 654; V.Kudir; “inkwell” R II 352; MŽ II 471; N; “writing instrument” K II 169), stiklinyčia “glass vessel” SD³ 83 (also N); “glassworks” SD³ 143 (also Q 224; R II 178; MŽ II 236; Sut; N; I; K I 548; “cabinet where glassware is kept” N; K; J). On the other hand, the 17th-century Lexicon Lithuanicum, a dictionary from Lithuania Minor, contains only a few derivatives with the suffix -inyčia. Besides the aforementioned drusknyčia, knyginyčia, we find here also vilkinyčia “wolf pit” 107a (still used in the eastern Aukštaitian dialect) and žiezdrinyčia “sandy place” 72a (also C II 364; Krz; K; LC 1883,4). -yčia The suffix -yčia, distinguished in one or another place-name, may be a shortening of -inyčia, cf. karvelyčia ‘pigeon house’ SP I 216₂₄; J and karvelinyčia, kaulyčia/kaulyčia ‘box or place for storing the bones of the dead’ BB Job 30,24; Prng; Vkš; Brs; Slnt; Žd (LKŽ V 432), and kaulinyčia/kaulinyčia, kiaulyčia ‘pigsty’ Rod (LKA I 51), and kiaulinyčia. -inčius The derivative kiaulinčius ‘pigsty’ Ds; Arn; Kls; Knv; Rud; Dbč; Vrn; Nč; Pls; Rod (LKŽ VI 696; LKA I 51) was probably formed on the model of the Slavic loanword bobinčius ‘church porch’ (Pol. babinec), following the example of lesinčius ‘forest ranger’ (Belarusian лесничий, Polish leśniczy) (ŽD 334). 192 Derivatives with affixes for forming property names -umas Property names with the suffix -umas very rarely acquire a locative meaning, e.g.: aštrumas ‘sharp edge’ BB Job 1,15, aukštumas ‘high place’ GG 4,8; Ch 2 Moz 17,10, gilumas ‘depth, deep place’ DP 1440, 154₄₂, 291₄₈, 400₂₆, 516₃ (also in later writings), cėilumas ‘depth, deep pool’ Nmn; Drsk; Lp (LKŽ II 2 25), geltonumas ‘yellowish area’ LŽ 78, lygumas Rš, lygụmai ‘flatness’ Ktk; Dt (LKŽ VII 485). -uma For derivatives with the suffix -uma (a paradigmatic variant of the suffix -umas), the locative meaning is now primary in many Lithuanian dialects (especially Aukštaitian) (DaiktvDr 399—400). The only exception is some southern peripheral dialects, in which a substantial proportion of derivatives with the suffix -uma have retained the older property meaning (aut., 1992). Derivatives of this suffix denoting places are already found in old writings, e.g.: aukštuma DP 407₁₄, ankštuma BB 2 Sam 12,34, giluma DP 85₂₉; SD¹ 35; SD³ 11, 68, 354, lyguma (widespread), negiluma SD³ 169, nelyguma 214, šlapuma 89, 178. -umė Occasionally, rare suffixes have a locative meaning: the paradigmatic variant -umas/-uma, -umė, for example: gilumė “depth” RD 48, lygumė “plain” Lkž (LKŽ VII 485). -imas/-umas As they become more concrete, names of properties with the suffix -imas/-ymas most often acquire the meaning of something possessing the property, and only rarely denote a place, e.g.: lėndrimai “meadow overgrown with shrubs” Žeml (LKŽ VII 329), margimas “spot, freckle” SD¹ 121; R II 329; MŽ, pōlymas “low, damp, marshy place” Krsn; Sug; Lb; Ktk; “large area of forest or field” Lkm (LKŽ X 416), rėtymas “selective forest cutting” Jsv (XI 489), tuštimai/tuštimai “hiding places, concealed spots” Q 131; Mž; K I 313; Bb 2 Mak 14,14; Švnč; Lnk; LTR(Srj); Dglš; Grv; Dbč; Db, tuštymai/tuštymai “same” PnmŽ; Nm j; Gl, tuštimas “same” N; K; Krsn; “place where there is no bone” Pv, tuštimas “hiding places, concealed spots” Šts; Dr, tuštymas “same” Vs; Pls; “cavity, emptiness” Bsg (LKŽK). -ima/-yma Derivatives with the suffix -ima/-yma (a paradigmatic variant of the suffix -imas/-ymas) are used in the Samogitian dialect similarly to derivatives with the suffix -uma in the Aukštaitian dialect, e.g.: ankštimà “narrowness, constriction” S.Dauk; M.Valanč; J; Krt; Plt; Užv (LKŽ I² 148; DūnŽ 27), aštrimà “sharpness” Lk; Vds (LKŽ I² 342; DūnŽ 33), druktrimà “stoutness” S.Dauk; Slnt; Pvn (LKŽ II² 754; DūnŽ 76) gilimà “depth” Užv; Pvn (LKŽ III 29 299; DūnŽ 92), karštimà “hot place” Užv; Vds (LKŽ V 325; DūnŽ 124), kiaurymà “hole” 193 Užv; Varn; Vkšn (LKŽ V 707; DūnŽ 134), minkštimą “softness” Pkl; Vkš; Šts; Pvn (LKŽ VIII 229; DūnŽ 201), raudónyma “red spot” Slnt (LKŽ XI 260), sausimą “dry land” J; Žem; Užv; Sd; Lkž; Vds (DūnŽ 316; LKŽ XII 216), siaurimą “narrowness” S.Dauk; Pln; Als; Užv; Pvn (LKŽ XII 480), smailimą “pointedness” Trk; Pvn (DūnŽ 337; LKŽ XIII 89), šlapimą “wet place” Pvn (DūnŽ 374), tuštimą “empty place” J; Žem; Plt; “abdominal cavity” P; LC 1878,20 (LKŽK, cf. tuštimas/tuštìmas). -imė/-ymė In the Samogitian dialect and some Aukštaitian subdialects, derivatives are used with a later ē-stem variant of the suffix -imą/-ymą. They also often denote a place, e.g.: kíaurymė “crack, opening” J; Pln; Šv, kíaurýmė “ice hole” Vlk v; Mrs; Skp (LKŽ V 707, cf. kiaurýma), kietymė “another place” S.Dauk; Slnt; Ms (V 763), laúkymė “natural clearing in a forest” S.Dauk; Grg; Gl; Plt; Rt; “white spot on an animal’s forehead” Mrk; Rod; L1 (VII 180), márgymė “variegated, multicolored spot” D.Pošk; J; Ms; Slnt; Ttk (VII 852–853), mėlỹmė “blue spot” J; Kv; Als; Kal (VII 1030), raudýme Rs (XI 249), raudónyme “red spot” J; Pp; Vkš; “red glow” Žem; “reddening of the skin” Šts (cf. raudónyma), rėtỹmė “sparse area of forest” Šts (XI 489, cf. rėtymas), šlapymė “wet place” Šts (XIV 1019, cf. šlapimą), tuštýmė “place without bones, belly” Snt, tuštymė “empty place, wasteland” Žem; K.Bink; Antš (LKŽK, cf. tuštymas, tuštimą). -muo, -mena, -menė, -(s)mė Only occasionally do names of qualities with the suffixes -mena, -menė, -(s)mė acquire a locative meaning; these suffixes derive from *-men-, cf. gilmenà J I 703, gilmenė A 1885, 97; Mc and gil̃mė “depth” S.Dauk; M.Valanč; Žem; J; Ggr (III 302), gelmė (also Latvian dzėlme, dzėlmenis, Prussian Gilmen; see Eckert, 1971:58); retmuõ “a patch of crops that have withered” Svn (Zinkevičius 1966:267), retmenà Žg (LKŽ 494), and retmė “a sparse place, a sparse patch” J; Žeml; Als; Šauk (XI 493–494), rėsmė “sparse forest, sparse area” J; Vl (XI 475), plónmena “a thinner part of something,” stórmena “a thicker part of something” J I 703, lygmė “flatland” J; Pvn; Tl (VII 477), plotmė “an empty, flat place” I; J; LzP; Yl; Slnt (X 313), šlopmė “a wet place” LC 1886, 48; I.Simon; Slnt; Drb, tankmė S.Dauk; M.Valanč; Žem; J; Vkš; Kltn; Šts; Alk; Btg; Lkž; Skr (LKŽ XV 814). -ovė In some dialects, the derivative prastovė, formed with the suffix -ovė, has acquired the locative meaning ‘a poor place’ Vad; Tj (alongside ‘poor, meagre existence’ Trgn; ‘poor work’ Rm — LKŽ X 560); in the standard language, the derivative tvirtovė has done so, although in dialects it has also retained its old meaning, ‘strength’ Mrj; Sd; Mrc (LKŽK); cf. also the neologisms ramovė, šventovė (DaiktvDr 402). 194 -ysta/-ystė Place names with the suffix -ysta/-ystė appeared at the beginning of our written tradition under the influence of Slavic languages. In Lithuanian, names of properties have long been formed with the suffix -ysta/-ystė; they are not at all prone to becoming concrete and generally do not denote places. The situation is quite different in the Slavic languages. There, names of properties were once widely formed with the suffix -ьstvo. During the period of written tradition, however, their number declined considerably, and many acquired various concrete meanings, including a locative meaning (Auerbach 1973:6 ff., with references). For example, the old Slavic derivative *korl’evьstvo, which originally denoted ‘the king’s rule’, acquired a locative meaning in very ancient times as well (ЭССЯ XI 8). Following its model, the founders of our written tradition coined the Lithuanian derivative karalystą/karalystę, frequently used already in texts of the 16th–17th centuries. In old texts, the Polish term państwo ‘state, dominion’ was translated by the derivative viešpatystė DP 374₄, 542a₄₄, 586₃₈; SP II 204₁₉; SIG II 73₁₉ (it is also used in later texts) and viešpatysta DP 22₂₃, 311₂₉; MP 5, 42, 62a. The derivative kunigysta DP 22b₁, kunigystė had a similar meaning: ‘dominion’ DP 203₄₉, 526₂₈, 542a₁₅; ‘principality’ SD³ 138 (cf. also PrG 67(1715); VoL 74; V.Piet), cf. Polish księstwo, Russian княжество. In dialects, however, kunigystą/kunigystę denotes ‘serfdom’ (LKŽ VI 894). The now-standard derivative kunigaikštystė was perhaps first used in a 1641 decree by Vladislav, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania: didėję Kunigąkbstę[teje Lietuvos. To designate the Prussian state that emerged from the Teutonic Order, the derivative ercikūstė: Ercikū[tes Prus[ų is used here (PrG 58). It is also found in later writings of Lithuania Minor (Lex 21, 38a, 48a; N; K). Texts of the 16th–17th centuries contain older variants of this derivative: hercigysta BB Pat 28,2, hercikysta VlnE 172₉, hercikystė Mž 93₄, hercikgystė PrG 57(1639). In contemporary standard language, these are matched by the later neologism hercogystė. Following the Polish wojewodstwo ‘voivodeship’, derivatives vaivadysta DP 484₁₅, vaivadystė SD¹ 195; PrG 57(1639); C II 202 (also found in later texts) were formed at the beginning of our written tradition. In the meaning ‘diocese’, M. Daukša’s Postil uses the derivative byskuPysta (7X), while its variant byskuPystė (5X) has the abstract meaning ‘the bishop’s duties, estate’ (as does Mž 29₉). In the 17th century, this derivative acquired its present form vyskupystė and denoted ‘the duties, estate of bishops’ (SD³ 17; SIG I 76a₁₂; Q 93). At that time, the derivative vyskupinė had a locative meaning (see p. 190); it was later replaced by vyskupija (see p. 182). It seems that only M. Valančius began using the derivative vyskupystė in the meaning ‘diocese’, writing the work ‘Žemaičių vyskupystė’. For this purpose, J. Pabrėža used the derivative vyskupysta. This was encouraged by Polish bySkupstwo, denoting both a bishop’s office and the territory under his jurisdiction. Thus, the aforementioned place names with the suffix -ysta/-ystė are morpheme-by-morpheme calques from the Slavic languages. In this respect they differ from derivatives with the suffix -ija, which have the same meaning—karalija, kunigaikštija, vyskupija, and so on—and were formed according to Lithuanian word-formation tendencies (see p. 182). 195 -ė Locative names in -ė may have arisen from concretized names of properties, e.g.: bendrẽ “a common meadow, a common field” J; cf. (LKŽ I² 750), gylė/gylė “a deep place in a lake or river” (widespread, already recorded in SE 161²⁶), grūnė “a bare, poor meadow” Ilg; Skrd; Plv; Grs (LKŽ III 659), klebonė “parsonage” Rod (VI 21), lygė “plain; forest clearing; open space” (widespread; this derivative also retains the meaning of a property: “equality” Msn; “evenness, uniformity” Jz — LKŽ VII 463—464), núošalė “a secluded place” Grž (VIII 959), plynė “plain” R; K; Dv; “bog, swamp” Q 515; V.Kudir; Vl; Vlkv; Jrb; Plv; Sim; Vlk (X 238). Conclusions 1. Collective nouns are a very ancient, declining derivational category. The paradigm of collective-noun formation in Lithuanian developed through the following processes: a) from old collective nouns with the derivational ending *-ā-; b) from substantivized adjectives with *-(i)jo-, *-no-, *-to-; c) from concretized names of properties. 2. In Lithuanian, old collective nouns with the derivational ending *-ā-, of which there were still quite many in Prussian, have almost disappeared. The ancient Indo-European suffix -ija—the principal means of forming collective nouns in Lithuanian—as well as the newer suffixes -(i)ava, -auja, -(i)uva, and, in part, -o-jas, -o-tas, may have developed from the derivational ending *-ā-. Collective nouns are formed with the latter suffixes only rarely. 3. In Slavic, Germanic, and Indo-Iranian languages, collective nouns are often formed with the adjectival affix *-(i)jo-. In the Baltic languages, by contrast, there are very few derivatives of this type. 4. In Baltic, Slavic, and, in part, Latin, collective nouns came to be formed with the adjectival suffix *-ī-no-. In this respect, the Baltic and Slavic languages are especially close. In Lithuanian, forest names are formed with the suffix -ynas, while in Slavic languages (especially South Slavic) they are formed with the suffix -ina. Only the form of these suffixes differs. In Lithuanian, only a few derivatives have been formed with the suffix -yna, which corresponds exactly to Slavic -ina. Its ē-stem variant -ynė is more widespread; collective nouns were initially formed with it, and later became concrete: in the Aukštaitian dialect (especially Western Aukštaitian) they acquired locative meanings, while in Samogitia they acquired mostly names of foods. 5. In Lithuanian (unlike Latvian), collective nouns with *-ei-no/-oi-no- are rare. They also occurred in Prussian. 6. Collective nouns are also rarely formed in Lithuanian with the adjectival suffixes -ina, -inė, and -inis. 7. Lithuanian collective nouns with the suffix -ytė correspond to Germanic derivatives in -ide (< *-ītio-). 8. With the derived suffix *-ō-men-, common to Lithuanian and Germanic, as with the primary suffix *-men-, names of properties were initially formed; later, in Lithuanian, it was used to form collective nouns. In Lithuanian, some other names of properties also acquired a collective meaning 196 names, especially those with *-mo-. 9. Noun-based place names are an entirely new derivational category, formed on Lithuanian soil as collective and special names became more concrete and special suffixes *dhē- arose from the root -idē/-ydē, -udē. In addition, this process was encouraged by the Slavic languages, where the suffixes -bn’a, -bnica, -išče had already been used to form place names even before the advent of written records. The Lithuanian suffix -inyčia arose directly from the Slavic suffix -bnica. On the other hand, probably under the influence of formations with the suffix -bnica, place names (especially names for barns) began to be formed in Lithuanian with the suffix -inykas/-ininkas, which, too, may have entered the Baltic languages from the Slavic languages. Slavic formations with -bn’a may have encouraged the formation of names for premises in Lithuanian with the suffix -inė. Administrative terms with the suffix -ysta/-ystė are calques of Slavic formations with -(ь)stvo, cf. Lithuanian karalystė ‘kingdom’ and Slavic *korľevъstvo, kunigaikštystė ‘duchy’ and Polish kšęstво, Russian княжество, etc. They differ from place names of the same meaning with the suffix -ija (e.g., karalija, kunigaikštija and the like), which were formed according to Lithuanian word-formation tendencies. ABBREVIATIONS Arn — Arniovys, Molėtai District. BKGF — Endzelynas J. Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos. V., 1957. DaiktvDr — Urbutis V. Daiktavardžių daryba. — Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. T. 1. V., 1965, p. 251—473. DaiktvDrR — Ambrazas S. Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai. V., 1993. DūnŽ — Vitkauskas V. Šiaurės rytų dünininkų tarmės žodynas. V., 1976. GJL II—III — Otrębski J. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. T. 2—3. Warszawa, 1956—1965. KZ — Journal of Comparative Linguistic Research in the Field of Indo-European Languages, founded by A. Kuhn. Berlin etc. LEW — Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg; Göttingen, 1962. LKA — Atlas of the Lithuanian Language / ed. in charge K. Morkūnas. Vols. 1—3. V., 1977—1991. LKK — Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics. V. LKŽ — Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Vols. 1—15. V., 1956—1991. LKŽK — Card index of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. LVG — Endzelīns J. Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīgā, 1951. LŽ — Petrasukas J., Vidugiris A. Lazūnų tarmės žodynas. V., 1985. ME — Mühlenbachs K., Endzelīns J. Latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Rīgā, 1932—1932. S. 1—4. MLVG I — Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. S.1. Rīga, 1959. PKEŽ — Mažiulis V. Etymological Dictionary of the Prussian Language. Vols. 1—2. V., 1988—1991. PrG — Decrees, admonitions and accounts of the Prussian authorities for Lithuanian peasants. V., 1960. SV — Endzelīns J. Senprūšu valoda. Rīgā, 1943. ŽD — Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. V., 1943. ESSJa — Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Languages. Proto-Slavic Lexicon. Issues 1–19. Moscow, 1974–1990. Other abbreviations are the same as in the large Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. 197 LITERATŪRA 1. Ambrazas S. Baltyų ir slavų kalbų vardažodžių daryba (senosios bendrybės ir skirt-ybės). — Baltistica. T. 27(1), 1991, p. 15—34. 2. Ambrazas S. Lietuvių kalbos ypatybių pavadinimų darybos raida (1. Pagrindiniai darybos tipai). — Lituanistica. Nr. 3(11), 1992, p. 22—34. 3. Auerbach I. Nomina abstracta im Russischen des 16. Jahrhunderts. München, 1973. 4. Bammesberger A. Abstraktbildungen in den baltischen Sprachen. Göttingen, 1973. 5. Benveniste E. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris, 1935. 6. Brugmann K. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Bd. 1. T. 1—2. Strassburg, 1906—1911. 7. Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. T. 1—3. V., 1958—1961. 8. Dambriūnas L. Žodžių vartosenos tikslinimas. — Gimtoji kalba, 1960. Nr. 1(7), p. 19—20. 9. Dambriūnas L. Jungtinės Amerikos Valstybės ar Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos. — Gimtoji kalba, Nr. 3—4 (33—34), 1966, p. 35—39. 10. Eckert R. Baltische Studien. Berlin, 1971. 11. Endzelīns J. Darbu izlase. S. 3. D. 1. Rīga, 1979. 12. Fraenkel E. Zur Suffix Substitution im Litauischen. — KZ. Bd. 63, 1936, S. 201—204. 13. Gerullis G. Die altpreussiche Ortsnamen. Berlin, 1922. 14. Grinaveckis V. Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių balsio e pakitimo heterosilabinių m,n aplinkoje. — Baltistica. 2 priedas, 1977, p. 74—82. 15. Hirt H. Indogermanische Grammatik. Bd. 3. Heidelberg, 1927. 16. Keinys S. Priesaginė lietuviškų terminų daryba. — LKK. T. 16, 1975, p. 7—56. 17. Lehmann W. P. On earlier stages of Indo-European nominal inflection. — Language. Vol. 34. 1958, p. 179—202. 18. Lohmann J. Genus und Sexus. Göttingen, 1932. 19. Mahlow G. H. Die langen Vocale ā, ē, ō. Berlin, 1879. 20. Mažiulis V. Baltų ir kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų santykiai (deklinacija). V., 1970. 21. Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai. T. 2. V., 1981. 22. Meid W. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Bd. 3: Wortbildung. Berlin, 1967. 23. Meillet A. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indoeuropéennes. Paris, 1934. 24. Pal-maitis M. L. Borussica. — Baltistica. T. 23(2), 1989, p. 126—133. 25. Prellwitz W. Studien zur indogermanischen Etymologie und Wortbildung. — Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen. Bd. 22. 1887, S. 76—114. 26. Range J. Zur Entwicklung der Wortbildungskategorie ”Nomen loci” im Baltischen und Slavischen. — Baltistica. 2 priedas. 1977, p. 124—130. 27. Rosinas A. Baltų kalbų įvardžiai. V., 1988. 28. Schmid W. P. Zum vedischen Flußname Kuliś́ — Croatica. Slavica. Indoeuropea. Wiener slavisches Jahrbuch. Ergänzungsband 8 / Hrsg. von G. Holzer. Wien, 1990, S. 205—207. 29. Schmidt J. Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen Neutra. Weimar, 1889. 30. Senkus J. Kapsų-zanavykų tarmių vardažodžių darybos bruožai. — LKK. T. 13, 1972, p. 143—187. 31. Skardžius P. Klausimų kraitelė. — Gimtoji kalba. Nr. 1(7), 1960, p. 19—20. 32. Sławski F. Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego. — Słownik prasłowiański. T. 1. Wrocław etc., 1974, s. 44—141. 198 33. S p e c h t F. Lituanica. — KZ. Bd. 63, 1936, S. 68—98. 34. S t u n d ž i a B. Daugiskaitiniai asmenvardiniai oikonimai ir jų reiks- mė linksniavimo ir kirčiavimo sistemų rekonstrukcijai. — LKK. T. 21. 1981, p. 185—197. 35. T r a u t m a n n R. Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen, 1911. 36. U r b u t i s V. Žodžių darybos teorija. V., 1978. 37. U r b u t i s V. Baltų etimologijos etiudai. V., 1981. 38. V a l e c k i e n ė A. Lietuvių kalbos bevardės giminės įvardžių kilmė. — LKK. T. 18. 1978, p. 69—98. 39. V a l e c k i e n ė A. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sistema. Giminės kategorija. V., 1984. 40. V a n a g a s A. Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba. V., 1970. 41. V i d u g i r i s A. Zietetos tarmės daiktavardis. — LKK. T. 11, 1969, p. 147—182. 42. V i t k a u s k a s V. Šiaurės rytų žemaičių dünininkų kai kurie morf foneminiai dialektizmai. — LKK. T. 17, 1977, p. 97—108. 43. W a c k e r n a g e l J., D e b r u n n e r A. Altindische Grammatik. Bd. 2. T. 2. Göttingen, 1954. 44. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. V., 1966. 45. Б о ш к о в и ч Р. Основы сравнительной грамматики славянских языков. Фонетика и словообразование. Москва, 1984. 46. Г а м к р е л и д з е Т. В., И в а н о в Вяч. Вс. Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы. Т. 1. Тбилиси, 1984. 47. Д е г т я р е в В. И. Рефлексы индоевропейской формы собирательности на *-ā- в балтийских и славянских языках. — VI tarptautinis baltistų kongresas 1991 m. spalio 2—4 d. Pranešimų tezės. V., 1991, p. 103—104. 48. И л л и ч — С в и т ы ч В. М. Именная акцентуация в балтийском и славянском. Москва, 1963. 49. М а р т ы н о в В. В. Пра славянская и балто-славянская деривация имен. Минск, 1973. 50. М а ж ю л и с В. К балтийскому и индоевропейскому дативу ед.ч. — Baltistica. Т. 3(1), 1967, p. 29—45. 51. Т р о н с к и й И. М. К семантике множественного числа в греческом и латинском языках. — Ученые записки ЛГУ. Серия филологических наук. Вып. 69. Т. 10, 1946, с. 54—72. THE DEVELOPMENT OF NOMINA COLLECTIVA AND NOMINA LOCI IN LITHUANIAN Summary The following chronological strata of nomina collectiva in Lithuanian have been established: 1. the oldest nomina collectiva with the derivative ending *-ā- (cf. Lith. álksna ”alder grove; bog; valley”, Latv. ālksna ”marshy area”), which have laid a foundation for some derivative suffixes: *-i̯ā- (cf. Lith. broli̯ā ”brothers and sisters”, Slav. *bratьja ”brothers”, Gk. φρᾱτρίᾱ and φρᾱτρᾱ ”Kinsfolk; kin; brothers and sisters”), *-ou̯-ā- (cf. Lith. broliavā ”brothers and sisters”), -ā-jo- (cf. Lith. liepōjas ”lime-grove”; Latv. ālksnājs ”alder grove” and Lith. álksna), *-ā-to- (cf. Lith. alksnōtas ”alder grove”); 2. derivatives with the adjective affixes *-no- (cf. Lith. beržynas, Slav. *berzina ”birch-grove”), *-to- (cf. alksnytė ”alder grove”, MHG pflougide ”a pair of oxen”), *-i̯o- (cf. Lith. galvijai ”cattle”, Slav. *(po)golvьje ”a number of animals”); 199 3. nomina qualitatis concretized in Lithuanian; the suffix -uomenė is especially productive (cf. Lith. jaunúomenė “youth” and “young people”). Nomina loci derived from nouns are a new Lithuanian derivative category based on nomina collectiva. The main role in its formation was played by the suffixes -idė/-ydė (arklidė/arklydė “stable”) and -udė which originated from the root *dhē- “lay, put down, place”. The development of nomina loci was stimulated by the impact of Slavic languages. The suffix -inyčia (cf. vištinyčia “hen-coop”) is a borrowing from Slav. -ьnica. On the other hand, it is highly possible that Lithuanian nomina loci with suffixes -inykas/-ininkas (cf. arklinýkas/arklininkas “stable”), -inė (cf. avinė “sheepfold”) were formed under the influence of Slavic derivatives with the suffixes -ьnica, -ьňa. Lithuanian administration terms with the suffix -ysta/-ystė are loan-translations from Slavic derivatives with the suffix -ьstvo (cf. karalystà/karalystė and Slav. *korl’evbstvo “kingdom”). 200