LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVIII (1989)

KALBŲ RYŠIAI IR SĄVEIKOS

LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ

SLAVICIZATION OF THE OIKONYMS OF THE VARENA DISTRICT

Research into the language substrate can yield a great deal of new material, but first of all it is necessary to establish the rules for reconstructing the substrate language, that is, ways of removing the superstrate deposits. Language facts are reconstructed when they can no longer be verified. In a situation of bilingualism, it is possible to attempt to reconstruct language facts and more easily identify the most general regularities according to which features of one language are adapted to another. In this way, one can understand the mechanism of language interaction and trace the exchange of linguistic elements.

Onomastics is one of the objects of substrate research. The features of the Slavicization of Lithuanian onomastics have already been examined on several occasions. Among the works worth mentioning are the detailed studies based on abundant material by K. Būga (1958), K.O. Falko (1963), J. Otrembskis (1963), J. Princo (1968), and others. These studies draw on written sources; consequently, considerable attention is paid to the inventory of writing symbols and to scribes’ abilities and attitudes, while diachronic relations between languages are taken fully into account. The most general regularities have already been established, but exceptions or even manifestations of contradictory tendencies usually have to be eliminated or explained by extralinguistic factors.

Language is an extraordinarily perfect system; it “works like a clock” when languages really interact, rather than a scribe writing down words from a language foreign and exotic to him. It is quite another matter when bilingual people render words from one language, which they understand well, in another language that they also know well and whose resources they command. The object of this study is language interaction.

Invaluable language facts for this purpose are abundant in the so-called peripheral islands and border areas of Lithuanian dialects. The material for this study was collected in the Voranava District of the Byelorussian SSR during expeditions from 1984 to 1987. The general sociolinguistic situation in the district has been described in considerable detail (Чекмонас 1988).

Research on peripheral Lithuanian dialects has become particularly active in recent years: A. Vidugiris and K. Garšva continue their work, while V. Čekmonas and his students (A. Vaičiulytė-Romančiuk, T. Vaišnytė, and others) are implementing their own idea of broad-based sociolinguistic dialectology in these areas¹.

Research into the substrate using people’s living speech is uncommon in linguistic practice, so it is worth discussing certain methodological principles.

First and foremost, all coexisting languages and dialects should be studied comprehensively. Grammar descriptions and dictionaries should be prepared so that they reflect the circumstances under which-

¹ I am sincerely grateful to V. Čekmonas for the idea for the work itself, and also to all the expedition participants mentioned here for their mutual assistance.

84

one language is used in them, another in others. In other words, when investigating the interaction and interrelationship of languages, we should try to identify the centers of innovation.

Thus, the second point is the need for a sociolinguistic approach to the object of study: who speaks, when, where, with whom, and how. The considerable influence of sociolinguistic factors is shown by the fact that the Slavicization of the oikonyms in the 15 localities of Varėnava district under discussion differs substantially. For example, Lithuanian was still spoken fairly recently in the localities of Balčiškės and Girkos, and partly in Rūdiņios, and less so in Žirmūnai, although it has now declined considerably; in the localities of Misevičiai and Ažubalis, it had ceased to be spoken long ago, and now probably nobody speaks Lithuanian there anymore. All this conditioned the features of oikonym Slavicization: bilinguals usually explain the semantic and formal content of oikonyms using the resources of the other language, employing that language’s suffixes and prefixes that convey it most precisely, whereas those who have forgotten the language (oriented toward Polish) most often apply Polish suffixes and endings to everything. In those places the substrate language is covered by an especially thick layer of superstrate. The most reliable evidence of a former strong center of Polonization is stress shifted according to the rules of Polish, whose original position may be irretrievably obscured. Similar phenomena occur at other levels of language as well.

Third, all possible linguistic facts are collected, and details that may affect the origin of a name are recorded (terrain, geographical location, and so on). The surrounding microtoponyms and predominant anthroponyms can also be very important for etymologizing. The stems of some oikonyms in the study area are surnames, cf. Surkantai ~ Сурканты Blč, Vilbikai ~ Вильбики Blč, but, of course, the reverse process is also possible: Kულiai ~ Кули Grk and the surname from those places, Кулейч.

It is useful to know that Saltoniškės ~ Солтаниуки Grk is the only hamlet situated deep in the forest. This strongly reinforces the hypothesis linking the hydronyms based on the root salt- with ѕлата ‘a gland in an animal’s throat; fat on the intestines’; saltas ‘a black lump of fat’, and so on (cf. Vanagas 1981, 289). The village Pėncin iškės ~ Пѣнцынюки Rod, like Plikiai ~ Плики Žrm, lies in open country, so its name may be linked to pėntis ‘heel’.

These are the principal tasks involved in the sociolinguistic study of substrate phenomena. The first to investigate the consequences of language contact in Belarus from this perspective were representatives of the Lithuanian peripheral dialects, T. Vaišnytė (Войшниц 1986) and A. Romańčiuk (1989).

This article describes only oikonyms—the names of 148 villages, recorded in 1984–1987 from local Varėnava district residents who were bilingual or multilingual (not monolingual). This is the most reliable source for identifying the rules governing language contact: the apparent “exceptions” result from the operation of other rules; there are no coincidences here. The Lithuanian and Belarusian (colloquial) forms of oikonyms currently in use are recorded.

Polish and Russian forms of many of the oikonyms under investigation have been found in written sources of various kinds and from various periods, but here it has been established that spoken-language evidence (which presupposes bilingualism) must be rigorously distinguished from written evidence. For example, the village of Zalieckių in the Žirmūnai locality, whose name probably derives from the surname Zalieckių, still borne by residents of that locality, is now found written in Russian as Залеские, that is, explained on the basis of folk etymology as meaning that the village is beyond the forest.

85

Therefore, it is better to limit the scope of the material under study while keeping it as homogeneous—and thus as authentic—as possible.

Another methodological note. In the 1920s and 1930s, a brief but fairly intensive movement organized by the “Rytas” Society took place in the regions in question, seeking to revive Lithuanian identity. Reading rooms established in many villages left behind, to this day, a group of people who learned Lithuanian not from their parents (although the latter had often still known Lithuanian, but had stopped teaching it to their children), but from teachers in the reading rooms. Place names recorded from such people (they speak non-dialectally or in a semi-dialectal manner) may be hypercorrect; cf. *Gaivūnai ~ гаўёўны Rod, but here it is Aivūnai (in the dialect, ai < ei at the beginning of a word), cf. Эйтūны (Lida District), as well as the dialectal form Aišiškės ~ Эйшыўки.

Only spoken language (since this is not reflected in writing) can show where /g/ occurred in substrate forms and where it was added: the allophone [g] in the Belarusian form indicates that /g/ was present there from earlier times, and also in the substrate language, whereas [ɣ] most often indicates an addition; cf. yaŭyūnīuki Ben. [ɣ] at the beginning of a word makes it possible gradually to reconstruct the base of the verbal root ei- in this oikonym as well.

Having discussed the principles for collecting and selecting the material, we now turn to the rules for transferring oikonyms from one language to another, using them to classify all the examples collected. The methodological principles chosen as a point of departure are those of J. Prince and, in part, K. O. Falck: to distinguish and exclude from phonetic analysis examples rendered in another language by translation or explanation (the latter is called Deutung by J. Prince). Translation is understood as a change in which the semantics of an oikonym is conveyed by a word in another language that has no phonetic connection with it, whereas explanation involves selecting equivalents in another language with the aim of achieving maximum phonetic similarity. An example of translation is Aukštūjai ~ Высокія Grk, and an example of explanation is Bilōnys ~ Біланы Žrm.

Translation. There are few unequivocal examples of translation. For instance, the Slavic oikonym Бярбазаўка Ažbl provides grounds for suspecting that it is a translation, but it could also be a Slavic village, since no other form has been recorded. The situation is different when it is known that Aukštūjai ~ Высокія Grk, that Piliakalnis ~ уападіўша Rod, that Lietuva ~ Литвіца Bnk, or Ažūbalis | Žūbalis ~ Забалаць | Заболаць Ažbl, Bnk—even the grammatical gender changes, although when Baltic oikonyms are rendered in Belarusian (and Polish), efforts are made to preserve both gender and number. Naturally, one is immediately tempted to treat the oikonyms Залешаны Msv, Ažbl, Заречане Msv as translations as well, and to suspect that the suffix in Дайнавічка (*Dainavėlė) Msv has also been translated, since Dainavā. Kýbelčiki Msv is nearby. One might imagine Kubiliėlių as its substrate form, but these points are not supported by linguistic evidence.

Not only the base word but also individual components of compound place names are translated: Senėji Smilginiai ~ Старыя Смільгіны Rod.

Explanation. Explanatory rendering of place names is by far the most common method. Two subtypes could be distinguished: cases where both semantic and morphological similarity are sought, and cases where essentially morphological means are used.

One group would consist of collective place names whose base is a designation for a person by occupation or profession and its Slavic equivalents, which are very similar because of long-standing Baltic–Slavic contacts and borrowing: Bajōrai ~ Баяры Žrm, Ulonai ~ Ула-

86

nú Grk, Kavòliai ~ Kaválʹki Grk. The emergence of the suffix -ki may in this case have been prompted by the need to convey a collective meaning, which is why the suffix appears where it was not present at all.

A second method of interpretive rendering is a new interpretation arising on the basis of homonymy: Zaliečiai ~ Зале́й(с)кія Žrm, cf. the surname from that area, Зале́йкій. Thus, a surname is taken as the basis for a collective place name, and an ending is formed (rather than merely rendered: -(i)ai > i) according to the pattern: a surname ending in -ėkių yields an oikonym ending in -ėkią. Thus, from Зале́йкі emerges the “more understandable” Зале́йкіа, which is now a homonym (or near-homonym) meaning “залесские”—“beyond the forest.”

The third method of interpretation involves replacing all the morphemes of the word and changing its stress position; this is almost a translation, although the underlying word is still quite similar: Babriņykai ~ Бабрау́нікі Ažbl, Beržuonà ~ Березна́ Žrm (cf. the corresponding hydronym), Várniškės ~ Варо́нічы Msv.

A fourth method may be one in which, “by inertia,” the ending of the Lithuanian form of an oikonym is identified with a corresponding Lithuanian suffix that has a collective meaning, and the latter is then rendered; cf. Paliūnai ~ Паліўцы Rod (the name of a village in the marshes of the upper Ditvà is probably derived from the common noun liūnas ‘bog’ and pa-). Thus, the suffix -ūnai is treated hypercorrectly here. This derivational method would probably include all oikonyms not derived from surnames whose semantics are not immediately clear. The approach is therefore formal, based on the word ending sounding similar to a suffix. In this study, the fourth method is regarded as potential, but it cannot be properly applied without a specialized semantic analysis of place names.

As noted, interpretive rendering can be based only on morphological equivalents (or partial equivalents), i.e. prefixes, suffixes, and endings. This is the principal method of Slavicizing oikonyms.

There are few prefixed place names, so this may seem to be an unproductive method. Of the six prefixed Lithuanian oikonyms identified, one was translated (Ažūbalis | Žūbalis ~ Забола́ць | Забола́ць Ažbl, Bnk), while for one only the Polish form is translated (because the Lithuanian and Belarusian prefixes coincide): Pravožà ~ Праваса́ц ~ Pžóvóžá Ažbl; this is also a hydronym. For two other oikonyms related to the common nouns mēdžias ‘forest’ and valkà ‘pool, marsh’, and one related to the hydronym Ditvà, all formed with the prefix pa-, a very similar Belarusian prefix По- is selected; cf. Padzitvė | Padzicývys ~ По́дзімба Blč, Pamedė ~ По́мяд(з)ь Blč, Pavalakė ~ По́ва-лака Blč. That this is not phonetic rendering but replacement of a prefix is also shown by the fact that Belarusian По- attracts the stress. Conversely, the stressed prefix in the Lithuanian form Pārodūnė becomes unstressed in the Belarusian form Параду́нь Dčk.

Rendering suffixes is the most complex of the methods of morphological adaptation. The examples show that the following rule is observed strictly: vowels in Lithuanian suffixes receive a phonetically well-matched equivalent in Belarusian suffixes, while the other suffix elements are selected according to morphological rather than phonetic criteria (an equivalent is sought to convey the collective meaning). It seems that the alternation between a and o is governed by pitch accent: acute a and o remain unchanged, while circumflex a becomes o and vice versa, but this regularity has not yet been firmly established. Long-term peaceful coexistence of languages

87

(when neither language is oppressed or displaced by the other, more prestigious language) encourages the choice of the semantic rendering method, that is, conscious adaptation rather than merely replacing the phonetic form. Examples of interpretive rendering of suffixes are given below.

-ėnai ~ -ėhė: Dvarčėnai ~ Дварчане Ažbl, Kazlėnai ~ Казляны(a) Ažbl, Zaprudėnai ~ Запрудзяны Ažbl;

-iniai ~ -інцы: Dubiniai ~ Дубіныцы Grk (there is a Dubiniai forest in Balčiškės). Perhaps -інцы, used to express a collective meaning, is used hypercorrectly in this case?

-inykai ~ iki: Druskinykai ~ Дру́сініки Blč; the stream DruskėlėDruskėlė flows there. The choice of the suffixes -аніцы and -яны depends on the hardness of the root’s final consonant: -аніцы is used after a hard consonant, and -яны after a soft one;

-(i) ónys ~ -(я) ány: Bilónys ~ Біляны Žrm, Kivónys ~ Ківяны Dčk, Leliōnys|Liuliōnys ~ Ліляны | Люляны Grk, Mickónys ~ Міцканы Nč, Miežónys|Mieziónys ~ Межяны | Мізяны [Grk, Pavilionys ~ Павіляны Dčk, Pereigónys ~ Пере(й)ганы Prg, Skaldónys ~ Складаны Rod, Ramaškónys ~ Рамашканы Prg, Tišmonys ~ Тишмяны Bnk, Vigónys ~ Віганы Rod. The collective character of some of these oikonyms is unclear, so phonetic analogy may have played a role.

-ūnai ~ -ўнуцы: Aivūnai ~ пайўнуцы Rod, Lipkūnai ~ Липкуныцы Grk, Mačiūnai|Mičiūnai|Miciūnai ~ Мачуныцы Dčk, Nekraščiūnai ~ Някřашчуныцы Nč, Piliūnai|Piliūnys ~ Пілюны Blč, Pocelūnai ~ Пацелуны Rod, Sapūnai ~ Сапуны Grk (there is a surname Сапка and a stream Сапунка), Tolkūnai ~ Талкуныцы Rod, Vaikūnai|Vaikūnony­s|Vaikūnys ~ Вайкуныцы Rod.

The rendering of endings by interpretive means comes closest to phonetic rendering; at times the two phenomena are difficult even to distinguish. This is the largest subgroup. It is noteworthy that in most cases the stress position is retained; only one exception occurred: Ramūčiai ~ Рамучы Bnk.

The ending -ai corresponds to -i or -ы: Adėvर्नykai ~ Адэ́рнікі Rod, Balčinykėliai ~ Бальчынікелі Bnk, Balkūnai ~ Балькуны Klš, Bartašiūnai ~ Барташу́ны Prg, Bastūnai ~ Бастуны Bst, Biliai ~ Бі́лі Klš, Biržiniai ~ Біржыны Bnk, Budrėvičiai ~ Будрэвічы Žrm, the surname Будрэ́віч occurs, Draguciai ~ Драгучы Blč, the surname Драгучы occurs, Džietkai ~ Дзе́ткі Ažbl, Geštautai ~ Гештаўты Blč, Ginėliai ~ Гінелі Nč, Gudėliai ~ Гудэлі Žrm, Hánevičiai ~ у́аніцэвічы Žrm, the surname у́аніцэвіч occurs, Jančiai ~ Янчы Dčk, Jotutai ~ Ятаўты Rod, Juciūnai ~ Юцюны Rod, Jurāliai ~ Юрэлі Dčk, Kargaudai ~ Каргаўды Grk, Kemeišiai ~ Кемейшы Rod, Kerbedziai ~ Кербедзі Žrm, the surname Ке́рбедзь occurs, Klaišiai ~ Клайшы Grk, Klóniai ~ Клоні Ažbl, Kukliai ~ Куклі Blč, Kulidž ~ Кулі Grk, the surname Куле́іч occurs, Kużiai ~ Кузьцы Bnk, Leliušai ~ Лялюшы Grk, Lauciūnai ~ Лаўцу́ны Bst, there is a village Лаўцы in Klš, Lebedūnykai ~ Лебеднікі Dčk, there is a river Lebeda, Lūnkiai ~ Лункі Grk, the surname Лунке́іч occurs, Nasavičai ~ Насавічы Rod, the surname Но́савіч occurs, Navikai ~ Навікі Grk, the surname Но́вік occurs, Norkūnai ~ Наркӯны Ažbl, Dčk, the surname Наркӯн occurs, Mažėi-kiai ~ Мажэйкі Rod, the surname Мажэйка occurs, Mėdžiušai ~ Мядзюшы Rod, Minykai|Mnykai ~ Мніхі Žrm, Mogūnai ~ Магуны Žrm, Padaikai ~ Па-

88

džiūki Ažbl, Papiškiai ~ Папіўкі Rod, Petrašiūnai ~ Петрашўны Žrm, Pliškiai ~ Плікі Žrm, Poškai ~ Пашкі Ažbl, Pusiavárai ~ Пусаўары Rod, Rač-kūnai|Račkūnai ~ Рачкуны Bst, Rod, is a surname Рачка, Radžiūnai ~ Радзюны Dčk, is a surname Радзголь, Ramučiai ~ Рамуыці Bnk, Sakalai ~ Сакалы Bst, Scilgūnai ~ Сцилгўны Vrn, Skireikiai ~ Скірэйкі Rod, Sidurūkai ~ Сяўрукі Blč, is a surname Сяўрук|Саўрук, Smilginiai ~ Смільгіни Nč, Rod, Ažbl, Stračiūnai ~ Страчуны Rod, Stukai ~ Стукі Žrm, Surkantai ~ Сурканты Blč, Šalčiniai ~ Шальчыны Žrm, Ševerdókai ~ Шевердакі Žrm, Šaurai|Šiauriai ~ Шаўры Nč, Taukiniai ~ Таўкіни Žrm, Traigiai ~ Трайзі Ažbl, Trakėliai ~ Тракэлі Bst, Vaišniai ~ Вайшні|Воўшні|Воўшня Bnk, the latter is an example of translation, and the root is stressed because of the adstratal influence of the Polish language; is a surname Ваўшніс|Воўшніс, Varėliai ~ (В)Орлі Rod, Vaškėliai ~ Вашкелі Rod, is a surname Вашкелоўць, Zapasnykai ~ Запаснікі Ažbl, is a surname Занаčnik, Žirmūnai ~ Жырмўны Žrm.

When adapted to Belarusian, oikonyms ending in -ės take the ending -i: Abrōmiškės ~ Абрамішкі Ažbl, Alekšāškės ~ Алякшышкі Nč, Ambražiškės ~ Амбражышкі Plc, is a surname Амбражык, Ažėliškės ~ Ажэлішкі Žrm, Balčiškės|Balčiškės ~ Больышкі Blč, surnames Бальціч, Balčius, Bartašīškės ~ Барташышкі Rod, is a surname Бартось, Daugėlįškės ~ Даўгелішкі Rod, surnames Даўгяла, Даўгелеч, Daugirdziškės ~ Даўгірдзишкі Rod, Dōčiškės ~ До̄цішкі Dčk, Gudziniškės ~ Гудзінішкі Ažbl, Jūotkiškės|Jūotkos ~ Ёмкішкі Bnk, surnames Ëdic, Ямкевіч, Kūrkes ~ Кўркі Rod, Lapōčiškės ~ Лапаўшкі Prd, Bst, Nāniškės ~ Но̄нішкі Žrm, Padvariškės ~ Падва-рыўшкі Bnk, Pėneniškės ~ Пēнūнішкі Rod, Sališkės ~ Салішкі Rod, nearby is a forest called Salà, Šaltoniškės ~ Со̄лтанішкі Grk, Serbeniškės ~ Се̄рбенішкі Nč, Sūšyškės ~ Сўшыўшкі Dčk, Taičiškės ~ То̄ўшкі|То̄ўшішкі Grk, Trumpiškės ~ Трӯмнішкі Prd, Valdōtiškės|Valdotiškės|Valdonai ~ Валдо̄тышкі|Во̄лда-жышкі Blč, Vanagiškės ~ Ванагішкі Grk.

Oikonyms ending in -os also take the ending -i in Belarusian: Berýlos ~ Бя-рылы Plc, Girkos ~ Гіркі Grk, is a surname Гіріс; nearby, in Navikai, the forests are called Гipa, Гіро̄ць; in Paloskos the spring Гіркі, Mikūtos ~ Мікūты Blč, is a surname Мікūць, Palōškos ~ Палаўкі Grk, Taločkos ~ Тало̄чкі Ažbl, is a surname Тало̄чка, Valaišos ~ Вале̄йшны, is a surname Вале̄йшна.

This article surveys the semantic and morphological ways of rendering the genders of Lithuanian oikonyms in Belarusian (in ordinary usage). Phonetic rendering rules are not discussed here.

A survey of oikonyms in the Varėna district, recorded from local bilingual residents, shows that several rendering methods are possible; however, the results presented cannot yet help determine why one method rather than another is chosen—for example, why in one case a suffix is translated, while in an analogous case only the ending is translated. One may assume that in such cases the language's value orientation plays a major role, but that is a topic for another article.

89

ABBREVIATIONS

Ažbl – Ažubalis

Blč – Balčiškės

Bst – Bastūnai

Bnk – Benekainiai

Dčk – Dočiškės

Grk – Girkos

Klš – Kauleliškės

Msv – Misevičiai

Nč – Nočia

Plc – Palečkiškės

Prd – Paradnės

Prg – Pereigonių

Rod – Ródūnios

Vrnw – Varenávo

Žrm – Žirmūnų

LITERATŪRA

Būga K. Apie lietuvių asmens vardus // Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1958. T. 1. P. 201–269.

Falk K.-O. Ze studiów nad slawizacją litewskich nazw miejscowych i osobowych // Skandoslavica. Copenhagen. 1963. T. 9. S. 87–103.

Otrębski J. Slawizacja litewskich nazw wodnych i miejscowych // Z polskich studiów slawistycznych. Seria 2: Językoznawstwo. W-wa. 1963. P. 267–286.

Prinz J. Die Slavisierung baltischer und die Baltisierung slavischer Ortsnamen im Gebiet des ehemaligen Gouvernements. Suwałki; Wiesbaden. 1968. 320 P. (Rec.: Urbūtis V. Baltistica. 1969. T. 5(2). P. 210–217; Vanagas A. LKK. 1970. T. 12. P. 194–200).

Romančiuk A. Mikrotoponimų funkcionavimas daugiakalbėje aplinkoje // Jaunųjų filologų darbai. V., 1989. T. 3.

Vanagas A. Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. V., 1981. 289 P.

Войшниш Т. А. Ономастический тезаурус Переганцевского с/с Вороновского р-на БССР: диплом. работа. Вильнюс: ВГУ, 1986. 87 с.

Чекмонас В. Н. Функционирование языков и билингвизм // LKK. 1988. Т. 27. С. 37–54.

СЛАВЯНИЗАЦИЯ ОЙКОНИМОВ В ВОРОНОВСКОМ РАЙОНЕ

Резюме

Приводятся результаты исследования ойконимии Вороновского р-на БССР, функционирующей в литовской и белорусской формах и записанной от местных жителей билингвов. Устанавливаются правила грамматически осознанного переноса форм одного языка в другой. Определены следующие его типы: 1) семантический перевод: Aukštūjojai ~ Высокія Grk, Ažūbalis ~ Забалаць Bnk, Ažbl, Sentėjų Smilginiai ~ Старые Смилыгини Rod; 2) объяснение при помощи подбора соответствующих морфологических элементов белорусского диалекта: а) родственных корней: Beržūnai ~ Березня Žrm, Varnìškės ~ Вароничи Msv; б) приставок: Pavalakė ~ Повалка Blč; в) суффиксов: Dvarčėnai ~ Дварчане Ažbl, Vigōnys ~ Виганцы Rod; г) окончаний: Ažėliškės ~ Ажэлишки Žrm.

Делается заключение об относительно высокой регулярности соблюдения данных правил, а также предположение (без доказательств) о наличии процесса переосмысления правил переноса под влиянием адстрата (в данном случае – польского языка).