„Latviešu valodas kontaktu pētījumi“

some publications by linguists (S. Karaliūnas, A. Sabaliauskas, A. Vanagas, A. Vidugiris, and others) addressing issues of Baltic and Slavic ethnogenesis. Apparently, V. Skujinios’s articles published in „Kalbos kultūra“ should also have been included in the terminology section (Use of International Elements in Latvian Terminology. 1979. Issue 37. P. 57–63; The Term in Context. 1983. Issue 44. P. 19–26). The rationale for selecting publications by year is also not entirely clear. One section includes publications dating from the 1950s, another from the 1960s or 1970s, and so on. These points do not diminish the value of the bibliography. The bibliography of Latvian–Russian bilingualism is highly valuable and necessary. Undoubtedly, it will become a reference book not only for Latvian linguists but also for Lithuanian linguists, since the index includes many works addressing various aspects of Lithuanian phonetics, morphology, lexicon, and other fields. On the other hand, an entire section is devoted to contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages, containing articles and monographs on Baltic ethnogenesis, substrate, the typology and etymology of the Baltic and Slavic languages, and other topics. Latviešu valodas kontaktu pētījumi/Atb. red. A. Blinkena. Rīga: „Zinātne“, 1987, 276 p. Linguists at the Andrejs Upītis Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian SSR Academy of Sciences devote considerable attention to problems of language contact. Among the institute’s valuable publications are „Взаимосвязи балтов и прибалтийских финнов“ (Рига, 1970; prepared jointly with the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences) and „Контакты русского языка с языками народов Прибалтики“ (Рига, 1984). The latter also devotes considerable space to contacts between Russian and Lithuanian (the articles are by Lithuanian linguists). A new book on this issue, „Research on Latvian Language Contacts“, has recently appeared. It is a collection of articles by Latvian linguists on quite varied topics. A considerable portion of these articles is directly related to Lithuanian studies. This applies above all to the first two, whose authors are graduates of both Vilnius and Riga universities and who presumably care equally about issues in Latvian and Lithuanian. In her article „Semantic Relations between Cognate Prefixed Nouns and Verbs in Modern Lithuanian and Latvian“ (Kopīmes prefiksālo lietvārdu un darbības vārdu semantikas attieksmes mūsdienu lietuviešu un latviešu valodā, p. 7–38), L. Baluodė (Balode) examines 115 cognate prefixed nouns and 880 prefixed verbs in the two languages. She divides them into three groups: the first comprises formations that coincide in both form and meaning (Lith. apyrankė: Latv. aproce, Lith. patėvis: Latv. patēvs; Lith. apauti: Latv. apaut), the second comprises formations whose form coincides but whose meanings differ in part (Lith. įrankis: Latv. ierocis ‘weapon; fig. tool’, Lith. atradėjas: Latv. atradējs ‘finder’, Lith. apgiedoti: Latv. apdziedāt ‘sing about; sing teasing songs (folk ditties)’), and the third comprises formations whose form coincides but whose meanings are entirely different (Lith. nesąmonė: Latv. nesamaņa ‘loss of consciousness, fainting’, Lith. pėrvalkas: Latv. pārvalks ‘cover, covering’; Lith. apskrieti: Latv. apskriet ‘run around, run about’). As might be expected, the third group is the smallest: it accounts for 21 percent of the nouns examined and 15 percent of the verbs. 210 R. Bertulio’s article „The Interrelationship between Word Form and Meaning (Latv. māte: Lith. mōté)“ (Vārda formas un nozīmes savstarpējās attiecības (lat. māte: liet. mōté), p. 39—62) presents a detailed analysis of the form and meaning of this ancient Indo-European inheritance. On this occasion, it is worth recalling R. Bertulio’s other excellent studies of the common Lithuanian and Latvian lexicon and encouraging the author to publish the results of his research as a separate book. A. Blinkena’s article „Adjectives in J. Langijo’s Dictionary“ (Adjektīvi J. Langija vārdnīcā, p. 63—85) should be of interest to Lithuanian studies scholars, since this monument of Latvian lexicography (usually dated to 1685) contains quite a number of Lithuanianisms characteristic of the Latvian dialects of Nīca, Bārta, and Rucava at that time; compare Latv. atkihls ‘behd, hurtig, geschwind, mutig’ — Lith. akylas, Latv. budiģs ‘embsig, fleissig, hurtig, tüchtig’ — Lith. budintis, Latv. ģēdīgs ‘gebärdig, artig’ — Samogitian Lith. gieda, Latv. kalts ‘schuldig, als zur Schuld geschlagen’ — Lith. kaltas, Latv. lakstīgs (lakstains) ‘frech oder geil’ — Lith. lakstus, Latv. laibs ‘schwach’ — Lith. laibas, Latv. nohks ‘bloss, kahl, nacket’ — Lith. nuogas, Latv. nowaks ‘wachend, munter, it. nüchtern’, — Lith. nuovokus, Latv. padāhrs (derigs) ‘tauglich, dienlich, bequem’, nhepadāhrs ‘untauglich, untüchtig, was nicht dienet’ — Lith. padorus, Latv. tickris ‘recht oder Ertz’ — Lith. tikras, and so on. The author compares the adjectives in J. Langijo’s dictionary with adjectives in modern Latvian and indicates differences in their usage. She notes that the adjectives in the dictionary provide a good picture of the forms and meanings of this part of speech three hundred years ago, and that comparing them with data from other dictionaries and texts can be very useful for research into the history of Latvian. Most of the articles address issues in Latvian lexicon. These include B. Bušmanė’s article „Names of Gelatinous Dishes in the Dialects“ (Galertveida ēdienu nosaukumi izloksnēs, p. 86—134); O. Buš’s article „From the History of Germanisms (baļļa, balģe, baļva)“ (No ģermānismu vēstures (baļļa, balģe, baļva), p. 135—148); E. Kagainė’s „Speech Verbs Borrowed from the Baltic Finnic Languages in the North Vidzeme Dialects“ (No Baltijas somu valodām aizgūtie runas verbi Ziemeļvidzemes izloksnēs, p. 149—162); B. Laumanė’s „On Some Names of the Flora and Fauna of the Baltic Sea“ (Par dažiem Baltijas jūras floras un faunas nosaukumiem, p. 163—185); the same author’s „Names for the Weasel in Latvian“ (Zebiekstes nosaukumi latviešu valodā, p. 186—198); A. Stafecka’s „Names of Household Items in the Atlas of Latvian Dialects“ (Mājsaimniecības priekšmetu nosaukumi Latviešu valodas dialektu atlantā, p. 199—227); and V. Šaudinš’s „Some Sociolinguistic Aspects of Borrowing Lithuanianisms in the Selonian Dialects“ (Daži sēlisko izloksņu lituānismu aizgūšanas sociolingvistiskie aspekti, p. 228—235). Lithuanian studies scholars, especially researchers of bilingualism, will find interesting details in the aforementioned article by V. Šaudinš. B. Laumanė’s articles are distinguished by their very rich factual material. This linguist is particularly devoted to studying the Latvian lexicon related to the Baltic Sea. Among other things, in 1974 she was awarded the J. Endzelīns Prize for her excellent book „Fish Names in Latvian“ (Zivju nosaukumi latviešu valodā. Rīga, 1973), and in 1987 she received the V. Lācis Prize for her book „Names of Fishing Grounds on the Coast of the Latvian SSR“ (Zvejvietu nosaukumi Latvijas PSR piekrastē. Rīga, 1987). 211 O. Būšas reviews the book by Estonian academic P. Ariste, “Language Contacts. Contacts of the Estonian Language with Other Languages” (Keelekontaktid. Eesti keele kontakte teiste keeltega. Tallinn, 1981). Dz. Barbarė provides a bibliography of works on Latvian language contacts published in 1945—1984. A. Sabaliauskas Мурзаев Э. М. Словарь народных географических терминов. М.: Мысль, 1984. 654 с. This is the first extensive dictionary of folk geographical terms of this kind published in our country. Its author is the well-known geographer Eduard Makarovich Murzayev, who is interested in place names and especially geographical terminology—a Doctor of Geographical Sciences and Honored Scientist of the RSFSR. His research interests are most closely connected with Asia: he has taken part in expeditions to northern and central Asia, Mongolia, and Vietnam. His interests have also encompassed many geographical, toponymic, and geographical-terminology problems in numerous other countries. In 1959, the Geographical Literature Publishing House issued E. and V. Murzayev’s “Dictionary of Local Geographical Terms” (“Словарь местных географических терминов”). In 1973, E. Murzayev’s book “Popular Toponymy” was published in Moscow, followed in 1974 by “An Outline of Toponymy.” The relatively modest “Dictionary of Local Geographical Terms” was very popular and favorably received in the press at home and abroad. It also included some terms from the Baltic republics, but, as the author himself notes in the introduction to the dictionary under review, relatively few compared with those from other USSR republics. E. Murzayev therefore continued working for those two decades, collecting additional material and so on. The result of this work is truly impressive—a 654-page (59 printed sheets) volume. Like the earlier one, it also contains geographical terms from the Baltic languages (Lithuanian and Latvian). In what follows, we will speak mostly about these. The introduction to the “Dictionary of Folk Geographical Terms” shows that the author sought to present the terminology of all USSR republics and regions as evenly as possible. We have no information on how well he achieved this on a countrywide scale, but the Baltic languages are represented far too sparsely: the dictionary contains only a few dozen terms from Lithuanian and Latvian (about 60). In itself, this number might not be considered either too small or, naturally, too large—it all depends on its proportion to the terms from other USSR languages. Even so, one may still question whether Lithuanian and Latvian are represented proportionately here. That is one issue. Second, and perhaps most importantly, when such a small number of Baltic-language terms is included, the question of selection criteria arises: which of the thousands must be included in the dictionary? In our opinion, the author must have found it quite difficult to establish clearer selection criteria; consequently, the few dozen Lithuanian and Latvian words often seem not to be the most important, sometimes rather random, or even questionable. Selecting terms is difficult in itself, especially for a representative of another nation: in the absence of sufficient literature, one must rely on intuition, which non-native speakers usually lack. Thus, intuition can do little to help establish a hierarchy of terms, not only according to the importance of the objects they denote, but also according to the terms’ prevalence, popularity, and the like. 212