LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIX (1991)

ELENA GRINAVECKIENĖ

LITHUANIANISMS IN THE POLISH DIALECT OF THE BUIVYDŽIAI AREA (VILNIUS DISTRICT)

On July 7–11, 1987, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, together with the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Polish People’s Republic, conducted a comprehensive study of the speech of elderly local people in the church village of Buivydžiai, Vilnius District, and the neighboring villages of Maikūnai, Pilviškės, and Vilkinė (Pol. Wilkinecy). Our task was to collect Lithuanianisms used in the Slavic dialects of these places, while the Polish linguists, Dr. Iryda Grek-Pabis and Irena Maryniak, recorded material from the Polish dialect.

At the outset of the study, it was established that local people could communicate freely in Belarusian and Polish, and that all of them knew Russian. Thus, this region is now trilingual. Earlier researchers correctly regarded this area as Belarusian-speaking and maintained that local people ordinarily spoke Belarusian among themselves in everyday life (paprostu, i.e. plainly), and only in church, in the shop, at the market, on the road, or with a stranger did they try to speak more Polish (ПГ I 149). A similar linguistic situation remains in existence here today. Local people have spoken a Belarusian dialect here since time immemorial; it is a continuation of the subdialect of the southwestern area of the Astrava–Lajevo isogloss bundle (see ЛГГБ, Maps Nos. 46–51, comments 114–129). They have all learned Polish chiefly through the church. As a result, an informant who begins a story in Polish often unconsciously finishes it in fluent Belarusian. In recent years, as the country’s economy, culture, and social and public relations have advanced, younger residents of these areas in particular have become quite proficient in Russian. Since our guests’ task was to study the Polish dialect of this district, local people were interviewed in Polish during the expedition, and all informants’ responses were recorded in Polish. This does not affect our research in substance: we established that most Lithuanianisms (and their forms) in these areas are very similar, whether used by the same person speaking Polish or Belarusian.

When recording the informants’ responses in Polish, it was noted that this Polish dialect is rather poor and not very lively. First of all, it lacks archaisms characteristic of all other Polish dialects. In this respect, having no linguistic tradition of its own, it is closer to standard Polish than to the other Polish dialects (cf. Turska, 1939 59–60). Thus, it is more recent in this area.

Among the more distinctive phonetic features here, as in other Polish dialects of southeastern Lithuania and Balystok in the Polish People’s Republic (cf. Grinaveckienė, 1977 136, footnote 2, and the literature cited there), the denasalization of the nasal vowels ą, ę at the ends of words, and their reduction to short vowels, should be particularly noted. For example, Miał taką wielka siekiera ← Miał taką wielką siekierą; Przywioz truna taka ładna ← Przywioz trumną taką ładną; Oni dzwonio, lubio, majo, nanioso, rosno ← Oni dzwonią, lubią, mają, naniosą, rosną; Poszedł wažyniać sia ‘He went for a ride’ and so on (cf. also Turska, 1939, 74; Trypućko, 1970, 52–53; Kurzowa, 1972, 35; Kurzowa, 1975, 91–92). Among the morphophonological features, the nominative and accusative singular forms of neuter nouns with feminine endings are noteworthy. For example, Biała tkana prześcieradła ‘A white woven sheet’; Moja zdrowia słaba ‘My health is poor’; Wielka wesela była ‘The wedding was big’; Ta budowstwa droga ‘Construction is expensive’; Kupila puchowa kołdra ‘She bought a down quilt’

47

and so on. A similar phenomenon is characteristic of other Polish dialects in the Baltic region and Belarus (Turska, 1939, 92; Kurzowa, 1972, 36; ПГ I 51–53, 75, 76, 90). At the same time, the Polish dialect under study abounds in elements characteristic of Belarusian and Lithuanian (cf. Turska, 1939, 62), especially accentual features foreign to Polish, unusual cases of inflection in certain forms, considerable use of Lithuanian-origin vocabulary, Lithuanian place names and surnames of Lithuanian formation and origin, and, in many cases, the preservation of the dialectal phonetics of Lithuanianisms, most likely characteristic of the eastern Dzūkai, among other features. Thus, perhaps the most accurate way to describe this dialect is as a relatively new Polish dialect superimposed on Belarusian (which developed in place of the extinct eastern Lithuanian Dzūkai dialect) (Turska, 1939, 57, 82, 89, 92–93, 95, 96, 97). This dialect and its system of dialectal features therefore give the places under study considerable value as a source of knowledge: they are a fairly accurate witness to people’s lives and their relations with one another in the past and continuing today. At the same time, the dialect is an important source of living speech, providing new data for Baltic and Slavic dialectology, the history of their languages, and comparative linguistics, and making it possible to discern more clearly and describe more precisely the complex language-contact situation in this territory.

It was noted that some Lithuanianisms (including place names and most surnames) have not conformed to the stress system of Polish and are still stressed as in Lithuanian. This is clearly evident when the stress placement in a Lithuanianism differs from the penultimate-syllable stress characteristic of Polish. For example, burbalka¹ ‘air bubble formed in the rain’ (on the ground) ← Lithuanian burbalas; dyrwan ← Lithuanian dirvonas; gajdziuk ‘rooster’ ← Lithuanian gaidziukas; gigiel ‘horsetail while it is in the grain’ ← Lithuanian gigėlis ‘same’; gniziec ‘to swarm’ (of worms) ← Lithuanian gnižėti ‘same’; horud ‘granary’ ← Lithuanian aruodas; Kiersza ‘Keršoji’ (a cow’s name) ← Lithuanian Kerša; Kierszuk ‘a brindled bull’ ← Lithuanian Keršiukas; kumpiak ‘ham; thigh’ ← Lithuanian kumpiōkas; Marga ‘Margoji’ (a cow’s name) ← Lithuanian Margà; parsiuk ← Lithuanian paršiukas; raguci ‘work sleigh’ ← Lithuanian dialectal rãgutės ‘little sleigh’; rezgini ← Lithuanian rėzginės; skaracz ‘a towel made of coarse cloth’ ← Lithuanian skarà+acz; skaryniuk ‘a towel made of coarse cloth’ ← Lithuanian skarinùkas; skwiarsty ‘refreshments at a slaughtering’ ← Lithuanian skerstùvės; wijun ‘a kind of fish’ ← Lithuanian vijūnas; Munduc ‘name of a stream flowing into the Neris near Buivydžiai’ ← Lithuanian Mundūtis; Szalnoić ‘name of a stream flowing into the Neris near Buivydžiai’ ← Lithuanian Šalndītis; Widupie ‘name of a meadow in Buivydžiai’ ← Lithuanian Vidupė; Balciul ‘surname’ ← Lithuanian Balčiūlis, Grygojc ‘surname’ ← Lithuanian Grigaitis; Wierykas ‘surname’ ← Lithuanian Vėrikas, and so on. In some other Lithuanianisms, the old Lithuanian stress pattern is altered even when it coincides with Polish stress, for example, barzdziuki ‘horsetails grown into a little fir-tree shape’ ← Lithuanian barzdžiukai, brazguny ‘bells for a horse’s harness’ ← Lithuanian brazgūnai, szakaluki ← Lithuanian šakaliūkai, and so on. It has been observed that the shift of stress from its usual position to the ending (especially when the ending is open) is quite often found in Lithuanianisms in Belarusian (and also Russian) dialects (cf. the stress used by Belarusian- and Russian-speaking people in Vilnius and elsewhere today in Lithuanian place names Глаздинай ← Lazdynai, Жирмунай ← Žirmūnai, as well as Belarusian dialect forms кашая ← Lithuanian kašelė ← Belarusian/Russian коша, крупная ← Lithuanian krūšnė СБГ II 447, 537, and so on). This shows that the Lithuanianisms mentioned

¹ The syllable containing the vowel or diphthong printed in bold indicates the stress position, which differs from that of standard Polish.

48

The Belarusians of this area were probably the first to borrow the items from the local Lithuanians. Over time, they thus disrupted the old stress system of some Lithuanian borrowings and later, having “Belarusianized” them in this way, incorporated them into their own Polish dialect as well.

In the Polish dialect under study, some borrowings from the Belarusian dialect, or Polonisms adopted from it and Belarusianized, also have non-Polish stress, e.g., balbatun ‘chatterbox’ ← Belarusian балбатун; bandyt ← Belarusian бандьт; bohun ← Belarusian багун ‘marsh tea’; bocianiuk ← Belarusian бацянюк ‘little stork’; bandas z ← Belarusian бандаш ‘splitting axe’; czarciuk ← Belarusian чарцюк ‘little devil’; chłopczuk ← Belarusian хлопчук; dziaciuk ← Belarusian дзяцюк ‘boy’; dziaduk ← Belarusian дзядок ‘grandfather’; harbuz ← Belarusian гарбуз ‘watermelon’; jerm iak ‘winter coat’ ← Belarusian ярмяк; nac z owaczka ← Belarusian начоўачка ‘small trough’; pawuk ‘little spider’ ← Belarusian павук; pierog ← Belarusian піроґ; płaszczak ← Belarusian плащак ‘wood splinter’; płaszczaki ← Belarusian плащакі ‘wood splinters’; nie mają swoich, nie choczu czuzých ‘I have none of my own; I don’t want someone else’s’, etc.

In our view, the stress patterns mentioned indicate that the Lithuanian and Belarusian borrowings in the Polish dialect under study have not yet fully adapted to the rules of its linguistic system (cf. also Turska, 1939, 64, 83).

Among inflectional borrowings, the most striking feature is the complete absence of the singular dative ending -owi and plural nominative ending -owe characteristic of Polish masculine nouns. Here the sole singular dative ending for such nouns is -(i)u, e.g., oddali dziaduku, karszunu ‘to the hawk’, kolchozu, koniu, męzu, ojcu, synu, wilku, etc., while the plural nominative ending is -i, -y, e.g., braci, Bujwidzi, jabki (← jabłki), koni, kurczuki ‘chicks’, ludzi, ościuki ‘fishbones’, parsiuki, pluci, ptaszuki ‘little birds’, robaki, wilki, złodzie juki ‘thieves’ (usually ‘chicks’); cygany, drużb anty, grabi asty, kumy, pacy, partyzanty, pienięd zy, stolarzy, wijuny, etc. Both inflections are borrowed from the Belarusian dialect as elements of Belarusian substrate influence (cf. Turska, 1939, 61; ПГ I 58). It should be noted that an entirely analogous phenomenon, in which the Belarusian inflections of the singular dative and plural nominative of masculine nouns are used instead of the inflections characteristic of Polish for these cases, is also attested in other Polish dialects on the fringes of eastern Baltic territories and in the northwestern part of Belarus (Turska, 1930, 47; Turska, 1939, 71; Trypučko, 1970, 63; ПГ I 56; 71, 77–80). Unlike standard Polish, adjectives and participles in the plural nominative in this dialect have the ending -a, e.g., Przybieghi gromna pacy ‘Huge rats came running’; Teraz rozumniejsza ludzi ‘Now the people are more intelligent’; Kurczuki mała byli ‘The chicks were small’; Koni rozumna ‘The horses are intelligent’, Krosny byli zrobiona ‘The looms were made’, etc. Turska, 1939, 121, gives examples of similar morphology.

During the research, as mentioned, a collection of Lithuanian-origin vocabulary was heard and recorded in local usage. Most of it is also widely used in other Polish or Belarusian dialects in Lithuania and Belarus. Here an attempt is made to characterize it. An illustration is provided for some words of Lithuanian origin, usually highlighting the meaning of the lexeme; a possible source of origin or a direct Lithuanian equivalent is also indicated. The origins of some lexemes considered or suspected to be Lithuanian borrowings are sometimes newly substantiated. Where the phonetics and grammar of Lithuanian vocabulary contain data that make it possible to trace clear phonetic and grammatical vestiges of the Lithuanian dialect once spoken in this area, those data are emphasized and discussed.

The Lithuanian borrowings presented here in effect complement our research in this field (especially with regard to their variation and distribution), conducted in the Slavicized area of southeastern Lithuania (Grinaveckienė, 1969,

4. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29 t.

49

219—229; ГринавеЦкене, 1972, 394—408; Grinaveckienė, 1977, 136—145). They also continue the study of Lithuanian-origin vocabulary discovered by us and dialectologists of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus in the northwestern Belarusian dialects of the Belarusian SSR (ГринавеЦкене и др., 1972, 377—393; Арашонка и др., 1973, 27—37; ГринавеЦкене и др., 1975, 163—196; ГринавеЦкене, 1977, 160—169; Grinaveckienė, 1983, 182—204), expanding and supplementing the area in which it and its variants are used.

The following are regarded as clear borrowings from Lithuanian in this dialect (no illustrations are provided because their meanings are clear):

akoty (koty) ‘awns’ ← Lithuanian akuotai^²; cf. also kuotas ← akuotas (LKŽ VI 919), with the initial a- of the word dropped. For a possible analogous loss, cf. the adaptation of foreign words, mostly in Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish dialects: Lithuanian Nastė ← Anastazija, Sándra ← Aleksándra, Tõnis ← Antãnas (LVKŽ 76, 282, 321); kardijõnc ← akordeõnas, Dzidorjus ← Izidorjus, Paliõne ← Apolõnija, Zabėlė ← Izabėlė (Jūrbar-kas); Belarusian бяркулёз ← тубяркулёз, та́рыца ← ата́рыца ‘a small plot of land’ (СБГ I 118, 260), громны ← Russian ogromnyj (Buivydžiai), Polish konomistka ← ekonomistka (Buivydžiai), etc.;

bakszta ‘tower’ ← Lithuanian bókštas ← Polish baszta;

baltusznik ‘avilkailių dirbėjas’ ← lie. baltušnykas ‘t. p.’ (Turska, 1939, 78 nemotyvuodama jį laiko kilusiu iš br. балту́шник, o pastarasis savo ruožtu — lituanizmas, žr. Zdansewicz, 1960, 336; ГринавеЦкене и др., 1975, 166; СБГ I 160; Лаучюте, 1982, 43).

bartowy ‘birch-bark’ ← Lithuanian bėralas + Polish -owy;

barzdiuki ‘horsetails when they grow into a little fir-tree shape’ ← Lithuanian barzdžiukai ‘same’;

bonda ‘band, small loaf’ ← Lithuanian bandà ‘same’;

brazguny ‘small bells on a horse’s harness’ ← Lithuanian brazgūnai ‘same’;

brunkta^³ ‘brankas’ ← Lithuanian dialectal brūnktas;

bryzgul ‘rag, tatter’ ← Lithuanian brizgalas ‘same’; cf. also brizgas, brýzgas ‘same’;

bucz ← Lith. bùčius;

bumbulki ‘thickenings on a thread’ ← Lith. bumbulai ‘knots, lumps’ + Pol. -ki;

burbalka ‘bubble, air bubble formed in the rain’ ← Lith. burbalas + Sl. -ka;

dojlid ‘carpenter’ ← Lith. dailidis ‘ditto’;

dyrsa ← Lith. dirsės;

dyrwan ← Lith. dirvónas;

dziegieć ← Lith. degùtas;

gab ← Lith. gúobas. For the development Lith. uo → Sl. a, see Grinaveckienė et al., 1988, 126—127;

giegnì ‘wooden net posts’ ← Lith. gėgnės ‘ditto’;

gigiel ‘horsetail when still in the ear’ ← Lith. gigėlis;

gil ‘gadfly’ ← Lith. gylỹs;

^² Recognizing the indisputable origin of these lexemes from Lith. akuotas, we substantially revise the entirely unfounded derivation by Belarusian etymologists of their lexemes akóm and akóųце ‘awns’ from kotki ‘willow buds’ (ЭСБМ 102).

^³ In the Polish dialect under study (as well as in Belarusian), the consonant n (ń), when occurring before the velars k, g (к, г), is always palatalized, as in Lithuanian (cf. also Turska, 1939, 75, 90, 94—95, 108, 111; ПГ I 215—216; П II 193—194 et al.).

50

gilować ← Lithuanian gyliuoti;

gniźieć ‘to swarm, stir’ ← Lithuanian gnižėti (gniužėti);

grabiastować ‘to beat with a rake’ ← Lithuanian grėbestuoti + Polish -ować;

grabiasty ← Lithuanian grėbestai;

gułszta ‘a clump’. This lexeme most likely arose from gulta ‘a place to lie down; a lair’ and gužta through contamination.

guśzta ← Lithuanian gužta;

horud ← Lithuanian arúodas. For Lithuanian uo → Slavic u, see Grinaveckienė et al., 1988, 128.

jewnia ← Lithuanian jāuja;

jińksztyr ‘a botfly larva; a worm beneath an animal’s skin’ ← Lithuanian inkštiras ‘the same’;

kaciuk (kaciuchek) ← Lithuanian kačiukas (+ Polish -uczek);

kierapla ← Lithuanian kerėpla;

kiersza ‘Keršoji’ (a cow’s name) ← Lithuanian Keršà ← keršà;

kierszajka ‘a cow or heifer with a brindled coat’ ← Lithuanian keršà + Polish -ajka;

kierszul ‘a brindled calf’ (of a calf or bull) ← Lithuanian keršulis;

kiturka ‘the fastening of men’s trousers, their opening’ ← Lithuanian ketúrka ‘the same’;

kliszawy ← Lithuanian klišas + Polish -awy. Slavskii’s assertion that the derivation of Polish kliszawy from Lithuanian lacks foundation, being unproven (see SEJP II 229), is in itself untenable. For its Lithuanian origin, see LEW 267—268; Гринавеckене и др., 1975, 179; Лаучюте, 1982, 36—37; Grinaveckienė, 1983, 189);

klojm ← Lithuanian klojimas;

klumpa ‘klumpė; nerimta moteris’ ← lie. klùmpa ‘t. p.’ (žr. Гринавеckене и др., 1975, 178; Лаучюте, 1982, 30—31).

kunia ‘meadow beside the threshing floor’ ← Lithuanian kliùonas ‘same’;

kowsz ← Lithuanian káušas;

krejka ‘ridge’ ← Lithuanian kreĩkas ‘same’; compare also Lithuanian kreigà ‘same’;

krowsz ‘pear’ ← Lithuanian kraušas ‘same’;

krusznia ‘pile of stones at the edge of a field’ ← Lithuanian krúšnė ‘same’. Regarding the possible change of Lithuanian s-(-s-) into Polish (and Belarusian) sz (ш) in Lithuanianisms, cf. Balčikonis, 1978, 381, as well as their szper-ka ← Lithuanian spirgas, Belarusian шклюд ← склюд ← Lithuanian skliūtas ‘hewing axe’, etc.

kubizdziel ‘smoke-producing mushroom’ ← Lithuanian kubizdelis ‘same’;

kuksa ‘hand without fingers; foot without a sole; person with severed fingers’ ← Lithuanian kukša ‘same’;

kuksowaty ‘without a palm’ ← Lithuanian kukša+Polish -owaty;

kul ← Lithuanian kūlys;

kulowy ‘from a haystack’ (of straw) ← Lithuanian kūlys+Polish -owy;

kulsza ‘thigh’ ← Lithuanian kùlšė ‘same’;

kulśnia ‘ankle bone’ ← Lithuanian kùlšnis ‘ankle’;

kumpiak ‘ham’ ← Lithuanian kùmpis, kumpiòkas;

lagiesi ‘yellow-leaved edible thistles’ ← Lithuanian dialect lagėšiai ‘legėsiai’;

łupy ‘thick lips’ (of a horse, also disparagingly of a person) ← Lithuanian lūpos;

Marga ‘Margoji’ (name of a cow) ← Lithuanian Margà ← margà;

Marguik ‘Margiukas’ (name of a calf, dog, or bull) ← Lithuanian Margiùkas ← margiù-kas;

4*

51

mięczyczka ‘little trough, small trough’ ← Lithuanian mentė+Polish -yczka;

miętka ‘trough’ ← Lithuanian mentė;

miergiela ‘a poor, stunted girl’ ← Lithuanian mergėlė ‘same meaning’;

myłta ‘dumplings made of crushed, steamed oats’ ← Lithuanian milta ‘a dish made from buckwheat flour’;

nawda ‘benefit’ ← Lithuanian nauda;

odliga ‘thaw’ ← Lithuanian atlyga ‘same meaning’;

ortaj ← Lithuanian artojas;

oszaki ← Lithuanian ašakos;

pakuty, pakuta ← Lithuanian pakulos;

parsiuk (parsiuczek) ← Lithuanian paršiukas, paršas;

piatakumpia ‘fifth ham, neck cut’. A hybrid formation whose second root (-kumpia) derives from Lithuanian kumpis; compare also penktakumpis, penktākumpis ‘same meaning’;

plepatun ‘chatterbox’ ← Lithuanian plepatūnas ‘same meaning’;

pluski ‘dandruff’ ← Lithuanian plūškės ‘same meaning’;

pojsać ‘to beat the awns off barley’ ← Lithuanian paisýti ‘same meaning’;

poszar ← Lith. fodder;

potka ‘genitals’ ← Lith. testicles+Sl. -ka;

prymian ‘outbuilding; porch’ ← Lith. prymenė ‘ditto’;

pumpuryna ‘marsh marigolds’ ← Lith. dialectal pumpurynai ‘ditto’;

pundza ‘tadpole’ ← Lith. pūndza ‘someone with a big head, a stout person, a dumpling’; cf. also pundžius, pūndžis ‘bullhead’, pūndag alvis ‘tadpole’;

punia ‘barn’ ← Lith. pūnia;

punktom ‘at intervals’ ← Lith. punktais ‘ditto’;

putra ‘calves’ drink’ ← Lith. putrà;

rakietuk ‘a short, stout man’ ← Lith. reketūkas, reketýs;

ratieluki ‘small loom pulleys’ ← Lith. rateliūkai;

rezgini ← Lith. rēzginės;

rojst ← Lith. raistas;

rojstowy ← Lith. raistas+Lith. -owy;

rowgienia ← Lith. raugienė;

rypać ‘to play music, to fiddle’ ← Lith. rypúoti ‘ditto’;

scimbir ‘tail root’ ← Lith. stimbiras ‘ditto’;

scyrta ‘haystack’, ‘pile’ (of firewood) ← Lithuanian stirta ‘the same’;

skaracz ‘a certain kind of towel’ ← Lithuanian skarà + Polish -acz (Belarusian -aų);

skhut ‘a hewing axe’ ← Lithuanian skliūtas ‘the same’;

skwiarsty ‘feast at a slaughter’ ← Lithuanian skerstuvės through the segment of the suffix -tuvės and the transfer of the consonant -v- to the root;

skwirstuli ‘feast at a slaughter’ ← Polish skwiarsty+-uli;

stoć ‘upright’ ← Lithuanian stačiai;

stoci ‘upright’ ← Lithuanian stačias;

świran ← Lithuanian svīrnas;

świrsnia ← Lithuanian svirsnis ‘lever’;

szakaluki ← Lithuanian šakaliūkai;

szeszak ← Lithuanian šeškas;

52

szperka ‘crackling’ ← Lithuanian spirgas;

szula ← Lithuanian šūlas;

szurpa ← Lithuanian šiurpa;

sznirpac ‘to snort’ ← Lithuanian dialectal šn irpoti ‘same’, cf. šn irpšti, šnirpšč(i)oti, šnirpšlės ‘nostrils’;

torp ← Lithuanian tárpas;

tumal ‘ball, swarm’ (of mosquitoes, bees) ← Lithuanian tūmulas ‘same’;

warszkie ← Lithuanian varškė;

ważyniać sia ← Lithuanian važinėtis;

wentka ‘belly’ ← Lithuanian vént(er)is +-ka;

wiapla ← Lithuanian vẽpla;

wijun ← Lithuanian vijūnas;

wikswa ← Lithuanian viksvà;

wircyna (wircynka) ← Lithuanian virtinė (+ -ka);

żagary ← Lithuanian žagarai;

żegini ← Lithuanian žaginiai;

wżergać ‘to straddle’ ← Lithuanian žergti;

żylbuciki ‘willows, osiers’ ← Lithuanian žilyvai, žilbūčiai;

żwir (żwireczek) ← Lithuanian žvyras (+ -eczek);

żwirowany ← Lithuanian žvyras + -owany.

We will attempt to substantiate the Lithuanian origin of the other lexemes used here.

alier ‘sweet flag’ (: Alier i bohun przy rojstach ‘Sweet flags and calamus by the marshes’). The lexeme is probably a loanword in Lithuanian dialects, ālieras (āleras, arielỹs, ārielis) ← Polish ajer, a secondary borrowing (Būga, 1961, 342; LEW 54; Sabaliauskas, 1966, 70). This view is unquestionably supported by the form alerei ‘sweet flag’ used in Polish dialects around Sejny (LLR), acknowledged as a borrowing from neighboring Lithuanian dialects (Zdancevicz, 1960, 335), as well as by the lexeme álep (На а́леп някali хлеп ‘They used to bake bread on sweet flags’; Алеп maki — у kacniki ‘Sweet flags are like ribbons’) ← Lithuanian ālieras, which we recorded in 1977 in the Belarusian dialect of the village of Juodelėnai near Apsas (BTSR), spoken alongside a Lithuanian dialect. The Lithuanian dialect form ālieras itself must have arisen from ājeras purely phonetically, through the popular adaptation of Slavic articulation to Lithuanian, for ease or facility of pronunciation. This development was probably facilitated by the fairly similar articulation of the consonant j and the soft l (LKG 86, 88). Ālero is also recognized by others as a Lithuanian phonetic development from ājero (Zinkevičius, 1966, 150). In some of our dialects, only ālieras has given rise by metathesis to ārielas (arielỹs, ārielis), as well as ariēlynas ‘sweet-flag bed’ (LKŽ I 298); for a similar phonetic development, compare alierka (LKŽ I 99) ← Belarusian гара́лка ‘vodka’.

That j at the beginning of a word and between vowels has sometimes been replaced by soft l in foreign words in spoken Lithuanian is also clearly illustrated by the verse of a song: Neteksiu strieľčiui nei legeružių (Kalvaitis, 1905, 185), where legeružis ← German Jäger ‘hunter’ + -užis. With all this in mind, we conclude that āleras ← ājeras must have formed on Lithuanian linguistic soil and from there entered the Belarusian dialects of the area under study, and from them the Polish dialect.

apikula ‘a clumsy, awkward person’ (: Chłopczuk taki apikula przez ulicą szedł ‘A fellow, such an awkward one, walked through the village’; Kura siedzi i klepi — apikula wielka ‘The hen sits and clucks—such a great awkward one’).

53

The word is also widely known in neighboring Belarusian dialects, e.g., anikýula/anекула (СБГ I 87). Their source is undoubtedly the Lithuanian apýkula, with the same meaning (Гринавеҗене и др., 1975, 165). However, in our view Belarusian dialect etymologists (ЭСБМ 124) unjustifiably derive the Belarusian dialect adjective anikulám ‘stingy’ (←anikulamy, cf. віна́вам←віна́ваты) from Latin opitulatus ‘supporting, helping’. First and foremost, this etymology is seriously undermined by the Latin word itself, opitulatus, which, as the same etymologists state, is not even attested in Belarusian; only its relative opitulárium, which testifies to its possible presence there, occurs in Old Belarusian legal language. This is hardly a convincing conjecture. Moreover, a semantic link between ‘stingy’ (аникула́м) and ‘supporting, helping’ (opitulatus) is also difficult to envisage. Finally, it is unclear why the consonant l of opitulatus should have hardened, becoming аникула́м. All this gives grounds for rejecting this proposed origin of Belarusian аникула́м. In our view, the geography, phonetics, formation, and meaning of Belarusian аникула́м allow it to be derived from Lithuanian apýkula ‘a clumsy, awkward person’: the semantic chain leading to ‘stingy’ (аникула́м) includes the sense component ‘awkward, stiff’. And, in our view, this is what links Belarusian аникула́м with Lithuanian apýkula (+-аты).

balunda ‘thin, poor soup; poor-quality food’ (: Balunda — jak botwina, lodýga gruba taka ‘Balunda is like beet soup; the dumplings are so hard’; Smygalista dziewczynka była, a balunda jadła, na płuci padła ‘She was an active girl, but she ate balunda and came down with a lung illness’). The lexeme arose in the dialect on the basis of the dialect form balunda (~ balánda, balandà ‘Chenopodium’ used in eastern Lithuanian dialects (balandų leaves are used to make lapiėnė) (LKŽ I 584). The meanings of this lexeme known in the dialect undoubtedly derive from the primary meaning characteristic of the Lithuanian word (especially ‘poor soup’) and are closely related to it. Further semantic development in a figurative direction (‘poor-quality food’ and the like) most probably took place in the Slavic (Belarusian or Polish) dialects, through the natural expansion of the word’s domain of use, as its original meaning receded from usage along with the Lithuanian language from which the lexeme was borrowed. This assumption is supported by the fact that the meaning ‘poor-quality food’ is not characteristic of the lexeme in Lithuanian.

With these and related meanings, balunda is also widely used in Belarusian dialects: балунда́/баланда́, and, with metathesis, лабанда́ (Вешторт, 1968, 369, 387; Гринавеҗене и др., 1975, 166; СБГ I 155—156; Тур.слоўн. 39). The meaning ‘thin, watery soup’ of баланда́ is considered standard in Belarusian literary language (Тлум.слоўн. 331). The lexeme баланда is also used with similar meanings in Russian and Ukrainian dialects (Даль, I, 42; СРНГ II 72—73; Лаучюте, 1971, 79; Лаучюте, 1982, 38).

In the Slavic languages, бала́нда, балунда́ (← Polish balunda) and лабанда́ are used with the meanings indicated above and related ones; they are of Baltic origin and are linked to Lithuanian balánda, balandà (← Latvian balānda) ‘Chenopodium’; compare also balandiėnė ‘soup made from Chenopodium’ (ЭСЯ I 113; Urbutis, 1969, 49; Гринавеҗене и др., 1975, 166; Лаучюте, 1982, 38; ЕСУМ I 124). Belarusian etymologists, however, do not support this etymology. Noting that the word баланда is also known in Russian dialects, in addition to the meanings indicated above, as ‘chatterbox, empty talker’, and in Ukrainian as ‘chatterbox’, they argue that Slavic бала́нда in all the stated meanings is a single-root word that developed from a common source. They also regard Russian бала́ндать, бала́ндить ‘to chatter; to wander about’, Ukrainian баландити ‘to talk’, and Czech blandat ‘to talk’ as related, deriving them from a sound-symbolic

54

the reconstructed Slavic verb *balandati (ЭСБМ 288). However, this is inaccurate. In fact, there are two independent homonymous lexemes with different meanings, sharing only the same phonetic form and wholly unrelated to one another—бала́нда ‘poor, thin soup’ and пан. and бала́нда ‘chatterbox’ and the like (cf. ЭСРЯ 72—73; Лаучюте, 1982, 38—39; ЕСУМ I 124), whose content segments have nothing in common with each other. Consequently, their origins cannot be the same, and this etymology is therefore ruled out from the outset, while the Baltic origin of бала́нда ‘poor, thin soup’ and the like remains unrefuted. It has been suggested that бала́нда ‘chatterbox, clumsy person’ and the like is also Baltic. It is thought to have arisen through contamination of Balticisms: бала́нда ‘Chenopodium, unpalatable food’ and бала́нда ‘clumsy person’ (Лаучюте, 1982, 98). In this case, however, in our opinion, one could speak only of semantic contamination resulting from the phonetic similarity of these two words. Yet Slavic бала́нда ‘clumsy person’ may perhaps have developed from the Balticism вала́нда ‘clumsy person’ ← Lithuanian валанда (ЭСРЯ 268—269; Лекс. балт., 13, 32; Zinkevičius, 1974, 63), with Belarusian replacing the non-etymological labial b with the other labial б. This pathway is entirely possible, since the shift of labial b→б (as well as n→б, etc.) occurs fairly often in some Slavic-language words (especially borrowings), e.g., Belarusian бiрбáты←вiрбáты← Lithuanian nu-virbęs, берла́во́кі←вірла́во́кі ‘cross-eyed’, бярба́←вярба́ ‘willows’, бiнджáк←пiнжáк (пiнжáк) ‘jacket’, бойцаць←по́йцаць ‘to heed’, бу́кшты←*пу́кшты←Lithuanian pukštai ‘juniper branches sunk in water to attract fish; markers’, etc. (Гринаве́цкене и др., 1975, 166—167; Сцяшковіч, 1972, 51; СБГ I 187, 200, 389; Семенова, 1974, 7; Народ. лекс., 33). Of course, these and similar non-etymological variants of certain words may have taken shape not alongside their genuine forms in the main areas where they are used, but more likely in peripheral or bilingual areas (our dialect belongs to such an area), probably as a result of semantic bleaching and the difficulties of transmitting such words from one generation to the next, since they are not entirely familiar there.

bizowka ‘an insect that attacks livestock in summer’ (: Gilijo krowy: bizowki napa- dajo ‘The cows are being stung: the bizowki are attacking’). A lexeme of onomatopoeic origin is relatively widely known in northwestern Belarusian dialects as well (СБГ I 185; ЛАБНГ карта № 336). A variant of similar meaning, bizdalka, is also known in other Polish dialects of Vilnius (Лаучюте, 1982, 75). The pronunciation of the root biz- (Belarusian біз-) gives reason to think that its source is most probably not Russian бы́з←бык- (ЭСРЯ, 1964, 164), but Lithuanian bizas (← bizdas?) biz(d)ėlė, byz(d)ėlė ‘an insect that attacks livestock and stings them’, bizalas ‘such a beetle; restlessness, fidgeting’, bizinas, bizdinas ‘a buzzing insect, horsefly’, bizaliuoti, biz(d)elioti, bizóti ‘to sting’, bizdas ‘stinging’, biz(d)inti ‘to cause to sting’ (LKŽ I 860—864, 866, 870—871), Latvian bizene ‘a buzzing fly’ (M.-E. 302). Polish suffixes -owka, -alka and Belarusian -ayka were undoubtedly acquired when the word was borrowed or after it had been borrowed.

buldavieszka ‘a flax-breaking mallet’ (: Buldawieszka albo pralnik do wycierania lnu ‘A flax-breaking mallet for scutching flax’). The lexeme is undoubtedly related to Belarusian булдава́ ‘a porridge pounder; a stake’ (pointed at the end) (cf. also other Belarusian words with the same root, as well as Russian ones—булду́нья ‘the same’; булдо́йка ‘a bud; a cattail spadix’ (СБГ I 236), булдове́ха ‘a page boy’, булдо́вка ‘a large shepherd’s staff’ (СРНГ III 269); булдаве́шка ‘a knob, lump; fool’ (Расторгуев, 1973, 57). In our opinion, Belarusian булдава́ is justifiably derived

55

is derived from Lithuanian a buldė ‘a kind of round, ungainly, heavy object, a ball’ (Грина-вецкене и др., 1975, 169; СБГ I 236; Лаучюте, 1982, 63). Compare also the numerous other Lithuanian derivatives of this onomatopoeic buld- root: buldénti, buldėti ‘to thud’, buldoti ‘to pound, to thud’, buldì, buldÿ, būldu (m), buldakõjis ‘a person with large feet’ (LKŽ I 1150–1151). In our view, the large family of these lexemes, the unmistakably clear semantic relationship among them, as well as their geographical distribution, provide grounds for considering this etymology reliable, while also casting doubt on the Belarusian etymologists’ explanation of будава as an unquestionably (бясспрэчна), but unevidenced, contaminative derivative of two stems—Russian балда and their булава (ЭСБМ 407).

kielzny ‘bit’ (: Koni ržo, kielzny nie založona ‘The horses are neighing, not bridled’). Lexemes related to this one in meaning and formation are also used in neighbouring Belarusian dialects, e.g., кэ́льза, кэ́льзы ‘bit’ (ЖС 32; Н. Стл. 246). Polish kielzno ‘bit’, as well as kielzać, kielznać ‘to bridle’, still lack a reliable etymology, in our opinion (Brückner, 1970, 227–228; SEJP II 147–150). Recent research has undoubtedly and justifiably linked Belarusian ке́лзаць ‘to bridle’ with Lithuanian (ap)gelžti ‘to encase in metal’ (СБГ I 457). This view is fully supported by J. Laučiūtė’s somewhat later etymology of Belarusian гелзаць ‘to bridle’, гелзанне ‘bridling’, келзы, келза ‘bit’ (Лаучюте, 1982, 102–103), according to which these lexemes derive from Prussian gelso ‘iron’ and Lithuanian geležūnės ‘jowls, a horse disease of that name’; cf. also other unequivocal Lithuanian cognates of these Slavic lexemes: gelžai ‘iron tools’, gelžiai ‘the same’, gelžis ‘iron implements’, gelžūnė ‘scrap iron’, gelžūonė ‘the same’, gelžūnės ‘jowls’, gelžūonės ‘the same’, (ap)gelžuoti ‘to (encase in metal)’ and others (LKŽ III 229–231). The correctness of this etymology is also strongly supported by the lexeme dzëlži in the southern Latgalian dialects of Latvia, used precisely in the sense ‘bit’ (Reķēna, 1975, 323–324). Thus, both Polish kielzny and Belarusian ке́лзы, along with their other cognates, are clear Balticisms. The k in their root instead of g arose through the alternation of the consonants g:k (cf. Lithuanian glėbÿs: klebÿs, Belarusian енэ́пы ‘nails’: кнэ́пы ‘the same’, etc.).

kindžiuk ‘skilandis’ (: Kindžiuk smaczny – mięsa ta sama ‘The skilandis is tasty—the meat is the same’). The word is undoubtedly cognate with lexemes known in Belarusian dialects, as well as in Lithuanian and Russian dialects, such as Belarusian кіндзюк ‘animal stomach; skilandis, intestines; runt’ (НС 169; Н. Стл. 66; СБГ II 462), кулндзюк ‘skilandis; cecum; fat person’ (З народ. сл. 284; НС 60; СБГ II 480; Kur.); кундзюк ‘skilandis, stomach, crop’ (СБГ II 571; Akm.); склундзюк ‘fat person’ (Kur.); шкленёра, шкленлзи ‘thick sausages’ (Bakšt.); шкулундзюк ‘skilandis; fat person’ (СБГ V 480; Kur.); Lithuanian kindùkas, kìndzas, kìndžius, kluìdas, klundžiùkas, kundžiùkas, skindùkas, skindžis, skindžiùkas, skindžius, skindžiùkas ‘skilandis’ (LKŽ V 810; LKA 85; LKŽ XII 899), kindõkas ‘a pork back bone with meat stuffed into the belly’, kindžiùkas ‘stomach, belly; skilandis; runt’, kìndžius ‘skilandis; runt’, kindžiùkas ‘calf’s belly; skilandis; lard container; runt’ (LKŽ V 810), kundžiùkas ‘stomach’ (LKŽ VI 891), etc.; Russian кундюк ‘skilandis’ (the lexeme is used exclusively in Lithuania, in the Russian dialect of the Jonava area—СРНГ XIII 212).

There is a view that Polish kindziuk ‘pig’s stomach’ (more variants are given in SJP II 339, but all are classified as obscure and rare dialect words) was borrowed from Belarusian кіндзюк (see above for meanings) or Ukrainian кендюх ‘the stomach’s compartments;

56

‘sausage; fat person’ (Brückner 230), while Ukrainian kéndox comes from Turkish kindik ‘navel’ (ECYM II 423). In our case, the Polish kindziuk of the dialect under study, as its stress position most clearly shows, was undoubtedly borrowed from Belarusian. Lithuanian kindziūkas (with all its variants) may also legitimately be considered a borrowing from Belarusian (probably a secondary one). However, in Belarusian dialects it is rather difficult to believe that either киндзя́к itself or its variants клундзя́к, кундзё́к, склундзя́к, шклу́ндзя́к originate from Ukrainian kéndok and Turkish kindik (this explanation is in fact no more than an unproven assertion), particularly since their areas of distribution are mostly close to Lithuania’s southwestern border. Moreover, in our opinion, Belarusian киндзя́к, Polish kindziuk, as well as Lithuanian kindziūkas and most of their variants are diminutive forms. This is clearly shown by their suffix -iuk(-юк); compare the non-diminutive forms used alongside them: Belarusian шклендзи, шклендра, Lithuanian kindzius, ski̇ndzis, etc. Yet that diminutive suffix is unlikely to have anything semantically in common with the Turkish formative -ik in kindik. As is known, alongside киндзя́к and its variants, Belarusian dialects also use, fairly widely and with similar meanings, non-diminutive forms which are probably from the same root but are considerably later Lithuanian borrowings: склҍ́ундзи, шкля́нда, шклендда, шкелендья, шкълёнда, шкълёндзя, шкълёндзя, etc. (СБГ IV 448; V 479; Bakšt.; Grinaveckienė, 1983, 197). All of them undoubtedly derive from Lithuanian skilandis or dialectal Lithuanian skilùndzis. Comparing the meanings and forms of these Lithuanian borrowings with those of Belarusian (ш)клаундзя́к, склундзя́к, к(л)ундзя́к, in our opinion, reveals a fairly evident semantic and derivational relationship. This gives rise to a well-founded suspicion that the diminutive Polish kindziuk and Belarusian киндзя́к forms in our dialect under study may also be Lithuanian borrowings, evolved from the same Lithuanian skilandis (dialectal skilándzis, skilùndzis), borrowed considerably earlier. It is quite possible that different dialectal forms of skilandis, having entered the Belarusian linguistic soil at an early stage, began to Slavonize and, in the course of this process, eventually became diminutives by acquiring the suffix -iuk (that Slavic languages often tend to turn borrowings from Lithuanian into diminutive forms is clearly illustrated by Belarusian кля́čka ← Lithuanian kėlė, кóupачка ← Lithuanian kairys, мятма́ука ← Lithuanian mentė, подзинка ← Lithuanian puodynė; Polish Wilejka ← Lithuanian Vilnia, and so on). Thus Belarusian dialects could initially have formed Lithuanian loanwords *скіландзя́к, *скілундзя́к, etc., from Lithuanian skilandis (and its dialectal forms), which, under the influence of differing phonological rules, could have developed into the forms found today in the dialect under study (into склундзя́к, клундзя́к, кундзя́к, шклу́ндзя́к, etc.). Thus, for example, from dialectal *скіландзя́к, *скиндзя́к could have arisen through haplology of unstressed -ла- (for possible haplology of an unstressed syllable, compare Belarusian кама́нец ← Ukrainian камена́ц, ліска ← лі́січка СБГ II 388, 660; Polish za ki czas ← za jaki czas Bui̇vẏdžiai), and later, after the initial c- of the unusual and little-known word had been dropped (for a possible such loss, compare Belarusian на́сінка ← Belarusian *спасенка ← Lithuanian spąstai; Belarusian кара́ч ← Belarusian скара́ч ← Lithuanian skara + Belarusian -ач), the current kindziok form could have developed. And from dialectal *скілундзя́к, through syncope of unstressed -i- (compare analogous cases in Belarusian dialects: жвот←жывот, жлоп ← Ukrainian жёлоб СБГ II 151, 162), both the present-day склундзя́к and шклу́ндзя́к could have arisen (in the latter, however, the initial c- of the word first changed to ш-; compare Belarusian шкля́д ← Belarusian склют ← Lithuanian skliūtas), as well as Lithuanian dialectal šaršentas ← seržantas; šarnašius←šąnašos; šeremeta ← Belarusian сырамец — LKŽ XIV 524, 527, 648 and the recent pronunciation šąjudis of the unusual new Lithuanian word sąjudis in the Jurbarkas dialect), and also клундзя́к (with the initial c- of the word dropped), and so on. Consequently, such a process is entirely possible phonologically, morphologically and semantically in the dialects of languages in contact. It provides a basis for recognizing the Polish and Belarusian lexemes under examination as Lithuanian borrowings.

57

morphologically and semantically, such a process is entirely possible in the dialects of languages in contact. It provides a basis for recognizing the Polish and Belarusian lexemes under examination as Lithuanian borrowings.

The diminutive forms kindùkas, kundžiūkas, klundžiūkas, skindùkas, etc., found in Lithuanian dialects have probably all been borrowed relatively recently from analogous Lithuanian borrowings in Belarusian dialects, while their non-diminutive forms—kindzas, skiņdžius, etc.—were most likely newly formed within those dialects, thus “Lithuanizing” the diminutive forms in question.

kirdziuk ‘uvula; little tongue; a livestock tongue disease caused by barley chaff’ (: Kirdziuk — daleko języczek taki ‘Kirdziukas — a little tongue, so far away’; Zbiera sia ościuków na języku, i kirdziuk, i żywioła nie domaga ‘Awns accumulate on the tongue, and the kirdziukas, and the animal is unwell’). Related words are also known in some Belarusian dialects: kipdžók ‘livestock tongue disease’, kypdžók ‘a sore under an animal’s tongue; a lump on a chicken’s tongue’, кypчýк ‘a sore in the snout’ (З народ. сл. 174–175; СБГ II 464, 581, 585). These lexemes may be related to one another semantically and formally (for the alternation of root -ir-: -ur-, compare the analogous Belarusian бipтaчкa: бypтaчкa ‘wooden button’ and the like, as well as бaрбýлiнь←бypбýлiц←Lithuanian burbuliuoti, Polish warszajtos←Lithuanian viršaitis, etc. (СБГ I 169, 187, 241, 244; Лау чоте, 1982, 102), and also Lithuanian bimbsóti: bumbsóti ‘to lie’, bambėti: bumbėti, etc.). If the root alternation -ir- (Belarusian -ip-): -ur- (Belarusian -yp-) is accepted as an indicator of related words, there is reason to suppose that the lexeme under examination has related forms with the same meaning in Eastern Lithuanian dialects, for example, kurčiūkas, kurdžiūkas ‘livestock tongue disease caused by barley chaff’ (LKŽ VI 943, 946).

Besides the meaning ‘livestock tongue disease’, in the Polish dialect under study kirdziuk, as we have seen, has also preserved its earlier (probably original) meaning ‘little tongue, uvula’, which its Belarusian and Lithuanian dialectal cognates no longer have. However, the Lithuanian dialect lexemes in question still retain the most characteristic semantic component of this meaning, ‘smallness’ (compare liežuvėlis, melekėlis): kurčiūkas, kurdžiūkas ‘scythe handle; runt’, and also kurziukas ‘handle of a pitchfork or shovel; scythe handle; a small, puny, scruffy person or animal’ (LKŽ VI 943, 946, 984). Thus, in this meaning too, the Polish lexeme under study is quite close to its Lithuanian cognates. And Lithuanian kurčiūkas (← kurt-iukas; from the latter, kurdžiūkas and kurziūkas may have developed irregularly over time in colloquial pronunciation or under the influence of foreign languages) is related, both in this meaning and in its root, to Lithuanian words such as kūrtel y na, kūrtelis ‘a puny, emaciated, skinny person’, kūrtinys ‘ear cartilage, inner ear; eardrum; area behind the ear’, kūrtinti ‘to feed, fatten’, kūrti ‘to recover’, kurtūs ‘dreary, desolate, eerie’, etc. (LKŽ VI 973, 979, 980, 982, 983).

kloszni ‘crayfish claws’ (: Rak wielki, a kloszni malusieńkie ‘The crayfish is large, but the claws are tiny’). Semantically and formally, the lexeme is related to Belarusian клюшня, клюшни ‘crayfish claws’, клюшня ‘thighbone’, клюшняк ‘thighbone; crayfish claws’ (СБГ II 484, 485, 486), which we regard as Lithuanian borrowings (СБГ II 486; Grinaveckienė, 1983, 189). However, in one article (Grinaveckienė, 1983, 189), their Lithuanian equivalents were given incorrectly because the available data were insufficient and the phonetics of the lexemes were misunderstood. In fact, Lithuanian kloszni and Belarusian клюшня, клюшни, клюшняк are Lithuanian kulšnys ‘calf’ with metathesis of u and l (kulšnys→Belarusian клюшня;

58

from here the softness of λ is entirely clear, having transformed y into o; from klónų ← le. kloszni; from it, br. клъбни will also later have developed phonetically.

klomb ‘hip’ (: Krówka klomb wybita ‘The little cow bruised its hip’). Lithuanian klùmbas ‘thigh bone’ is unquestionably the precursor of the Polish lexeme under study.

kuszalapy ‘feather-legged’ (: Kuszalapie kury dużo niosa ‘Feather-legged hens lay a lot’). This is a hybrid lexeme comprising two roots. Its first stem, kusza-, undoubtedly derives from *kuszla- (cf. Belarusian dialect forms with the same meaning, кўшла ‘someone untidy’, кушлаты, кушла́ценькі ‘overgrown’ (СБГ II 595), under the assimilatory influence of l in the second (Slavic) root -lapa and for ease of pronunciation. куша-, deriving from *кушла-, is unquestionably a borrowing from Lithuanian kiùšlas ‘overgrown’.

morwa ‘duckweed’ (: Morwa zielona trawa, długa taka ‘Duckweed is green grass, so long’). The word is a clear metathesized adaptation of Lithuanian maũrai, formed in a Slavic linguistic environment: maũrai→mowra→morwa.

otosy ‘winnowing sieves’ (: Na jazúš ja wiem, że otosy żelazna i jakurat do hołobili przej-czepiona ‘I know by heart that the winnowing sieves are made of iron and are attached just there’). The lexeme and its variants are widely known with the same meaning in other Polish dialects, as well as Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian dialects (SJP III 632; СБГ I 122–123; Бялькевіч, 1970, 8; Сцяшковіч, 1972, 36; Н. Слт. 161; Насовіч, 1983, 377; З народ. сл. 282; Даль, II, 743; Расторгуев, 1973, 44). Belarusian амо́сы is regarded as a word of the standard language (Тлум. слоўн. 297). Most researchers acknowledge Lithuanian atãšajos as its source (Urbutis, 48; Гринаве́цкене и др., 1975, 165; Лаучюте, 1982, 18 and the other sources cited there). Some, however, doubting this, regard амо́сы as a problematic Balticism (Лекс. балт. 43; ЭСБМ 199). The lexeme and its variants are of Lithuanian origin. It is a derivative with the ending -a from the verb at(a)sieti. However, some occasionally try to discern the noun ось and the non-existent prefix ам- in the root of Belarusian амо́са (Даль, II, 743) (Belarusian nouns, incidentally, have only the prefix ад-!) (Сцяшко, 1972, 177; БГ 276), notwithstanding that such a derivational pattern is not considered possible here in Belarusian, Russian, or any other language. In light of all this, efforts to prove the Slavic origin of this lexeme are futile.

otożyły ‘shoots’ (: Drzewka wymarzła, ale otożyły puściła, i teluczek szkodnik połamał ‘The little tree froze, but put out shoots, and the naughty calf broke them’). The lexeme has cognates in southwestern Belarusian dialects as well. All of them are unmistakable Lithuanian loanwords, derived from the eastern Lithuanian dialect forms atãžalas, atóžalas (Гринаве́цкене и др., 1975, 166; СБГ I 122; Лаучюте, 1982, 62). One cannot, however, agree with the claim of Belarusian etymologists that the Lithuanian root forms atžalà, atãžala, atóžala were formed by the adjective žãlias ‘green’ (ЭСБМ 197). In fact, the latter Lithuanian word derives from the verb atžėlti ‘to grow again’, while this prefix is never used in Lithuanian word formation with adjectives (LKG 590).

palig ‘according to’ (: Palig heta i dajo pensja ‘According to that, they also give a pension’). This conglomeratic Lithuanian dialect preposition (Otrębski, 1934, 436) is used in the dialect under study, as in Lithuanian, with the genitive, and in this way has a considerable influence on its morphology and the government of words.

szuptynia ‘round dance’ (Szuptynia tanczyli ‘They danced the round dance’). This is an unmistakable Lithuanian loanword, irregularly developed from Lithuanian suktinis ‘same meaning’, owing to an unfamiliarity with or fading of the word’s meaning in the dialect; cf. the Belarusian form from the same root, сюнты́ня ‘same meaning’ (СБГ V 62),

59

arising through a similar phonetic development; for the word-initial sz ← s in szupłynia, cf. Belarusian ukiełónda ← Lithuanian skilándis, шло́кушина ← Lithuanian šluóksna.

Among Lithuanian place names, the following were recorded in this dialect: Bienka ‘a stream flowing into the Merkys near Tabariškės’, cf. Bienė (LUEV 18) ‘probably the same stream’, as well as other forms of Bienė—Benà, Bienà (Vanagas, 1981, 63)—and the place name Benekáinys (BTSR);

Bujwidka ‘a stream flowing into the Neris’←Bujvydžiai; Girdžiunka ‘a stream flowing into the Neris’, cf. Girdžiūnas, Girdžius ‘personal name’ (LPŽ 674); Manierka ‘a stream flowing into the Neris near Buivydžiai’. A. Vanagas (1981, 204) surmises that this is probably a new stream name, derived from Lithuanian manierka (←Lithuanian ma- nierka) ‘a vessel for storing holy water’. It is rather difficult to agree with this conjecture because of the scarcely conceivable (or almost entirely impossible) semantic connection between the name of a stream and a truly quite recent object, ‘a vessel for storing holy water’. The stream’s name was given to us by the oldest local informants, who explained that as it flows through spring-fed meadows, it is very winding and its channel disappears in places, becoming indistinct. Bearing in mind that hydronyms often derive their names from the configuration of the channel (cf. Atžagarė←atžagarias, Gūnibė←gūmbti and the like; Vanagas, 1981, 51, 127), there is reason to suppose that the name Manierka may have arisen in a similar way. Perhaps its root could be connected with Lithuanian Máinia ‘a lake name’ (LUEV 96), and Latvian Máinas-plava (to kaimini samainījusi), maìnas²-purvs (Endzelīns, 1961, LVV, 368), as well as Lithuanian mainà ‘exchange’, mainùs ‘unstable, changing’, mainýti ‘to change, alter’ and so on (LKŽ VII 736, 739, 744). Main-→Man- could most likely have occurred as the place name became Slavicized (cf. analogous changes in Lithuanianisms and other borrowings in Belarusian dialects: ва́ждацца ‘to be friends’←Lithuanian vaizdúotis ‘the same’; ге́бнуць ‘to perish’←Lithuanian geíbti ‘to faint’; баструк ‘illegitimate child’←байстру́к ‘the same’; ганава́ць ‘to be in heat’←гайнява́ць ‘the same’ and so on, СБГ I 173, 267, 405, 439). And its suffix may have been -irė, thus: -*Mainirė ‘the one that changes’ (its channel); and from this, with the addition of a Slavic diminutive suffix, -ka→*Mainierka←Manierka (cf. the similarly Slavicized Avirė→Aviernyčia (LUEV 10).

Miednicka rzeczka ‘a stream flowing into the Neris’←Mėdininkai.

Mindrynia ‘name of a pool’←Lithuanian dialectal Mindrinia ‘Reedbed’←mindrė ~ mėndrė ‘reed’.

Munduc ‘a stream flowing into the Neris’. A clear Lithuanianism with the diminutive suffix -utis. The root Mund- is, of course, shared with the personal name Mundeikis (Vanagas, 1981, 210).

Pugawiecì ‘a 30-hectare meadow’←Lithuanian Pūgaviėčiai, cf. also the personal names Pūgys, Pūgauskas←pugóti ‘to walk with difficulty’; Pūginių ežeras (Smalvos), Pugvietinis spiñdžius (Plokščiai).

Trakeli ‘name of a thicket’←Lithuanian Trakėliai.

Wokszanka ‘a stream flowing into the Merkys’←Lithuanian Vókša ‘river name’, cf. also Vókė. Žarneli ‘name of a village’←Lithuanian Žarnėliai ‘the same’, cf. Žarniai, Žarniškės ‘village names’.

The dialect under study also yielded a wealth of Lithuanian surnames, e.g., Jedargis←Lithuanian *Jádargis→Jódargis. This is a two-stem Lithuanian surname; cf. other surnames of analogous formation: Jómantas, Jótautas, as well as Saùdargas, Vísdargas and others; Kardzis←Lithuanian Kardýs, Kūpris←Lithuanian Kuprýs, Lekis←Lithuanian Lėkis, Lekýs←lėkas

60

‘an awkward person, a bungler’, Liksza←lie. Likša←likšas ‘one who survives’, Linkiewiczowa←lie. Linkėvičius←Linkus←linkius ‘one who is bent’, Minkiewiczowa←lie. Minkėvičius←Miñkus, cf. Miñkantas ‘surname’, Petrulaniec ← lie. Petrulionis←Petrulis←Petras, Pirsztel←lie. Pirštėlis←pirštas, Plawra←lie. Pliaura←*Pjaura←pjauti (for pj←pl, cf. plauskà←pjauskà); Rowba←lie. Raubà←raūbti ‘to dig, to grub’, Rowda←lie. Raudà←raudās, Reksć←lie. Rėkstis←rėgzti(s), Syrojć←lie. Sirātis, cf. Sirgedas, Surwilo←lie. Survilà, Swilo←lie. Svilas←svilti, Warkowska←lie. Varkauskas, Verkàuskas←Verkÿs, Wierykas←lie. Vėrikas, and others.

The Lithuanian linguistic data presented from the Buivydžiai dialect allow us to draw the following conclusions:

1. The Polish dialect under study contains mostly borrowed Lithuanian nouns and their derivatives; a large proportion of the place names and surnames used here are also Lithuanian. Most of this borrowed vocabulary is everyday—in nature, associated with the household.

2. It has been established that this dialect contains a considerable number of Lithuanianisms whose stress placement does not conform to the Polish stress system. Some have retained the stress placement characteristic of the older Lithuanian stress system, e.g., Masojć ‘surname’←lie. Masáitis, Pilwiszki ‘name of a village’←lie. Pilviškės, rezgini←lie. rėzginės, etc. In some other Lithuanianisms, stress placement is neither Lithuanian nor Polish, but Belarusian: that is, following the Belarusian (and also Russian) stress feature of shifting the stress of certain words to the ending, they are stressed on the ending, e.g., barzdiuki ‘horsetails grown into a little fir-tree shape’←lie. barzdiūkai ‘the same’, brazguny ‘small bells attached to a horse’s harness’←lie. brazgūnai ‘the same’, etc. (on such stress patterns in Lithuanian words in East Slavic languages, cf. also their pronunciation Лаздуна́й, Жирмуна́й, etc., instead of Lithuanian Lazdynai, Žirmūnai). This stress pattern of the Lithuanianisms indicates that the Polish dialect in this area is probably of recent origin.

3. The consonant n occurring in Lithuanianisms, when it precedes the velars k, g, is always pronounced here as a velar; that is, the n in this position has remained Lithuanian to the present day, preserving a characteristic feature of Lithuanian phonetics, e.g.: wireynka, Bienka, Girdziunka, etc.

4. The Lithuanianisms brunkta, Mindrynia, etc., retain the dialectal mixed diphthongs un, in in the word stem (←an, en, cf. bránktas, Mendrýnė ‘Nendrynė’); these are important substrate elements of the Lithuanian dialect once spoken in this territory and irrefutably attest that this Lithuanian dialect belonged to the Eastern Aukštaitian puntininkai subdialects.

5. The la sequence in the Lithuanianism la is likewise a clear phonetic indicator of the Lithuanian substrate, confirming that in the extinct Lithuanian dialect of this area, as in all other Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects, l before e was pronounced hard—as la (cf. lagėsiai in those dialects and standard Lithuanian legėsiai).

6. The simple adjective forms Kiersza, Marga in the Lithuanianisms, which in this instance denote the names of cows (the corresponding forms used in standard Lithuanian are definite adjectives—Keršoji, Margoji)—are a striking morphological feature of the Lithuanian substrate, indicating that the Lithuanian dialect once spoken here lacked definite adjective forms and used simple forms instead, as do all other Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects. In this way, this dialect effectively extended the area of Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects.

61

7. The features of the Lithuanianisms identified and discussed in the Polish dialect under study allow us to conclude that the extinct Lithuanian dialect of this area belonged to the Eastern Aukštaitian punktininkai subdialects (most likely to the Eastern Dzūkian dialect).

ABBREVIATIONS

Akm. – Akmenynė, Šalčininkai District.

Bakšt. – Bakštai, Ivija District (BSSR).

Kur. – Kurapolė, Pastovys District (BSSR).

LEW – Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955–1962.

LKA – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas. V., 1977. T. 1.

LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. V., 1965. T. 1.

LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V., 1956–1986. T. 1–14.

LPŽ – Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas. V., 1985. T. 1.

LUEV – Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas. V., 1963.

LVKŽ – Lietuvių vardų kilmės žodynas. V., 1987.

M.-E. – Mülenbach K. Latvian Language Dictionary. Edited, supplemented, and continued by J. Endzelīns. Riga, 1923. Volume 1.

SEJP – Sławski Fr. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Kraków, 1958–1965. T. 2.

SJP – Karłowicz J., Kryński A., Niedźwiedzki W. Słownik języka polskiego. Warszawa, 1902–1904. T. 2–3.

БГ – Беларуская граматыка. Мінск, 1985. Ч. 1.

ЕСУМ – Етимологічний словник української мови. Київ, 1982–1985. Т. 1–2.

ЖС – Жывое слова. Мінск, 1978.

З народ. – З народнага слоўніка. Мінск, 1975.

abbr.

ЛАБНГ – Lexical Atlas of Belarusian Folk Dialects. Vol. 1: Living Nature. Map No. 336 (Minsk, manuscript).

Лекс. – Лексічныя балтызмы ў беларускай мове. Мінск, 1969.

Baltic.

ПГБЛ – Лінгвістычная геаграфія і групоўка беларускіх гаворак. Мінск, 1968, 1969.

Народ. – Народная лексіка. Мінск, 1977.

lex.

НС – Народнае слова. Мінск, 1978.

Н. Слт. – Народная словаўтворчасць. Мінск, 1979.

ПГ – Польские говоры. Минск, 1973. Т. 1–2.

ПОС – Псковский областной словарь. Л., 1967. Т. 1.

СБТ – Dictionary of Belarusian Dialects of Northwestern Belarus and Its Borderlands. Minsk, 1979–1986. Vols. 1–5.

СРНГ – Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects. Moscow; Leningrad, 1966. Issue 2; Leningrad, 1968. Issue 3; Leningrad, 1977. Issue 13.

Тлум. – Тлумачальны слоўнік беларускай мовы. Мінск, 1977. Т. 1.

dict.

Тур. – Тураўскі слоўнік. Мінск, 1982. Т. 1.

dict.

ЭСБМ – Этымалагічны слоўнік беларускай мовы. Мінск, 1978. Т. 1.

ЭСЯРЯ – Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. М., 1964. Т. 1.

LITERATŪRA

Balčikonis J. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1978. T. 1.

Brückner A. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Warszawa, 1970.

Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1961. T. 3.

62

Endzelīns J. Latvijas PSR vietvārdi. Rīgā, 1961. I d., 2 sēj.

Grinaveckienė E. Lietuvių ir slavų gramatinio kontaktavimo reiškiniai pietryčių Lietuvoje // Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tyrinėjimai. V., 1969. P. 219–229.

Grinaveckienė E. Lietuviškos kilmės leksika Aukštadvario lenkų šnektoje // Lietuvių arealinės lingvistikos klausimai. V., 1977. P. 136–145.

Grinaveckienė E. Lietuviškos kilmės leksika Lietuvos paribio baltarusių šnektose // Lietuvių kalbos specialioji leksika. V., 1983. P. 182–204.

Grinaveckienė E., Mackevič J. Kai kurios baltarusių lituanizmų fonetikos ypatybės // Lietuvių kalba ir bilingvizmas. V., 1988. P. 123–131.

Kalnaitis V. Prūsijos Lietuvių Dainos. Tilžėje, 1905.

Kawyn-Kurzowa Z. Język filomatów i filaretów. Słowotwórstwo i słownictwo // Prace językoznawcze. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków, 1963. Zsz. 36.

Kurzowa Z. Studia nad językiem filomatów i filaretów (Fonetyka, fleksja, składnia) // Prace językoznawcze. Warszawa-Kraków, 1972. Zsz. 38.

Kurzowa Z. Elementy kresowe w języku powieści powojennej. Warszawa, 1975.

Otrebski J. Wschodniosłowiekie narzeczie twereckie. Kraków, 1934.

Reķēna A. Amatniecības leksika dažās Latgales dienvidu izloksnēs un tās sakari ar atbilstošajiem nosaukumiem slavu valodās. Rīgā, 1975.

Sabaliauskas A. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida // Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1966. T. 8. P. 5–141.

Trypučko J. O języku wspomnień dzieciństwa Franciszka Mickiewicza // Acta universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Slavica Upsaliensis, 7, Uppsala, 1970.

Turska H. Język Jana Chodźki. Wilno, 1930.

Turska H. O powstaniu polskich obszarów językowych na Wilenszczyznie. Wilno, 1939.

Urbutis V. Dabartinės baltarusių kalbos lituanizmai // Baltistica. 1969. T. 5(1).

Vanagas A. Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. V., 1981.

Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. V., 1966.

Zinkevičius Z. Smulkmenos I // Baltistica. 1974. T. 10(1). P. 63.

Zdansewicz T. Litewskie elementy słownikowe w gwarach polskich okolic Sejn / Lingua Poznaniensis. Poznań, 1960. T. 8.

Арашонкава Г. У., Грынаве́цкене А. І., Мацкевіч Ю. Ф., Рамано́віч Я. М., Чабярук А. І., Шаталава Л. Ф. Лексіка балтыйскага паходжання ў беларускіх гаворках // Беларуская лінгвістыка. Мінск, 1973. Вып. 3. С. 27–37.

Бялькевіч І. К. Краёвы слоўнік усходняй Магілёўшчыны. Мінск, 1970.

Вешторт Г. Ф. Название пищи в говорах Полесья // Лексика Полесья. М., 1968.

Грынаве́цкене Е. Й. Некоторые явления контактирования литовских и славянских говоров (На материале языковых контактов в юго-восточной Литве) // Балто-славянский сборник. М., 1972. С. 394–408.

Грынаве́цкене Е. И., Ковальчук И. П., Мацкевич Ю. Ф., Романович Е. М. Северо-западные белорусские говоры литовского пограничья // Балто-славянский сборник. М., 1972. С. 377–393.

Грынаве́цкене Э., Мацкевич Ю. Ф., Романович Е. М., Чеберук Е. И. Бытовая лексика литовского происхождения в западной Белоруссии // Lietuvių terminologija. V., 1975. P. 163–196.

Грынаве́цкене А. І. Прозвішчы і мянушкі ў Курапольскай гаворцы беларускай мовы // Беларуская анамастыка. Мінск, 1977. С. 160–169.

Даль В. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. М., 1955. Т. 1–4.

Лаучюте Ю. Лексические балтизмы в псковских говорах // Kalbotyra. V., 1971. Т. 22(2).

Лаучюте Ю. А. Словарь балтизмов в славянских языках. Л., 1982.

Насовіч І. І. Слоўнік беларускай мовы. Мінск, 1983.

Расторгуев П. А. Словарь народных говоров западной Брянщины. Минск, 1973.

63

Семенова М. Ф. Материалы для словаря русских говоров Латвийской ССР: Уч. пособие. Рига, 1974. Вып. 6.

Сцяшко П. У. Народная лексіка і словаўтварэнне. Мінск, 1972.

Сцяшковіч Т. Ф. Матэрыялы да слоўніка гродзенскай вобласці. Мінск, 1972.

Э. ГРИНАВЕЦКЕНЕ

ЛИТУАНИЗМЫ В ПОЛЬСКОМ ГОВОРЕ ОКРЕСТНОСТЕЙ БУЙВИДЖЯЙ ВИЛЬНЮССКОГО РАЙОНА

Резюме

В исследуемом польском говоре имеется определенное количество древней лексики литовского происхождения, полученной говором через местный белорусский говор, бытующий в данном ареале и по сей день. Она была записана нами в 1987 г. из уст местных информантов старшего поколения. Такая лексика в основном бытовая и связана с домашним хозяйством. Большая часть ее – имена существительные, а также микро- и антропонимы. Установлено, что отдельные литуанизмы, используемые в исследуемом польском говоре, до сих пор не подверглись влиянию польской акцентуационной системы и сохранили свободное передвижение ударения, характерное для литовского языка, напр., gigiel ← gigėlis, gnižeč ← gnižeči, palig ← palìg, plepatau ← plepetīnas, regezini ← rėgžinès и др. Акцентуация некоторых литуанизмов отражает заметные следы акцентуационной системы белорусского языка, в котором наблюдаются процессы перестановки места ударения литовских заимствований на лад восточно-славянских языков, напр., barzdžiuki ← barzdžiūkai, bumbulki ← bumbuliukai, skwiarsty ← skerstiuvės, wircyna ← virtinė и др. Отчасти это говорит о том, что исследуемый польский говор в данном языковом ареале, скорее всего, является сравнительно новым.

На основе фонетики некоторых литуанизмов говора имеется основание судить о характере субстратных явлений, вырисовывающих отдельные черты фонетики исследуемого литовского говора этого речевого ареала. К их числу в первую очередь мы относим веляризацию согласного n перед заднеязычными (k, g), являющуюся основным характерным аллофоническим изменением литовского языка, напр., Girdžiunka ‘название речки’, Minkiewiczowa ‘женская фамилия’ и др. Такие литуанизмы, как brunkta ← лит. диал. brūnktas, литер. яз. brūnktas, Mindaryna ← лит. диал. Mindarynė, литер. яз. Mendarynė ‘Nendrynė’ и др., говорят о том, что в существовавшем здесь литовском говоре дифтонгические сочетания am, en в основе слова произносились как um, in. Литуанизм lagiesi наводит на мысль, что его сочетание la- (←le-, ср. лит. литер. яз. legėsiai) произносилось и в исчезнувшем здесь литовском говоре, из которого славянскими говорами была перенята данная фонетическая особенность вместе со словом. Литуанызмы Kiersza, Marga, обозначающие имена коров, свидетельствуют о том, что в существовавшем литовском говоре отсутствовали местоименные прилагательные и их функции выполняли простые имена прилагательные.

Наличие указанных и других особенностей литуанизмов исследуемого польского говора, которые затрагиваются в статье, дают основание отнести исчезнувший литовский говор к литовскому наречию восточно-аукштайтских пунтинников (скорее всего – к говору восточных дзуков).