LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIX (1991)

SIMAS KARALIŪNAS

LINGUISTIC NOTES*

5. Indo-European *ghostis “guest; stranger” in the Baltic languages

Our surname corpus includes the following surnames: Gasčiūnas Grz, Krš, Mšk, Šl, Gasčiūnas Pkr, and Gasčiūlis Gž. The village names derived from them are Gasčiūnai (Joniškis and Kėdainiai districts) and Gasčionys (Šalčininkai district). The surnames (formerly personal names) Gasčiūnas, Gasčiūnas, Gasčiūlis and *Gasčionis have suffixes -ūnas, -ulis and -onis denoting patronymics. It is much harder to define the root morpheme Gasč-, Gasč-. First, it should be noted that both the surnames and the village names, although some are written with -šč- and others with -sc-, are pronounced with -šč- everywhere in spoken language. From an etymological point of view, Gasč- could derive either from *Gasč- < *Gašti- (cf. tuščias < *tuštja-, cf. tušti), or from *Gasč- < *Gasti- (cf. pėsčias [written pėsčias by origin] < *pėstja-, cf. pėsti). Nor does looking at other names clarify the situation—for example, Gaštynai (Kelmė district) and Gastyniškiai (Šiauliai district)—since, as can be seen, both Gašt- and Gast- occur. In that case, the only possibility left is etymology.

A. Vanagas (LPŽ, I, 630), while expressing doubt, compares Gasčiūnas with Lithuanian gaštūs “greedy; fierce; hot, zealous,” thus taking the variant Gasč- < *Gašti- to be primary. Unfortunately, gaštūs is known from only one locality (Lnkv); it probably arose recently alongside gašlūs, gašnūs, gačnūs and gašūs (following the frequent alternation of adjective formants -(s)t- / -(s)l- / -(s)n-, cf., for example, birstūs: birlūs: birnūs: birūs), and therefore can hardly be the source of our archaic-looking surnames.

In identifying the root morpheme Gasč-, Gasč-, it is interesting to recall language users’ intuition: the name of a village in Joniškis district, Gasčiūnai, is written with -šč- both in documents and on road signs, as well as in the district newspaper “Tarybinis balsas.” This is not, of course, an argument, but it is interesting that this intuition coincides with the interpretation based on linguistic data that I wish to present here.

The root morpheme of the surnames under consideration can be defined as Gasč- < *Gasti-, and one may seek in it the Indo-European term for a guest, a stranger, *ghostis, whose existence in the Baltic languages was cautiously suggested by K. Būga (1958, 440), P. Arumaa (1960), and V. Toporovas (Топоров, 1979, 168, 173): the first, in discussing the name of a dwelling place Gastai; the second, in examining the East Slavic onomasticon containing -gostь and noting that the Baltic and Slavic languages are closely related “aussi en ce qui concerne le nom commun gost” (Arumaa, 1960, 175); and the latter, in explaining Prussian gasto. P. Arumaa and V. Toporovas also explicitly mention the village name Gasčiūnai.

* For the beginning, see Lietuvių arealinės lingvistikos klausimai // Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1977. Vol. 17. P. 207–209.

5. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29 t.

65

The name Gastai is given in his dictionary by F. Nesselmann, who notes that it is a church village in Lankos County (in der Niederung), originally an old village, with the German village of Heinrichswalde established later nearby (N 241). This name is also given by V. Kalvaitis (1910, 33)¹. F. Kurschat, however, gives the form Gástos in his dictionary and notes that it is the name of the church village of Heinrichswalde, one part of which is called Gassen in German; cf. the example given by F. Kurschat: Aš einu į Gastas K 115. This form is also recommended for use in standard Lithuanian (Razmukaitė, 1985, 76).

It is difficult to say now whether there is a basis for directly comparing Gástos arba Gastai (German Gassen with -ss- from -st-) with Indo-European *ghostis ‘guest; stranger’, as K. Būga conjectured. There may be more grounds for comparing this place name with Prussian gasto ‘a piece of field (or land), a plot’, as J. Endzelīns did, very cautiously (adding a question mark) (Endzelīns, 1943, 175; 1982, 217). For gasto is a nominative singular feminine form (< *gastā), whereas Gástos would be a nominative plural feminine form (as already proposed by Mažiulis, 1988, 329). The basis for this hypothesis depends greatly on how the Prussian word is explained from a historical-comparative perspective.

Having analyzed Prussian gasto in a broad semantic-typological context, V. Toporov concluded that gasto denoted a certain area of land, probably intended for communal use or closely associated with the community, and that Prussian gasto belongs to a group of words represented by Latin hostis ‘stranger; enemy’, Gothic gasts, Old Icelandic gestr, Old High German and Old Saxon gast, and Slavic *gostь ‘guest’ (Топоров, 1979, 169–173).

V. Mažiulio (1988, 328–331) aiškinimu, pr. gasto „lauko (ar dirvos) gabalas, sklypas“ esąs *gastā „užgesusi žemė“ < *„užgesęs išdeginto miško plotas“, atsiradęs lydiminės žemdirbystės laikais substancyvizuojant iš šaknies *ges- „ges(in)ti“ pasidaryto priesagos -t- būdvardžio moteriškos giminės forma *gastā. Pr. gasto V. Mažiulis dar lygina su liet. Gėsalai (Skuodo raj.) < *gėsalai „sklypai“. Tačiau šis kuršiškasis vietovardis (1253 m. Zesele [Bielenstein 1892, 253] < *[D]zēsel-) ir pr. gasto smarkiai skiriasi formaliąja struktūra (šaknies balsiais, priesagomis), ir šaknies *ges- „ges(in)ti“ žodžių būryje nėra paliudyta reikšmės „sklypai“. Drauge lieka neaišku, ar vietovardyje Gėsalai slypi šaknies *ges- „ges(in)ti“ koks nors vedinys (plg. liet. gėsulas „nuodegulis) ar lat. dzēse „juodasis garnys“ ir priesaga -ele (Kiparsky, 1939, 160).

Pagrindinė J. Schützo (1988, 68–82) straipsnio sąvoka, galima sakyti, yra pr. gasto „laukai, pievos, die Flur (-stücke)…“, kuris esąs šaknies *gest- žodis kaip ir s. sl. žestъ „kietas“, s. fryzų gāst „nevaisingas, sausas“ (dar plg. gāstland — Šiaurės jūros pakrančių (Nordseeküste) žodį), vok. Geest „smėlėta viržiais apaugusi aukštuma kaip derlingų žemumų priešprieša“. Daugelio germanų kalbų vietovardžių ir asmenvardžių dėmenį -gast (plg. Hruot-gast, Rat-gast, Uar-gast etc.), tradiciškai tapatinamą su ide. *ghostis „svečias; svetimšalis“, J. Schützas kildina iš gast- „Feld, Flur, Gemarkung; Besitz“. J. Schützo aiškinimas taip pat nėra be priekaištų. Sl. *žestъ kilmė, tiesa, neaiški (Фасмер, 1986, 50), bet nėra tikras (dėl aukštesniojo

¹ Kr. Milkus’s form Gaslai MŽ II 262 is a typographical error for Gastai (cf. Būga, 1958, 440).

66

(the comparative degree form Russian dialectal žerče alongside жестче) and its assignment to the group of words mentioned above. The original nature of the root vowels in the Germanic words is unclear (they may also reflect Germanic *gais- [Jóhannesson, 1956, 304]). Despite these two original and interesting explanations, and notwithstanding V. Mažiulis’s skepticism (1988, 329) that V. Toporov’s hypothesis “should, in short, be regarded as an unsupported conjecture,” as well as J. Schütz’s remark that “Doch was *ghosta zu besagen hätte, bleibt ungesagt” (Schütz, 1988, 71), it should be stated at once that V. Toporov’s line of thought and argumentation seems correct: drawing on abundant historical and linguistic-typological evidence, he succeeded in answering approximately the central question of what the part (Stucke) denoted by the Prussians with the word gasto was (Топоров, 1979, 170), while also clarifying the relationship between a field, a part of it, and a guest. Thus, on this question, only a few further explanatory words need be added.

Iš formaliosios pusės, pr. gasto laikomas ā kamieno nom. sing. forma (Топоров, 1979, 169; Mažiulis, 1988, 328) kaip, pvz., galvo, mergo, rancko. J. Schützo (1988, 74, 77—78) nuomone, pr. gasto esąs dual. masc. forma (kaip wanso, austo, plg. lot. duō, ambō) šalia nom. sing. *gastas arba *gasts, plur. *gastai. Kad pr. gasto vis dėlto būta nom. sing. fem. formos, rodytų vietovardis Gāstos (bet šalia ir Gastai).

In the Elbing German-Prussian glossary, gasto occurs in a semantic field associated with the ploughman and his work: ploughman — field, arable land — x — morgen (a measure of land, the area a pair of horses could plough in the first half of a day) — furrow — boundary ridge, and so on (PKP II 23). From this, the meaning of gasto is reconstructed as ‘a piece of field (or land), a plot, Ackerstück’ (Endzelins, 1943, 175, Endzelins, 1982, 217; Топоров, 1979, 169—170; Mažiulis, 1988, 328). J. Schütz (1988, 70) interprets more broadly in this glossary context the Middle High German word Stucke, which is rendered by Prussian gasto, as “a part of something; fields, meadows, their divisions; boundary ridge; cultivated lands, settlement area (Teil von etwas; die Flur (-stücke), Felder; Feldmark; (Siedlungs-) Gefilde).” He continues: “Apr. gasto meint […] entschieden die „Felder“ oder „Flurstücke“, wohl auch die „Flur“, abgehoben als eine Gesamtheit gegenüber samye (= zamje) als „Land“ (Schütz, 1988, 70). It is interesting that V. Toporov (Топоров, 1979, 170) also considers the possibility that gasto denoted landholdings (угодья)—not only arable land, but also meadows, gardens, and the like.

In light of what has been said, it is possible to try to refine the meaning of Prussian gasto through historical context and typological parallels.

The oldest meaning of Slavic *gostь was ‘stranger’, most often ‘merchant’ (cf. Czech hospites mercatores, Old Russian гость ‘guest, stranger, travelling merchant’). Later, the word also came to designate those farmers and peasants (cf. Czech hospites rustici) who, having moved from other districts or even other lands (cf. hospes ‘colonus, qui ab extera regione advenit’ [Słownik łaciny, p. 826]), settled within the bounds of large estates as free tenants (liberi hospites). They remained there under an agreement: they cleared forests, prepared land for ploughing and sowing or cultivated fallow land, and established homesteads; in return they paid a small rent, initially also paying dues in kind, and were free to change their place of residence. The “guests” received plots of land of varying sizes, but most worked no more than 2–3 bonaria (bonnarium—a measure of land used at the time). They are first mentioned in sources from the Carolingian period, but the “guests”—

5*

67

The significance of “gosti, hospites” in the economy grew particularly in the 11th century. The institution of free guests in Western and Slavic lands colonized new areas, expanded the extent of arable land, and greatly increased large landed estates, which in this way employed on their lands free landless peasants and those who themselves, or whose parents, had lost that land (Manteuffel, 1974, 111; Inglot, 1938, 30—31, 125—128; Bujak, 1905). Of particular importance for our purposes is the fact that in Latin sources the land cultivated by the new colonists—the “guests” (hospites)—is called hospitium (Inglot, 1938, 30), a word derived from hospes, -itis. Thus it is quite possible that Prussian gasto likewise denoted such a plot, a piece of field or soil—to put it more accurately, a piece of landholdings (уродья, Flurstücke: fields, forests, meadows, etc.)—which was cultivated by a peasant “guest” and belonged to him by agreement; the word gasto (< *gastā) itself was formed with the ending -ā from *gast(a) ‘guest’. It is known that, before the Order arrived, the Prussians had a well-organized and developed agriculture, and the Order’s administration recognized the Prussian system of land management, one element of which was quite possibly the institution of the new colonists—the free guests.

Besides the appellative gastō, the designation for a guest, *gast(a)- may also be reflected in the personal name Gastimus (Būga 1958, 257) or Gastuno (Trautmann, 1925, 28), which is attested rather unclearly in Prussian.

Although the village name Gāstos apparently is a Prussian loanword, derived from gasto ‘piece of a field (or soil), plot’, it naturally evokes an association with Lithuanian hydronyms containing the root morpheme Gast-. J. Endzelīns linked the similarly sounding Latvian village name Gastis and mountain name Gastin-kalns to the designation for a guest—Russian гость (Endzelīns, 1956, 303). P. Arumaa (1960) thought likewise, comparing Lithuanian hydronyms and settlement names with Gast- to names containing the East Slavic element gast- (-gostь). A. Vanagas (1981, 108) rejected comparison of Lithuanian hydronyms Gāstas, etc., with *gast(a)- ‘guest’—the semantics, he argued, were unsuitable for hydronyms.

Before proceeding to examine the names with Gast-, two further points need consideration. First, P. Arumaa (1960, 174) and, without mentioning him at all, A. Vanagas (1981, 108) have linked the hydronyms Gāstas, Gāstamas, etc., with Guōstė, Guostūs, the latter adding that “Perhaps the root gast- is an ablaut variant of the root guost-.” On the basis of his theory, J. Schütze (1988, 77) assigned them, as containing Indo-European ō, to the group of words including Slavic žesto, Old Frisian gast, and others. However, Guōstė (river, Prienai district), Guostūs (lake, Trakai district), and Guōsta-galis (village, Pakruojis district), Užū-guostis (village, Prienai district; from Guōstė) have a sound derivational basis in Lithuanian itself: guostas ‘clump, tuft’, alongside guotas ‘herd, group, swarm; a small group or clump of trees, mushrooms, shrubs, or grain’ (for the alternation -st-: -t-, cf. plauštai ‘one of the two boards nailed to the sides of a dugout…’ and plautai ‘one of the two side boards of a log beehive…’; grumstas: grumtas), whose origin is apparently connected with the Indo-European word for ‘cow’, *gʷōu- (Karaliūnas, 1987, 188—189; cf. Fraenkel, 1962, 177).

Second, the fact that Gāstas (river, Lazūnai), Gāstupis (Šeduva), Gāstamas (river, Subačius), and Gāstaminas (river, Anykščiai) form a separate root, independent of Guōstė, Guostūs

68

is also apparent from the corresponding names in East Slavic territory that the root is probably connected in origin with Indo-European *ghostis ‘guest; foreigner’: lake Гостено (Порхов), river Гостёнка (Старица, former Tver Governorate), lake Гостино (погост Ясенской), and many others (Arumaa, 1960, 144–175). Names of rivers, lakes, and settlements in which гость ‘guest’ occurs as the second element are particularly frequent (Черногость, Моглогость, Негосто, etc.), often altered to -гощ (Белогощ, Братогощ, Чадогощ, Домогоща, Иногощ(е), and many others). P. Arumaa regards names of this type as archaic. Names of rivers, lakes, and settlements with Гост- (-гость), about a hundred in all, are distributed from Pskov–Novgorod–Borovichi in the north to Volhynia in the south, but are concentrated around Novgorod; this would indicate that the East Slavs first settled here during their northward expansion.

The example of the Slavic languages does not warrant confidently asserting that the Lithuanian hydronyms Gāstas, Gāstupis, Gāstamas, Gāstaminas conceal Indo-European *ghostis ‘guest; foreigner’, since alongside them is the variant Gāstamas Gāštamas. On the other hand, that the semantics of ‘guest’, or of ‘foreign’, are also suitable for hydronyms is evident from the following example: the lake and river name Svetūs (Daugai), like Kertùs, Milčiùs, Niedùs, and the river name Svetýčia (Dūkštas), with the suffix -yčia as in Kalnyčia, Skaryčia, Voryčia (Skardžius, 1943, 357; Vanagas, 1970, 142), occur in parts of Lithuanian dialect territory where the e: ie opposition is maintained. Moreover, the root of Svetūs is also stressed (cf. acc. sing. Svėtų) and has the clear root vowel e. Thus there is no reason not to consider the root of Svetūs, Svetyčia to be the same as that of the common words svečias, svetýs, svečias ‘(adj.) foreign’, svetūr². Consequently, the semantics of ‘guest’ are irrelevant here, and so the river names Gāstam-inas (with the suffix -inas [Vanagas, 1970, 155]), Gāsta-mas (with the suffix -mas, cf. Aūla-mas: aūlas, Gārda-mas: gārdas [Skardžius, 1943, 207]) and Gāstas, Gāst-upis may also contain *gasta- ‘guest; foreigner’. The river name Gāstamas, like the village name Gāstynai (Kelmė district), alongside Gastýn-iškiai in Šiauliai district, may have arisen as variant forms through a conflation of the roots Gast- (from *gasta- ‘guest’) and Gāst- (from Lithuanian *gāsti-, Latvian gašs ‘pungent, acrid, bitter’ < *gaśia- or *gasus).

A substantial argument for the explanation offered here of the Baltic personal names, place names, hydronyms, and common words under consideration (e.g., Prussian gasto) is the fact that the designation for a guest, *gasta-, is an actual word used in the Baltic languages. This is Latvian gasts ‘guest’, and its feminine form gaška ‘female guest’: both are known from folk songs (ME I 608). Dialectal gosts (with o<a characteristic of Latvian High Latvian dialects) is widespread in Latgale and occurs in the eastern dialects of Vidzeme; the variant gaškis (with -šk- < *-stj-) is used in northeastern Vidzeme (Лаумане, 1977, 75–76 with map). The mere fact that gasts and its variants are widespread in the eastern part of the Latvian language area hardly justifies taking seriously the hypothesis that they are borrowings (from Russian гость, гостья). Its use in Latvian folk songs, which display archaic linguistic features, its variation (gaškis, gaška, gaška), its different stem vowel (Latvian -a- < Indo-European -o-: Slavic -i-), as well as onomastic evidence and the facts of Prussian compel us to favor the view (Брейдак, 1969, 5–6) that gasts ‘guest’ and gaška ‘female guest’ < *gastijā are Latvian words, cognate from ancient times with Russian гость, гостья.

²Otherwise, Vanagas, 1981, 322–323 treats it in a completely unfounded manner.

69

Lat. gastis appears to be an o-stem; cf. the gen. plur. form gastu. The thematic form *gosto- is found in the Slavic personal name (the name of an Obodrite prince) Gosto-mysl (first half of the ninth century), whose second element is attested in the personal name Mysl-o-wice. The personal name Goste-slav(ъ) likewise points to an earlier thematic form; etymologically it corresponds to Old Norse (runic) hlewa-gastiR, but with the elements in reverse order (Иванов, Топоров, 1963, 127, 129) (thus these Slavic and Germanic personal names are structurally of the Lithuanian Vaiš-noras: Nór-vaišas type). Consequently, the o-stem form *gasta-, probably concealed by the hydronyms Gāstas, Gāsta-mas ir Gāsta-m-inas, is actually attested in the Baltic and Slavic languages. Prussian gasto (< *gastā) shows that in the Baltic languages there was also an ā-stem alongside the o-stem.

If the hypothesis presented here is correct, the Baltic languages would join the Slavic (cf. also Serbian Milbgost) and Germanic languages (cf. also Germanic Fare-gastus, Arde-gastus: fara ‘kin’, art ‘field’), which have personal names derived from the Indo-European term for ‘guest’, and would contribute their own personal names—Lithuanian Gasčiūnas, Gasčiulis, *Gasčiōnis (: Gasčionys, a village name), *Gastýnas (: Gastýniškiai, a village name) (with the suffix -vna-, indicating someone who was formerly someone's son; cf. Gudýnas: Gūdas, Lātynas: Lātvis [Skardžius, 1943, 267]), and the not entirely clear Prussian Gastimus ar Gastumo. As in Germanic (cf. runic -gastiR), the first three Lithuanian personal names appear to contain an i-stem form *gasti-: *Gasti- > Gasc- (before back vowels) // *Gasti- (before consonants). Latvian dialectal gašķis ‘guest’ is likewise a reflex of an i-stem form (< *gastis), while Latvian gašķa reflects *gasti̯ā, with an i̯ā-stem (as in Russian гостя). The aforementioned Latin, Germanic, and Slavic words for ‘guest’ also belong to the i-stem class; hence the reconstructed Indo-European i-stem *ghostis ‘guest; stranger’ (Pokorny, 1959, 453). Such variation in stem-final vowels could apparently have arisen through thematization of a consonant-stem form *ghost-, which would accord with the long-standing view that such a form occurred in compounds: Old Church Slavonic gospodъ ‘lord’ < *ghost-podi-, Latin hospes, -itis ‘stranger; guest’ < *ghost-potis.

If this interpretation of the Baltic-language data discussed here is correct, the Baltic languages would belong to the area of the western Indo-European languages (Slavic *gostъ, Gothic gasts ‘guest’, Latin hostis ‘stranger; enemy’), where an Indo-European archaism was preserved, also reflected in the Anatolian languages; cf. Luwian kašši ‘visit, stay as a guest, entertain (as a guest)’ (< *kašti < *gasti < *ghosti aba *ghosi) (Иванов, 1973, 302–306).

6. Lithuanian kārklai: Old Indian cāttram

J. Endzelīns (ME II 162) has expressed the view that Lithuanian kārklai ‘gates; sheep’s manger; wicker cart body (SD)’, kārklos ‘hanging slatted manger’, kārklės ‘lifting (non-hinged) gates; (wicker) ladder; cart frames, wheels with sides; frames placed on sledges for hauling firewood; manger’ and Latvian kārkles ‘manger; sieve for sifting grain’ may contain -kl- from *-tl- and may be further connected with Old Saxon hurth ‘weaving, a woven object’, Old Indian cr̥táti ‘fastens, joins, ties’ and, of course, kr̥ṇātti ‘twists, spins’ (cf. also Old Indian kartanam ‘spinning’)³.

³ Kitokius aiškinimus žr. Fraenkel, 1962, 222.

70

On this occasion, it is interesting to note that from a similar proto-form (*kert-tro-) are also derived Skt. cättram ‘spindle, distaff’ and Avestan cäšai ‘the same’, <Iranian *ča(r)stra-, whose intermediate stage *kertstro- (with *-tst- from *-tt-) would point to a loanword of Iranian origin in Finnish: kehrä ‘distaff’ (Cowgill, Mayrhofer, 1986, 111; Mayrhofer, 1956, 382; 1976, 704).

Thus these Baltic and Indo-Iranian words would be cognate (*kort-: *kert-) and would have similar formatives (*-tlo-: *-tro-). Their grammatical gender would also be the same: OInd. cättram is neuter; there is reason to believe that kärklai “gate; sheep’s manger…,” which replaced the nom. plur. *karklā, formerly also belonged to the neuter gender [*kark-la(n)] (morphologically, compare Lith. vär tai: Pruss. lapi-warto (nom. plur.), OCS vrata).

However, deriving Lith. kärklai from the proto-form *kort-tlo- presents phonetic difficulties. For the consonants t, d, when preceding t, became s in Baltic (compare, for example, Lith. mėsti, Latv. mest, Pruss. po-mests < Baltic *met-t-), Slavic, Iranian, and Greek. If the formation of the words under discussion went back to Proto-Indo-European, or at least to the period of contact between the Baltic and Indo-Iranian dialects, Baltic *karttla- should have become *karstla- (*-tt- > -st-), then changed into *karskla-, and later still into *karksla- (sk before a consonant becomes ks). Since this is not the case, we must assume that *-tlo- by *kert- / *krt- “to bind, tie, weave” was added after the change tt > st had already ended. The tt that arose later at the morpheme boundary is simply simplified (after all, geminates are not characteristic of Lithuanian), compare, for example, bañtakis < *bant-takis < *band-takis “a place where livestock are driven”; Vytautas < *Vyt-tautas < *Vyd-tautas (compare Taut-vydas). But such simplification is a late phenomenon, so another explanation must be sought.

Žodžiai kärklai (kärklos, kärklės, lat. kärkles) yra rytinių baltų kalbų dariniai, bent jau nėra duomenų, kad jie būtų bendrab altiški, o pakitimas *tl > kl atskirais atvejais (plg., pvz., liet. aũklė, lat. aũkla, pr. auclo; liet. tiñklas, lat. tikls, pr. sasin-tinklo) siekia baltų prokalbę⁴, todėl labai galima, kad nagrinėjamieji žodžiai susidarė jau po šio fonetinio pakitimo, ir tada prolytyje *kart-kla- priebalsis t disimiliacijos keliu nesunkiai galėjo išnykti. Tikriau ką nors pasakyti trukdo ta aplinkybė, kad nežinoma tikslesnė minėtų fonetinių pakitimų (t, d > s prieš t; *tl > kl; tt > t) reliatyvinė chronologija.

That the words under discussion arose independently of one another, separately in the Baltic and Indo-Iranian languages, is also evident from their having similar but non-identical suffixes (Baltic *-tlo-, Indo-Iranian *-tro-) and different root vocalism (Baltic a < Indo-European o, Indo-Iranian e). Their semantics also indicate parallel, and therefore later, formation and development: the Baltic words denote the result of the action of joining, tying, or weaving, while the Indo-Iranian words are names for twisting, spinning, and the tool used for it. In Proto-Baltic, alongside kerǵ-ti (-ia) ‘join, loosely tie something to something’ (*ker-g- with root extension -g-), there may also have been *kert- / *kirt- ‘bind, tie, weave’ (*ker-t- / *kir-t- with root extension or present-tense formative -t-), to which the suffix -kla- < *-tlo- may have been added in forming these variants.

⁴ Šis pakitimas Chr. Stangui (1966, 107) atrodo senas („hohen Alters“).

71

7. Lithuanian lakóti

The verb lakóti (-ója) ‘to curdle milk with rennet’ is known only from F. Nesselmann’s “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” where it is given as follows: lakoti (-oja) “die Milch laffen, d. h. mit Hilfe des Zusatzes von Laff gerinnen machen” N 348. F. Kurschat included it in his dictionary ([K] 219), taking it from F. Nesselmann—as is evident from the reference Ness. Although he also doubted whether the word was genuine—which is why he wrote it in square brackets—he nevertheless marked its stress: lakóti (-ója). A. Kurschat (KŽ II 1279) and the authors of LKŽ copied this verb from the dictionaries of F. Nesselmann and F. Kurschat; moreover, they retained F. Kurschat’s accentuation (LKŽ VII 91).

As far as is known, the verb in question has not been discussed in the linguistic literature, nor has its authenticity been examined. From its presentation in LKŽ, where it is compared with German laben and laffen, it is clear that the authors of LKŽ did not doubt that it was real and considered it a modification, or the like, of one of the aforementioned German verbs. This was not done by chance.

German dialectal laben, läben and laffen have exactly the same meaning as Lithuanian lakóti, namely, ‘to curdle (milk) with rennet (durch Lab, Laff gerinnen machen)’ (Nesselmann, 1851, 348; Paul, 1961, 356), and are used alongside the nouns Lab, Laff neut. ‘a substance used to curdle milk, made from a calf’s stomach; rennet’ (cf. also German Labmagen) (Frischbier, 1883, 1; Paul, 1961, 356). It is interesting that in the Elbing vocabulary of German–Prussian, from the beginning of the 14th century, the Prussian word raugus (= Lithuanian raugas) is translated by the word lap (PKP II 42). But the similarity of these verbs ends with their identity of meaning, since they differ in form. In borrowing, German lab- /laff- could in no way have become lak-; likewise, borrowed lab- or lap- could not have been changed to lak- by adaptation to some Lithuanian word, since no other word has this meaning.

It is quite possible that German influenced the development of the meaning of lakóti (-ója) ‘to curdle milk with rennet’, but that influence came from quite different factors. The German evidence is in fact of much greater importance—it helps explain not only the meaning of lakóti (-ója) but also to identify a cognate lexeme, thus rescuing this rare Lithuanian verb from isolation. German has the verbs gerinnen ‘to congeal, sour, curdle’ (cf. die Milch gerinnt ‘the milk sours, curdles’, die Milch mittels eines Labs gerinnen machen ‘to curdle milk with rennet’), zusammenlaufen ‘to coagulate, sour, curdle (of milk)’, and rinnen ‘to run, flow, stream’, in contrast to laufen ‘to run; flow, run’. In Lithuanian, a contrast of this kind is found between lakóti (-ója) ‘to curdle milk with rennet’ and lėkti (lėkia, lėkė) ‘to fly; run; move, travel, or ride quickly, in haste…’. In German, the sememe ‘to sour, congeal, curdle (of milk); to ferment, curdle’⁵ occurs in prefixed forms of the verbs rinnen and laufen; it has therefore developed in certain cases from the meaning ‘to run, race, dash; to run, flow, stream’ (cf. also Swedish löpa ‘to run’: löpa ‘to sour, curdle’). From this it is not difficult to conclude that the verbs lakóti (-ója) and lėkti (lėkia, lėkė) are not only seman-

⁵ For more on the sememe ‘to sour, congeal, curdle’ and its historical context, see (Аникин, 1988, 51 и след.).

72

tically related, but the former is also derived from the latter. Their structural relationships also show this; cf. skalóti (-ója) ‘to become scaly, rough’: skélti (skélia, skélė); platóti (-ója) ‘to lay, spread; (refl.) to expand, spread…’: plėšti (plėčia, plėtė); kratóti (-ója) ‘(refl.) to tremble, quiver, sob’: krėšti (krėčia, krėtė) ‘to shake, jolt…’

As can be seen, the meaning of lakóti (-ója) could have developed naturally from the meaning of lėkti (lėkia, lėkė); its formal structural relations with the base verb are regular, and even the position of the stress marked by F. Kurschat accords with the accentuation of the entire type of -o- prefixed derivatives—all this makes the genetic relationship of lakóti (-ója) to lėkti (lėkia, lėkė) quite evident and the existence of the verb itself in Prussian Lithuanian dialects indisputable. Thus, the fact that a linguistic form is recorded in just one dictionary—in this case, F. Nesselmann’s—is not sufficient grounds for considering it absent from actual speech and fictitious. Moreover, the verb lakóti (-ója) was more likely an inherited form from earlier times in Prussian Lithuanian dialects, since it was derived from lėkti (lėkia, lėkė) through root-vowel alternation e: o (> a), which is archaic. For this reason, the influence of the aforementioned German verbs may have been more catalytic in nature—it helped the meaning ‘to cause to come together, converge, curdle’ develop into the meaning of lakóti (-ója).

This influence should not be denied altogether. Other verbs of motion (e.g., bėgti, šókti, šankinti) also seem, on the evidence available, to have had the meanings ‘to curdle milk’ or ‘to coagulate, sour’ in Prussian Lithuanian dialects; these meanings then found their way into the dictionaries of that region: Pienas sušóka, sukreka, subėga ‘The milk curdles, coagulates, runs together’ R 293, MŽ 392; Pienas subėga ‘… gerinnt’ N 325, su-šókti ‘zusammenlaufen, gerinnen, sauer werden (von der Milch)’ N 521; Surūgęs (sušokęs, suklekęs) pienas ‘Sour (curdled, congealed) milk’ K I 524, Pieną šliužu sutraukti, sušankinti ‘To curdle milk with rennet’ K I 524. It is true that su-šókti in the sense ‘to sour, curdle’ is also recorded in K. Sirvydas’s dictionary (SD³ 408) and in dialects (Rmš) situated farther from the former German-language area, which would suggest that this meaning developed independently; nevertheless, the influence of the aforementioned German evidence on the emergence of this meaning in dialects such as Kps, Ss, and Up should not be ruled out either.

The fact that lakóti (-ója) ‘to curdle milk with rennet’ (< *‘to cause to run together, converge, curdle’) and lėkti (lėkia, lėkė) are cognate and, moreover, that the former derives from the latter, provides important evidence for the history of the verb lėkti (lėkia, lėkė), especially since its derivative has the root vowel a (< PIE o) and the formant -o-, which derives from PIE -ā- < Proto-PIE *-eh₂-.

8. BIt. vans-/vens- “poor, inferior, worthless; empty”

The root morpheme of the hydronym Veñcavas (Lake Dusetos; cf. also Vencav-ėlis, Lake Dusetos), which appears to be of Selonian origin, is reconstructed here as *Viṅk- (Vanagas, 1981, 371), and there as *Venž- / *Vinž- (< cf. Indo-European *u̯engʰ- / *u̯ngʰ- [Mažiulis, 1981, 7–12]). However, the reconstruction *Vinkiavas is impossible, if only because in present-day Lithuanian we would have *Vinčiavas (as, for example, Vinč-ežeris < Selonian *Vinč-ezeris [Būga, 1961, 276, 576] < Baltic *Vink-), while deriving it from *Venž- / *Vinž- requires positing several irregular phonetic changes, which also undermines its reliability.

73

That the source form of this lake name must have been *Venšavas⁶ has been sufficiently demonstrated by V. Mažiulis (1981, 7–12): 1) representatives of the local pronunciation (Dusetos) pronounce it with -c- (-ts-), and the insertion of t between the consonants n and s is characteristic of Lithuanian dialects; 2) this is clearly indicated by Russian Венусово < Lithuanian dialectal *Ven'savas, and confirmed by its exact counterpart in the West Baltic area (Yotvingian Wენსowa).

Yotv. Wენსowa is located in Masuria, in Olecko County, “where in 1562 there was still a forest called Wენსowa” (Būga, 1961, 149), and later there stood a manor and settlement (in German) Wensewen (Batūra, 1985, 408). Undoubtedly also associated with these is the forest Winse, mentioned by Peter of Dusburg (1985, 199) and N. Jeroschin and located between Lakes Negutino and Sneri (Batūra, 1985, 408). The Yotvingian names Winse, Wენსowa from 1562 (German Wensewen) are identified with the Latvian name of Curonian origin Venžava (a manor in the Ventspils parish; German Wensau), recorded in 1253 as Vense, Wense (Būga, 1961, 149, 844; Endzelīns, 1974, 448, 461, Blese, 1930, 310); therefore the Yotvingian names are read with -z- (= Lithuanian -ž-): “the Yotvingians would have called it Venzavō = Curonian—Latvian Venžava” (Būga, 1961, 148). This is why, comparing Lithuanian Venčavas with Yotvingian Wენსowa, it was necessary to derive the Lithuanian hydronym from *Venž- / *Vinž- as well. V. Mažiulis (1981, 8) therefore also writes: “Venčavas (dial. Vinčsavas) could be derived from Selonian *Vensavas, but I can find no other (at least reliable) Baltic hydronym (clearly not of personal-name origin!) containing Baltic *Vens- or *Vins-. And yet—strange as it may seem—here we apparently have the Baltic root *Vens- // *Vins-, meaning something unsuitable, poor, inferior, and the like.”

Nothing prevents us from associating Venčavas with the lake name Vinčėlis (Kuktiškės) and the bog name Venčbalė (Kudirkos Naumiestis) (as Vanagas, 1970, 103, 130, already does)⁷. Their root Venc- / Vinc- (if the first is not a dialectal form with in from en) may contain a t inserted into the consonant cluster -ns-, and thus may have arisen in the same way as Venčavas. We might also look for this root in the river names Vensūtis (Dotnuva), which A. Vanagas (1970, 211) cautiously compared with Venčavas⁷, and also Vansūpis (Dotnuva).

Kalbant apie hidronimų ir toponimų šaknį Vens- / Vins-, reikia pažymėti, kad jotvingių Winse, Wենսowa galima skaityti su -s- (nebutinai su -z-), kadangi dabartinė lenkų kalbos forma Wężewo (vok. Wensewen) gali būti vokiško tarimo substitucijos (z > ž) rezultatas, toks kaip, pvz., vardo pr. *Sulōvō / *Sulāvā > lenkų Żuławy (Brocki, 1978, 132). Tokiu atveju, savaime aišku, lat. Venžava, kuršių Vense, Wense su jais neturėtų nieko bendra ir sudarytų visai atskirą šaknį (plg. Kiparsky, 1939, 203).

The following words are widely used in Lithuanian and Latvian dialects: Lithuanian vaiškariš “brooded, spoiled egg,” Latvian vānskaris, vānskars, vānskare, vānskara “brooded but not hatched egg.” In many places in everyday speech they are pronounced with a t that has phonetically arisen between n and s: Lithuanian vañckaris, Latvian vañckaris, etc. J. Endzelīns considers these words compounds whose first element, vans-, is the fossilized nominative singular form *vana-s, etymologically identical to Gothic wans “(adj.) lacking, wanting, deficient, ermangelnd”; the second element is formed from the verbal root

⁶ Tokią formą pradžioje atstatė ir A. Vanagas (1970, 211); gaila, kad nuo jos vėliau atsisakė (Vanagas, 1981, 371).

⁷ Gaila, kad nuo šių lyginimų A. Vanagas (1981, 362, 372) vėliau atsisakė.

74

the root of Lithuanian perėti, Latvian perēt ‘to hatch’. Through dissimilation (v – p > v – k), *vansp- became vansk- (Endzelīns, 1979, 403–404).

This hypothesis would be supported by Lithuanian pik-peris (with t phonetically disappearing between k and p), pikįperis (dialectally also pikįparas) “brooded, spoiled egg,” which indeed has the verbal root perėti as its second element. These parallels, as well as pikt-maišis “brooded egg, addled egg,” are also important because they provide information about the element vans-. The meaning of piktas used here is apparent from such derivatives as pikčiavaikis “an inferior, weak person; a good-for-nothing,” piktąarklis “a poor, gaunt horse,” piktą-karvė “an inferior, emaciated cow,” piktgrūdis “a poor, inferior grain.” Thus, the first element piktas in pik(t)peris and piktmaišis means “poor, worthless” (LKŽ IX 958). In addition, piktas takes on the meaning “empty” in certain contexts: pikt(a)žiedis “a hollow, sterile flower.” Interestingly, this meaning is readily discernible in the Baltic German word Wann-Ei “a brooded or not entirely full egg,” whose wann was probably borrowed from Latvian (Endzelīns, 1979, 404, n. 27). Derivatives of the adjective piktas also mean “devil, imp”: piktčius “evil spirit, imp” (with the suffix -iu- [Skardžius, 1943, 79]), piktis “devil, imp” SD (with the suffix -io-, as in juodas: juodis “black horse,” pilkas: pilkis [Skardžius, 1943, 66]); cf. also pikčionas “evil spirit, imp,” which, however, was formed with -onas (as kuprōnas “humpbacked person”: kuprà, tėvō-nas “daddy”: tėvas [Skardžius, 1943, 272–273]) from pikčiaus or from the adjective *pikčias “angry” (underlying pikčia-vaikis “inferior, weak person…,” pikčia-votė “piktavotė”).

In this way we establish that the adjective piktas 1) occurs as the first element in compound names for a brooded egg (pik(t)-peris, pikt-maišis), where it means “poor, inferior, gaunt, emaciated, worthless” and “empty”; 2) is part of physiographic terms, cf. piktežeris “a lake choked with vegetation and overgrown with bog,” piktpurvis “a boggy place, quagmire”; and 3) forms derivatives meaning “the evil one, devil, imp.” It should also be added that the corresponding verbs of the adjective piktas include not only Lithuanian pýkti (-sta), Latvian pīkt (-stu), pikt (piku, piku) “same,” but also Lithuanian pýkšti (-ta, pýško) “to spoil” (alongside pikšti (piškia) “to become angry, quarrel”).

In this connection, it is noteworthy that analogous meanings are also found in words with the root morpheme vans- (vanc-): 1) in the names for a brooded egg, Lithuanian vānškaris, Latvian vānškaris, etc., the first element means “spoiled” (hence “poor, inferior, worthless”) and “empty” (cf. Baltic German Wann-Ei “… an egg that is not quite full”); 2) the root morpheme vans- / vens- (venc-) occurs in the names of rivers, lakes, and bogs Vens-ūtis, Vėnc-avas, Vinc-ėlis, including as the first element in compound names (Vans-ūpis, Vėnc-balė); 3) Lithuanian dialects use vėncas “devil” (stress pattern 3) VlkV, Alk, Kt, Žal, Kps, Všt, Klvr, Krok, and vėnsas “same” Lkš, VšR, KzR, Mrs. The semantic lineage established by words with the root pik- is extended by Germanic cognates, which, according to J. Endzelīns’s hypothesis, are: besides the aforementioned Gothic wans, Old Icelandic vanr “(adj.) lacking, not having,” Old English wan, Old High German wan “same” (Germanic *wana-s), as well as Old Icelandic vana “to diminish,” Norwegian dialectal vana “same,” and Swedish för-vana “to spoil” (that is, “to cause to spoil,” cf. Lithuanian pýkšti

75

(-ta) among the group of words with the root pik- ‘to spoil’). Since all these similar, and sometimes even equivalent, meanings are found in words with the same root (piktas, pýkti), it may be concluded that the names for a rotten, incubated egg, rivers, lakes, bogs, and the devil that contain the root morpheme vans- / vens- (vanc- / venc-) are related to one another and to the Germanic-language evidence cited above. More specifically, on the one hand, the first element vans- (dial. vanc-) of Lithuanian vànškaris, Latvian vànškaris, etc., and vėncas, vėnsas ‘devil’ are related to one another; on the other hand, the root morpheme or first element, respectively, of the hydronyms (toponyms) Vens-ūtis, Venc-avas, Venc-ėlis, Vans-ūpis, Venc-bale is etymologically identical to them. However, the difference in root vocalism makes it difficult to identify all these lexemes: the first element of the name for a rotten, incubated egg has a, while the name for the devil and most hydronyms (toponyms) have e (alongside a zero-grade vocalism in the form Vincėlis in Kuktìškės, Utena district, unless, of course, this reflects dialectal pronunciation with en). In addition, the root intonations differ: the egg names in Lithuanian and Latvian have a circumflex, as do the Lithuanian hydronyms (toponyms), whereas the words denoting the devil have an acute.

Regarding these differences, the following can be said. Alongside the common falling (Baltic circumflex) intonation in Latvian vànškaris, vànškars, vànškare, vànškara, a sustained (rising) intonation, the Baltic acute reflex, is also attested: vañškars ME IV 468, 472 (< Baltic *váns-); thus its intonation matches Lithuanian vėncas, vénsas. The Latvian names for a rotten, incubated egg vary not only in root intonation. As a result of desemanticization (the connection with perēt ‘to brood’ is no longer felt), the second element became susceptible to irregular phonetic changes: in Latvian dialects we also find vanckurs, vanckuris (with -u-), and vanckulis, vanskulis (with -u- and -l-) ME IV 468—469, 472. Their meaning also varies: from the meaning ‘rotten, incubated egg’ there has developed the meaning ‘something that has gone wrong, a failure’, and with this meaning vànškaris, etc., is used as a curse word; cf. Gans lama guovi: kur tu lìd, vanckars tāds! ME IV 469 and Kur tu lìd, venckulis tāds! (a herdsman calls this to a ram going into the crops) ME IV 536. Since these phrases have identical formal and semantic structures and both were recorded in the same dialect (Stende), it is entirely clear that vanckars and venckulis are one and the same—the names for a rotten, incubated egg—and that the latter form has root vocalism e. This grade of vocalism is also well attested in Lithuanian dialects: vėñčkaris Sg, Skn; vėñškaris Prk. Thus, the first element of the name for a rotten, incubated egg has both a and e in its root—a phenomenon known in Lithuanian and other Baltic languages; cf. dangà and dengà, mažgas and mėžgas, bėbras and bãbras, mėlas and Samogitian mãlas, šeimà and Latvian saime, Latvian brangs and brengs. In that case, the first element of vėñčkaris, vėñškaris and Latvian venckulis shares a root with the proper names Vencavas, Vencbale, Vensūtis.

In view of the acute intonation (Latvian vañškars, Lithuanian vėñcas, vénsas) and the existence of independent lexemes (vėñcas, vénsas), the first element of the names for a rotten, incubated egg, vans- / vens- (vanc- / venc-), can hardly be a fossilized nom. sing. form *vana-s. The complete body of evidence shows that this is a root vans- / vens-, meaning ‘poor, spoiled, worthless’ and ‘empty, barren’, and etymologically identical to Old Icelandic vansi masc. ‘diminution, decrease; shame’, Norwegian dialectal vanse masc. ‘deficiency, lack’, Middle Swedish vansi ‘deficiency, defect, fault’, and Old Icelandic vansa ‘to damage, harm’. These Germanic words are

76

cognate with the Gothic wans ‘lacking, deficient, wanting’ mentioned above, Old Icelandic vanr ‘the same’, Old Icelandic vana ‘to diminish’, and Swedish för-vana ‘to spoil’ (Jóhannesson, 1956, 47–48), but have the extension *-os- added to the root. Baltic German wann, probably borrowed from Latvian, may have -nn from *-ns-.

The question arises why, if there was a tautosyllabic an (en) here, Lithuanian does not have *vãsk- or *vę̃sas instead of vénsas, and Latvian does not have *uosk- < *vuosk- < *vansk-. In Lithuanian, the likely cause is the insertion of the consonant t between n and s: before the stop c, the diphthong an (en) may not have been vocalized. That this could have happened is suggested, for example, by dialectal vañčas ‘cart’ Vdk, Rt, Trg, Up and vañčkaras ‘cart-driver’ Šln, which also have t between n and š. In Latvian, vànskaris, etc. (< *vansa-peris), and venckulis belong to those words of Baltic origin (blandties, censties, lunkans, sprands, blinda, etc.) that have preserved intact tautosyllabic clusters an, en, in, un (for this, see J. Endzelīns’s article [Endzelīns, 1974, 144–159]).

Lithuanian hydronyms (toponyms) Veņcavas, Veņcbalė, Vens-ūtis, Vans-ūpis may also contain an adjectival root *vans(a)- / *vens(a)-, meaning ‘poor, insignificant, worthless’ and ‘empty’. If the Yotvingian Winse, 1562 Wensowa also belonged to this root (and not to the root *Venz- = Lithuanian *Venž-), the Lithuanian Veņcavas < *Veņsavas and Yotvingian Wensowa, which are completely identical except for the ending, would form a lexical isogloss that, like Čičirys, Čičirė < Selian *Čičir < Baltic *kikir- / *kiker- ‘pea’ (cf. Prussian keckers, keckirs ‘pea’), links the northeastern corner of Lithuania (Dusetos, Zarasai) with the West Baltic language area.

LITERATŪRA

Arumaa P. Sur les principes et méthodes d’hydronymie russe: Les noms en gost’ // Scando-Slavica. 1960. T. 6. P. 144–176.

Batūra R. Paaiškinimai // Dusburgietis P. Prūsijos žemės kronika. V., 1985.

Bielenstein A. Die Grenzen des Lettischen Volkstammes und der lettischen Sprache in der Gegenwart und im 13. Jahrhundert. St. Petersburg, 1892.

Blese E. Die Kuren und ihre sprachliche Stellung im Kreise der baltischen Volksstämme // Congressus secundus archaeologorum balticorum. Rigae. 19–23. VIII. 1930. P. 293–312.

Brocki Z. Baltico-Slavica Huberto Gurnovičiaus toponiminėse darbuose // Baltistica. 1978. T. 14(2). P. 130–133.

Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1958. T. I; 1961. T. III.

Bujak F. Studia nad osadnictwem Małopolski. Kraków, 1905.

Cowgill W., Mayrhofer M. Indogermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg, 1986. T. 1.

Dusburgietis P. Prūsijos žemės kronika. V., 1985.

Endzelīns J. Senprūšu valoda. Rīgā, 1943.

Endzelīns J. Latvijas PSR vietvārdi. Rīgā, 1956. I daļa, 1. sējums (A–J).

Endzelīns J. Darbu izlase. Rīgā, 1974. T. II; 1979. T. III, 1. daļa; 1982. T. IV, 2. daļa.

Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1962.

Frischbier H. Preussisches Wörterbuch. Berlin, 1883. T. 2.

Inglot S. Historia społeczna i gospodarcza średniowiecza. Lwów, 1938.

Jóhannesson A. Isländisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern, 1956.

Kalwaitis W. Lietuviškų Wardų klėtelė. Tilžėje, 1910.

77

Karaliūnas S. Baltų kalbų struktūrų bendrybės ir jų kilmė. V., 1987.

Kiparsky V. Die Kurenfrage. Helsinki, 1939.

LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V., 1941. T. I; 1986. T. XIV.

LPŽ – Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas. V., 1985. T. I (A–K).

Mayrhofer M. Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. Heidelberg, 1956. T. I; 1976. T. III.

Manteuffel T. Kultura Europy Średniowiecznej. Warszawa, 1974.

Mažiulis V. Selonica // Baltistica. 1981. T. 17(1). P. 7–12.

Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas. V., 1988. T. I (A–H).

ME – K. Mūlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīca / Rediģējis, papildinājis, turpinājis J. Endzelīns. Rīgā, 1923–1925. T. I; 1929–1932. T. IV.

Nesselmann G. H. F. Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache. Königsberg, 1851.

Paul H. Deutsches Wörterbuch. 8. Aufl. bearbeitet von A. Schirmer. Halle (Saale), 1961.

Pokorny J. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern und München, 1959.

PKP – Mažiulis V. Prūsų kalbos paminklai. V., 1981. T. II.

Razmukaitė M. Kaliningrado srities istorinių vietų vardų tradiciniai lietuviškieji atitikmenys // Kalbos kultūra. V., 1985. Sąs. 49. P. 73–80.

Schütz J. Revision der Namen mit -gast // Beiträge zur Namenforschung. 1988. T. 23. P. 68–82.

Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. V., 1943.

Słownik łaciny średniowiecznej w Polsce. Wrocław-Warszawa..., 1977. T. IV (F–H), zeszyt 6(34).

Stang Chr. S. Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Olso-Bergen-Tomsö, 1966.

Trautmann R. Die altpreussischen Personennamen. Göttingen, 1925.

Vanagas A. Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba. V., 1970.

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

Аникин А. Е. Опыт семантического анализа праславянской омонимии на индоевропейском фоне. Новосибирск, 1988.

Брейдак А. Диалектная лексика латгальских говоров верхнелатышского диалекта и ее исторические связи: Автореф. дис.... канд. филол. наук. Рига, 1969.

Иванов Вяч. Вс. Разыскания в области анатолийского языкознания // Этимология – 1971. М., 1973.

Иванов В. В., Топоров В. Н. К реконструкции праславянского текста // Славянское языкознание. М., 1963.

Лаумане Б. Э. Лексический материал диалектологического атласа латышского языка, отражающий латышско-русско-белорусско-польские контакты // Контакты латышского языка. Рига, 1977.

Топоров В. Н. Прусский язык. Словарь (Е–Н). М., 1979.

Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. М., 1986. Т. 2.

S. KARALIŪNAS

SPRACHWISSENSCHAFTLICHE BEMERKUNGEN

Zusammenfassung

Die Spuren des idg. *ghostis „Gast; Fremde“ sind wahrscheinlich erhalten: 1) in den Personennamen lit. Gaščūnas, Gaščūlis, *Gaščionis (< ON Gasciōnys) < Gasc- < *Gasti- || *Gasti-; 2) im apr. gasto „Ackerstück, Flurstücke, Felder (die bearbeitet von „Gästen“ – freien Bauern worden waren)“; 3) in den Gewässernamen lit. Gāstam-inas, Gāsta-mas, Gāsta-s, Gāst-upis und 4) in den Appellativa lett. gasts „Gast“ (o Stamm), gašķis „id.“ (< *gastis), fem. gaška (< *gastijā).

78

Urverwandtschaft zwischen lit. kárklai, kárklas, kárklēs „Tür, Pforte, Raufe, Krippe...“, lett. kárkles „Raufe; Getreidesieb“ (< *kort-tlo-) und ai. cāttram „Spindel“ (< *kert-tro-) wird vermutet.

Lit. lakóti (-ója) „durch Lab gerinnen machen“ ist wohl eine Ableitung von lēkti (lēkia, lēkē) „fliegen; laufen, rennen“.

Die Wurzel von Gewässer- (und Sumpf-) namen lit. Vẽncavas, Vinčēlis, Vẽnc-bālē, Vensūtis und Vans-ūpis ist wohl gleichzusetzen mit den ersten Komponenten von lit. vãnškaris, vẽnškaris „ein unausgebrütetes Ei“, lett. vãnškaris, vãnškaras, vãnškare, vãnškara „ein bebrütetes, aber unfruchtbar gebliebenes Ei“ (wohl aus *vans- / *vens-peris).