Балтийские и славянские названия овцы у барана

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXX (1993) DIALECTS OF THE PERIPHERAL LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE 10. V. OTKUPSHCHIKOV BALTIC AND SLAVIC NAMES FOR THE EWE AND RAM In works devoted to the analysis of Baltic and Slavic vocabulary, the thesis that borrowings moved in only one direction—from Slavic into Baltic—while the opposite movement was almost entirely absent (the thesis of A. Brückner and O. N. Trubachev) remains popular to this day. In the sphere of animal-husbandry vocabulary, this concept found expression, in particular, in one recently defended candidate dissertation (Protsenko, 1985). Slavic Balticisms (quite numerous in the vocabulary analyzed by this author) are either passed over in silence altogether or are not identified as Balticisms. For example, Belarusian dialectal бонда (also Ukrainian dialectal бонда "cow"), whose Baltic origin was convincingly substantiated by A. P. Nepokupny and other authors (see Laučiūtė, 1982, 9–10; ibid.—references to the literature), is not identified as a Balticism. The same applies to Belarusian dialectal марага "cow," маргель "bull" (cf. also marġis and Polish correspondences)—from Lithuanian margà "motley," márgis, margelìs "bull of a mottled color" and others. In Polish dialects, Lithuanian margójì "motley cow" was transformed with the help of the Slavic suffix –к-: margoјka idem. Cf. žalojka—from Lithuanian žalòji (karvė) "little brown cow," balnojka from Lithuanian balnóji "(cow) with a white back," žebrojka—from Lithuanian žebrõji "motley cow," szemojka—from Lithuanian šémoji "(cow) of an ash-gray color," jodis—from Lithuanian júodis "black-colored bull," etc. (the examples are from the aforementioned dictionary by J. Laučiūtė). Cf. also Lithuanian parščiukas "piglet"—a word borrowed into many dialects of Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian. Such facts testify to complex mutual influence between the vocabularies of the Baltic and Slavic languages, rather than to a one-sided direction of borrowing. B. N. Protsenko’s far-reaching conclusion concerning the Slavs’ "more developed sheep-breeding terminology" in comparison with that of the Balts (Protsenko, 1985, 8) is no less dubious. This conclusion rests on three alleged "penetrations" from Slavic languages into Baltic: Lithuanian ba/ogõnas, Latvian avins, and Old Prussian camstian. Yet, it seems, no one has so far questioned the native origin of the latter two Baltic words¹. Moreover, Lithuanian ãvinas, Latvian avins, and Old Prussian awins—the common Baltic name for the ram, very early 1 See, in particular, (Fraenkel LEW, 28; Sabaliauskas, 1966, 16; Toporov, 1980, 197–200). 63 borrowed into the Finno-Ugric languages: Finnish oinas and others (Thomsen, 1890, 160; Kalima, 1936, 6–7). As is well known, Baltic borrowings in the Finno-Ugric languages are older than Germanic ones and much older than Slavic borrowings (Hakulinen, 1955, II, 39–49). Lithuanian āvinas was formed according to a productive Baltic word-formation model: lāpė "fox" → lāpinas "male fox," avė, avis "ewe" → āvinas "ram," būrė "ewe" → būrinas "ram," bašė "ewe" → bašinas "ram" (and basinėlis "lamb"); cf. also the generic concept: ratė (ratėlė) "female" → rātinas "male"². In contrast to Baltic, on Slavic soil the word-formation model ewe → овынь is unique, and if one is to assume a "penetration" here, it would more likely have been in the opposite direction³. The narrowly dialectal vargōnas, perceived by Lithuanian speakers as a barbarism, belongs to a late period and says no more about the development of Common Slavic terminology than, for example, the Polish dialectal baziu̇tka "little ewe" (from Lithuanian baziūtė). In addition to the names for the ewe and ram considered above, Russian and Lithuanian folk dialects contain a fairly large number of calls used to summon these animals. Such calls are very often inseparably connected with dialectal names for ewes, rams, or lambs. Cf. the call баль–баль and бáлька "ewe," бур–бур or бурь–бурь and бырка "ewe" (Kursk, Voronezh) or "lamb" (Bryansk, Oryol), бяш–бяш or бяша–бяша and бяша "ram" (Olonets, Tula), бяшка "ram, ewe," бяшутка "ewe" (Pskov). Approximately the same picture is observed in Lithuanian dialects. Of particular interest are the calls and names for the ewe and ram common to Lithuanian and Russian dialects. Thus, Lithuanian bas’-bas’ and basià-basià coincide with Russian dialectal calls for ewes: бась–бась (Siberian) and бас’а–бас’а (Tver). The Lithuanian name for the ewe bašė can apparently be considered fairly ancient. This is indirectly indicated by Russian dialectal бáша "ewe"—a form that, like Lithuanian bašė, goes back to *basja. Cf. Lithuanian sādse = Russian and Bulgarian сýша "dryness; drought," Lithuanian šešė = Serbo-Croatian šȇsa "sister," and others. Unlike the word баша (and башка), which covers a considerable part of the Russian dialect area, another name for the ewe—бася—is restricted to the Novgorod and Northern Dvina areas and should perhaps be regarded as a Balticism. A phonetically similar call for ewes—Lithuanian bazė-bazė and bazį-bazį—can be found only in the Russian dialects of Lithuania (база–база and базь–базь). Names for ewes associated with this call are attested only in Lithuanian: baziūtė "little ewe" (cf. the Polish borrowing: baziu̇tka), baziūkas, baziūlis "lamb." 2 Here and below, Lithuanian material is cited from the academic dictionary of the Lithuanian language (LKŽ), and Russian dialectal material from the Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects (СРНГ). 3 In discussing the ancient Indo-European name for the ewe, it should be noted that Lithuanian avis has correspondences in Old Indian āviḥ, Ancient Greek ο(F)ις, Latin ovis, and Old Irish oi, whereas in the Slavic languages a form with a simple stem has not survived (cf. Old Church Slavonic ОВЬЦА, Old Indian avikā, Lithuanian avi̇̀kė, and also Lithuanian avikėna = Czech ovčná "mutton," but Old Russian овьчина "sheepskin"). 64 Another large group of names for the ewe and ram is connected with the calls barē-barē = burē-burē in Lithuanian and баря–баря = боря–боря in Russian dialects. Russian dialectal баря “ram” (Arkhangelsk) and Lithuanian būrė “ewe” (Kražiai), as well as the derivatives барька, баринка, борец, борька, бараш “ram” (also a word used to call a ram), Lithuanian bariukas = buriukas “lamb,” burulis, būrinas “ram,” burikė “little ewe,” and others—all these words show that dialectal vocabulary in both Russian and Lithuanian widely includes names for ewes, rams, and lambs etymologically connected with the calls баря, боря (from *bъrъ), barē, burē. Some of the Russian dialectal names for the ewe and ram connected with the calls баря и боря cannot be convincingly explained on Slavic soil because of the absence of corresponding word-formation models. Here the material of the Lithuanian language and its dialects can be brought to our aid. Thus, Russian dialectal борей “ram” (Novgorod) can be explained according to the model Lithuanian -ė (feminine gender) → -ėjas (masculine gender), i.e. būrė “ewe” → *burėjas (or *burėjus) “ram” (= Russian борей). In modern Lithuanian, the suffix –ėј– forms numerous nomina agentis. However, as P. Skardžius notes, this was not the ancient meaning of the suffix.⁴ Its broader meaning is attested, in particular, by toponymy known for its “conservatism”: Dėglė – Dėglėjus, the name of a forest (Vanagas, 1970, 111). Russian dialectal борша “ewe” (Olonets) was formed as Lithuanian boba “old woman” → bõbšė, kumėlė “mare” → kumelšė “jade” (Skardžius, 1943, 316), cf. Lithuanian burė “ewe” → *buršė (= Russian борша). Russian dialectal бýрший “ewe” (Novgorod, Komi-Permyak) should apparently be regarded as a borrowing from Lithuanian *buršė; cf. also бýрши “lambs.” The examples cited above make it possible to propose a new etymology for the Russian word баран and its Slavic correspondences. The existing etymologies of this word are difficult to regard as satisfactory. They are usually based merely on phonetic resemblance, isolated from other dialectal names for the ram and ewe, and do not explain how the word was actually formed. The presumed connection with Indo-European *bher- “to cut,” allowing, as in the case of the word боров, the original meaning “castrated” (ЭСРЯ 1, 39), is a typical “root-severing” etymology. References to Indo-European words with similar sounds and to the Alpine origin of a word derived from the calling interjection ber– in this distant area (see Vasmer, 1, 123) were rightly rejected by O. N. Trubachev (ЭССЯ 1, 157). However, the assumption of a Turkic borrowing (Trubachev, 1960, 74–76), or of Turkic mediation in a borrowing from Iranian (ЭССЯ 1, 158), is even less plausible. The presence of the word in Czech, Slovak, and Polish, alongside its virtually complete absence in South Slavic 4 “Thus, the suffix -ėjaiš initially could not have been used specifically as nomina agentis... at that time, undoubtedly, it was used much more freely and broadly” (Skardžius, 1943, 84). 65 languages5—an exceptionally unusual distribution for a supposed Turkism. The Turkic names for the ram on which one might rely here were in fact themselves borrowed from Russian (Vasmer, 1, 124). V. V. Martynov, who sees in the word баран an “Italian intrusion,” cites Latin repo, repōnis ‘a boot made of rawhide’—an etymologically obscure word completely isolated in Latin. The assumption that this was a boot made of ram’s skin (Martynov, 1978, 32–33) is entirely arbitrary and unsupported. Nor is this comparison justified phonetically: р → b̄- (?), e → a (?). Let us turn, however, to the Balto-Slavic area. The call for geese gágù–gáги (or the onomatopoeic га–га) produces the derivative gágan ‘gander’ (Samara)—just as Lithuanian dialectal gãgas ‘goose’ → gagõnas (Skardžius, 1943, 274). Likewise, the call бари–бари (or бар–бар) produces the derivative баран. In Lithuanian—according to the very same model—barė–barē (cf. būrē ‘ewe’) could have yielded *barõnas. Although Lithuanian barõnas ‘ram’ is generally acknowledged to be a Slavicism, this word fits quite naturally into Lithuanian vocabulary. The word-formation model by which derivatives in –опas are formed is reliably attested in Lithuanian vocabulary, both appellative (dirvà → dirvõnas) and onomastic (Dubrà → Dubrõnas) (Skardžius, 1943, 273–274). The dialectal form бараш “ram” (Vyatka) belongs to the names for the ram considered above, with an interjectional calling stem бар, just as the form крякáш “quacking duck” belongs to крячка idem and to the onomatopoeic interjectional stem кряк-. Here again, the far from obvious on Slavic soil word-formation relationship between the forms баран and бараш becomes clear through the lens of archaic Lithuanian word formation reflected in hydronymy: баран (*barõnas): бараш (*barõšius) = the river Ramõnas: the lake Ramõšius (Vanagas 1981, 272). The view expressed in the literature that Russian баран is borrowed appears highly implausible in connection with the material considered above. The reference to discrepancies in the root vocalism bar–/bor–/ber– (Sadnik-Aitzetmüller, 1968, 4, 240) does not demonstrate the foreign origin of Russian баран / боран / Czech beran “ram.” All three vocalism types are reflected in Russian dialectal forms бáрька “little ewe” / бóрька “ram” (cf. Lithuanian burikė “little ewe”) / берѝка “imitation merlushka on a winter hat” ← *“ewe” (Vologda).⁶ And in all three cases, calls with the same vocalism are attested: баря, барь (Lithuanian barē, barì), боря (Lithuanian burē), and берь ⁵ The word does not exist in South Slavic” (Sadnik-Aitzetmüller, 1968, Lief. 4, 240). Serbo-Croatian dialectal formations of the type бáра, барúца, барањ, барáш, бáраш denote various animals: a goat, a ewe, or a black-and-white pig (predominantly a billy goat or she-goat). Etymologically, L. Sadnik and R. Aitzetmüller (cf. the citation above) convincingly connect these words with бараст “black-and-white (of coloring).” O. N. Trubachev’s objections (ЭСЛЯ 1, 157) do not appear convincing. ⁶ Semantically, cf. Russian dialectal бырка 1) “ewe,” 2) “ram’s skin,” 3) “merlushka,” 4) “hat with a lambskin band” (СРНГ, s. v.). Cf. also Old Indian meśā- “ram” and Old Church Slavonic Мѣх. 66 (unknown). O. N. Trubachev’s attempt to explain the vocalism of Old Russian боранъ and Czech beran through dissimilation (ЭССЯ 1, 137) cannot in any way be considered successful. First, if one takes the actual (rather than imaginary) Turkism кабан, not a single form with dissimilation of this kind is attested from it for some reason. Second, neither the call барь nor the word барька had any conditions for dissimilation. Meanwhile, all three types of vocalism coincide completely in the calls and in the words баран, боран, beran. Therefore, O. N. Trubachev’s categorical conclusion alone—that “beyond any doubt the word *baranъ was borrowed by the Slavic languages” from Turkic (ЭССЯ 1, 137–138)—should be categorically rejected just as forcefully. Among other names for the ewe having close counterparts in Lithuanian and Russian dialects, one may note Lithuanian kūsē “ewe” (in children’s language), kiša “call for ewes,” and Russian кычча “ewe” (Vologda, Arkhangelsk), кытья idem (in speech with children—Kursk, Tula), кить-кить “call for ewes.” Here the Russian and Lithuanian forms differ only in the quantity of the vowel u: *kutìa > Lithuanian kūsē (with child articulation), *kūčia > кычча (as *svētja > свевча). Finally, a Balto-South Slavic isogloss is of particular interest: Lithuanian raganė, Latvian ragana “horned ewe” (M.-E. III, 464)—Serbo-Croatian rogònja “ram with long horns” (for more detail, see Otkupshchikov, 1977, 274–275). Extending beyond the late, borderland Balto-Slavic contacts, this isogloss testifies to close ties between the two families of Indo-European languages in the sphere of animal-husbandry terminology, particularly sheep-breeding terminology. Overall, Balto-Slavic relations in the sphere of vocabulary connected with names for the ewe and ram reflect different chronological layers: 1) Lithuanian āvinas—Old Russian овинъ, Lithuanian vilna—Russian вóлна have correspondences in related Indo-European languages; 2) Lithuanian ēras, Latvian jērs—Russian ярка, Lithuanian raganė—Serbo-Croatian rogònja represent Balto-Slavic formations; 3) the dialectal names for the ewe and ram considered at the beginning of the article are apparently connected with later, geographically restricted Balto-Slavic contacts. Here, among the common dialectal vocabulary of Russian and Lithuanian, it is often difficult to draw a clear line between inherited cognate words and borrowings that arose under conditions of close ethnolinguistic contact. In any case, we have no grounds for speaking of one-sided influence of Slavic sheep-breeding terminology on Baltic. Moreover, the word-formation analysis of Russian, Polish, and Lithuanian dialectal names and calls for the ewe and ram points rather to their more Baltic than Slavic character (not to mention direct borrowings such as Lithuanian baziùtė → Polish baziútka “little ewe”). As for the earlier period, the presence of ancient borrowings from the Baltic languages in Finno-Ugric (āvinаs, ēras, vilna, and others) convincingly indicates the independent character of Baltic sheep-breeding terminology, which took shape in such a remote period that no Slavic “penetrations” could possibly have been involved. 67 ЛИТЕРАТУРА Лаучюте Ю.А. Словарь балтизмов в славянских языках. Л., 1982. Мартынов В.В. Балто–славяно–итальянские изоглоссы. Лексическая синонимия. Минск, 1978. Откушчиков Ю.В. О происхождении лит., лтш. ragana ”ведьма” // ”Baltistica”, 1977. Т. 13(1). Проценко Б.Н. История названий животных в славянских языках. АКД. Минск, 1985. Топоров В.Н. Прусский язык. Словарь I–K. М., 1980. Трубачев О.Н. Происхождение названий домашних животных в славянских языках. М., 1960. Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. М., 1964. Т. 1. Хакулинен Л. Развитие и структура финского языка. Лексикология и синтаксис. Ч. II. М., 1955. ЭСЯ — Этимологический словарь русского языка. М., 1963. Т. 1. Автор-составитель Н.М.Шанский. ЭССЯ — Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Под ред. О.Н.Трубачева. Вып. 1. М., 1974. Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955. Kalima J. Itämerensuomalaisten kielten baltilaiset lainasanat. Helsinki, 1936. M.-E. — Mühlenbach K.-Endzelin J. Lettisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Bd. 1. Riga, 1923. Sabaliauskas A. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida // ”Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai”, 1966. T. 8. Sadnik L. Aitzetmüller R. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Lief. 4. Wiesbaden, 1968. Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. V., 1943. Thomsen V. Berøringen mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) sprog. Kobenhavn, 1890. Vanagas A. Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba. V., 1970. Vanagas A. Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. V., 1981. BALTŲ IR SLAVŲ KALBŲ AVIES IR AVINO PAVADINIMAI Reziumė Straipsnyje apžvelgiami baltų ir slavų kalbų (tarmių) avies ir avino pavadinimai, analizuojama jų daryba iš šaukimo žodžių (pvz., liet. bas’-bas’, basia-baśia ir bašė’àvis’, rusų tarmių бась-бась, ба́ся’аvis’, liet. bazė-bazė, bazi- 68 bazi ir baziūtė "avis", baziukas, baziulis "ėriukas", Lietuvos rusų tarmių baza-bazą, bazь-bazь, lenkų baziutka "avytė"). Daroma išvada, kad su.avies ir avino pavadinimais susijusi baltų ir slavų kalbų leksika atspindi įvairius chronologinius sluoksnius: 1) liet. āvinas — sen. rus. овьнъ, liet. vilna — rus. волна turi atitikmenų giminingose indoeuropiečių kalbose; 2) liet. ėras, lat. jērs — rus. ярка, liet. raganė, lat. ragana "raguota avis" — serbų-kroatų rogońa rodo baltų ir slavų kalbų žodžių darybą; 3) įvairūs tarminiai pavadinimai sietini su vėlesnių laikų geografiškai ribotais baltų ir slavų kontaktais. Nėra pagrindo kalbėti (kaip daro kai kurie kalbininkai) apie vienpusę slavų kalbų avininkystės terminijos įtaką baltų kalboms. Priešingai, rusų, lenkų, lietuvių tarmių avies ir avino pavadinimų iš šaukimo žodžių daryba leidžia manyti, kad jie būdingesni baltų kalboms nei slavų. Seniausi finų kalbų baltizmai (āvinas, ėras, vilna ir kt.) rodo, kad baltai savo avininkystės terminiją turėjo jau tais laikais, kada slavų terminijos "prasisverbimo" dar negalėjo būti.