Skip to document
Back
Go to original Localized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXVII (1988)

THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND BILINGUALISM

ELENA GRINAVECKIENĖ, JUZEFA MACKEVIČ

SOME PHONETIC FEATURES OF BELARUSIAN LITHUANIAN LOANWORDS

At various times, both in the past and at present, numerous Lithuanian loanwords have arisen in Belarusian dialects (mainly in the northwest) as a result of linguistic, cultural, economic, and other contacts with the Lithuanian language and its dialects, and in some places also because Lithuanian dialects have become Slavicized. The most obvious among them are lexical Lithuanianisms.

Lithuanian loanwords have taken root in Belarusian dialects, becoming their own property and elements of their means of communication. As they have been used alongside Belarusian words as equals, they have naturally conformed to the Belarusian language system and often become so similar to Belarusian words that they are sometimes not easy to recognize as Lithuanianisms. However, the phonetics of not all Lithuanianisms have become Belarusianized to the same degree. Considerable variation is often found here, with phonetic variants of loanwords encountered. All this generally depends to a large extent on when the Lithuanianism was borrowed, on the state of the phonetic system of the dialect into which the loanword enters, on the intensity of its use in that dialect, and also on the Lithuanian form of the loanword itself, among other things.

A certain proportion of Lithuanianisms have not yet become detached from the source language, but seem to have been automatically adopted or simply transferred by Belarusians. Their phonetics, too, has retained its Lithuanian character. Such Lithuanianisms include: apýod (< Lith. arúodas) [Juod.; Mal.; Malk.], бальзені (< Lith. balžienos) [Grauż.; Mal.], за́кты¹ (< Lith. gáktos) [1, T. 1, c. 406; Mal.], за́йны ‘jaws; mouth’ (< Lith. žįúnos) [1, T. 2, c. 337], клу́мпи (< Lith. klùmpės) [1, T. 2, c. 479–480; Grik.], купене́ць ‘to dig’ (< Lith. kopinėti) [S.S.], куційна́ца (< Lith. dialectal kucinécis~kutinėtis) [1, T. 2, c. 592; Dain.], кру́сня ‘pile of stones’ (< Lith. krùšnis) [1, T. 2, c. 537–538], кяўло́к ‘one who behaves like a pig, ill-mannered’ (< Lith. kiauliùkas, ‘dirty child’, kiaũlius ‘ill-mannered, piggish person’) [Kud.], лаўж ‘heap of brushwood, dirty clothes’ (< Lith. láužas) [1, T. 2, c. 631], расакі́ля (< Lith. rasakilė) [1, T. 4, 274; Juod.; Mal.], саўсокі́ ‘lady’s bedstraw’ (< Lith. sausìukai ‘same’) [S.S.], саўсе́ня ‘mashed potatoes with onions’ (< Lith. sausìenė ‘stewed dish’) [1, T. 4, c. 374], etc.

As the cited sources show, this type of Lithuanianism occurs mainly right along the border between Belarusian and Lithuanian dialects, where intensive contact between these dialects continues even today, and where the dialects are constantly mixing and the Lithuanian ones becoming Slavicized. They are the clearest products of the most recent contacts of this kind. A considerable number of them often reveal, even in their phonetics, the Lithuanian dialects from which they were borrowed into Belarusian, for example,

1 The Belarusian dialects’ plosive z (usually found in loanwords) is, due to a printing error, not graphically distinguished from their fricative z.

123

быгундаць ‘to turn out, search’ (< Lith. dialect iš-lundyć ‘ditto’) [1, Vol. 1, p. 358; Grauž.], грумжа́ ‘a kind of fish’ (< Lith. dialect grumzda ‘ditto’) [2, p. 119], кіпса́ ‘a hummock in a bog’ (< Lith. dialect kimsa ‘ditto’) [1, Vol. 2, p. 462], куми́а ‘a kind of marsh grass’ (< Lith. dialect kumšà ‘a quagmire overgrown with grass’) [1, Vol. 2, p. 570], nímna ‘hemp’ (< Lith. dialect pimpė ‘ditto’) [1, Vol. 3, p. 519; 2, p. 358], пумно́лакичы ‘marigolds’ (< Lith. dialect pumpólakščiai ‘ditto’) [Achr.; Juod.; Kur.; Mal.], pážuyi ‘wide sled; sled runners’ (< Lith. dialect rągutės ‘sled’) [1, Vol. 4, p. 238; Juod., Mal.], свíntы ‘Sunday, a holy (day)’ (< Lith. dialect švintà ‘ditto’) [Psn.], скилу́ндзи ‘rolled pork fat’ (< Lith. dialect skilūndis ‘a sausage stuffed into a pig’s stomach’) [1, Vol. 4, p. 448], сла́сны ‘slėsna’ (< Lith. dialect slãsna ‘ditto’) [1, Vol. 4, p. 478], cým-pa ‘a careless, untidy person’ (< Lith. dialect sutrà ‘ditto’) [1, Vol. 5, p. 23], mpýua ‘manure, carrion’ (< Lith. dialect trušà ‘ditto’) [1, Vol. 5, p. 134].

The phonetics of other Lithuanian loanwords found in Belarusian dialects has been more or less affected by Belarusian influence. It has been observed that, first of all, elements of the vowel system in loanwords that are foreign or unusual to Belarusian have changed: in all cases, the vowel a in the first component of stressed diphthongs and diphthongal combinations is raised and turns into o, for example:

ai > ou: kóupacka ‘left-handed’ (< Lith. kairius) [1, Vol. 2, p. 494; Mal.], nóucau (< Lith. paišyti, paišyti) [1, Vol. 4, p. 37], nóuchi ‘dirt, soot’ (< Lith. paišos) [1, Vol. 4, p. 37], pasz’óušųć ‘to squander, scatter’ (< Lith. iš-gaišinti ‘ditto’, cf. also gaišate ‘draft, ruin’) [1, Vol. 4, p. 253; S.S.], poúcm (< Lith. raistas) [1, Vol. 4, pp. 302–303] and so on;

au > oy: klóbyčicka ‘saying the Lith. dialect interjection klaũsai ‘listen’ [1, Vol. 2, pp. 478–479; Pal.], kóyu (< Lith. káũsas) [1, Vol. 2, pp. 508–509], kropu ‘pear’ (< Lith. dialect kraũšis) [1, Vol. 2, p. 525], лоу́же (< Lith. láužas) [1, Vol. 2, pp. 673–674; Bak.; Kur.; Laip.; Malk.; Rak.; Val.], пло́ут ‘a board covering the hive entrance’ (< Lith. pláutas ‘ditto’) [1, Vol. 4, p. 15; Akm.; S. Trak.];

am > om: бомбля ‘pimple’ (< Lith. bamblys ‘any thickening’, cf. also bambti ‘to swell, thicken’) [1, vol. 1, p. 202], сомуч, сомец, сомчик ‘scoop for catching fish’ (< Lith. samtis ‘ditto’) [1, vol. 4, p. 520; 2, p. 447; S.S.];

an > он: бо́нда, бо́ндачка (< Lith. bandà) [1, Vol. 1, pp. 203–205; Bystr.; Laip.; Mass.], бронкт, бронкта (< Lith. brañktas) [1, Vol. 1, p. 218], шкилёнда (< Lith. skilándis) [1, Vol. 5, p. 479].

There are many cases of this raising of the vowel a. It is characteristic of the entire area and, undoubtedly, has occurred under the influence of Belarusian dialect phonetics (cf. Belarusian жоўты ‘yellow’, кроў ‘blood’, по́ўны ‘full’, as well as the dialect forms from the districts of Lida, Voronovo, Vileika and neighboring areas проўда < праўда ‘truth’, троў < траў ‘grasses’, etc.).

The Lithuanian loanword vowel a, which is regularly stressed in the word stem, is generally also raised and turns into o here², e.g., zákmь ‘pubic bone’ (< Lith. gãktos) [1, vol. 1,

² The change of stressed stem a in Lith. loanwords (and of the first component in the diphthongs ai, au, am, an) to o in Slavic languages, based on the examples provided by K. Būga, is attested as early as the 14th century [3, vol. 1, p. 227]. In our time, Lithuanian a has remained unchanged in lituanisms of this type borrowed and used in some Belarusian dialects in the Vilnius region, e.g., zákmb (Lith. gãktos) [Čyč.].

124

c. 468], kóciń (< Lith. kãsa, cf.: kúry kóciaų grãdki) [1, vol. 2, p. 431], núoian ‘splinter’ (< Lith. pašinas) [2, p. 369; Kaun.; Stral.], stõji ‘upright’ (< Lith. dialectal stãčas ~ stãčias) [1, vol. 4, pp. 591–592; Gem.]

The Lithuanian diphthong (i)uo, unusual in Belarusian, occurs intact only in the very latest Lithuanian loanwords and where Lithuanian is still spoken, e.g., the previously mentioned apýod < arúodas; elsewhere in the dialects it first shortens and monophthongizes, becoming the more open vowel (i)o [4, pp. 183, 184, 189], e.g., akóm, akóma ‘awn’ [1, vol. 1, p. 73], apód ‘granary’ (< Lith. arúodas) [Juod.; Mal.], žilėnь, žilónь ‘sting’ (< Lith. gyluonìs) [1, vol. 1, p. 444; Pal.], Аболікачы ‘a village in the Breslauja district, called a’buol’i·kščiai by the local Lithuanians (cf. their a’buol’i·s ~ obuolỹs) ~ Obuolỹkščiai’, Ёдажэмь ‘a hillock in the village of Adomėniškės, Breslauja district, called Juodažemỹs by the local Lithuanians’, Ёдлавічы ‘a village in the Breslauja district, called júodela·nai and júodla·nai by the local Lithuanians’ (the latter derives from Júodela·nai ~ Júodelėnai³, e.g., júodla·nuos g’i·mus mamù·t’e ir aš; regarding júodla·nai < júodela·nai, cf. also the local Lithuanians’ stó· < šitó· ‘this one’); Ёдлóyckia ‘inhabitants of the village of Juodelėnai’, Пóдзiуки ‘a hillock in the village of Petkūniškės, Breslauja district, called púodz’iš’k’e ~ Púodiškė by the local Lithuanians’ [5, pp. 173, 174, 186, 188; 6], Ёдынка ‘a stream in the village of Akmenynė, Šalčininkai district’ < Lith. Júodupė ‘the same’ [7], Aбóлiуки ‘the name of a village and field in Baranavičiai district’, cf. Lith. Obeliškiai ‘a village in Rokiškis district’, and also Lith. obuolỹs [8, p. 13], Iómкluki ‘a village in Varanavas district’, cf. Lith. Júodkiškiai ‘a village in Ukmergė district’, Крóniуки ‘a village in the Breslauja district’, cf. Lith. Kruópiškis ‘a hamlet in Utena district’ [9, pp. 21, 23], Ло́ша ‘a tributary of the Ašmena near Gervėčiai, called Aluoša, Aluošià by the local Lithuanians’ [10, p. 219]⁴, nodźinka ‘pot’ < Lith. puodýn[ė] ‘the same’ + Slavic -ka [1, vol. 4, p. 33; Juod.; Laip.; Mag.; Rak.; Skrud.], сло́ксня, сло́киня, сло́кишна, сло́киня ‘bark’ < Lith. slúogsna ‘the same’ [13, p. 388; 14, p. 189; cf. also 15, p. 349; 16, p. 50], Vžolíi ‘a small wood and road in Varanavas district, called v·žolijo·s by the local Lithuanians (cf. ú·žuolas ~ ąžuolas, pronounced there) ~ Ažuolijos’ [8, p. 240; 17], etc. According to K. Būga [3, vol. 1, p. 229], this transformation of Lith. uo in Slavic languages is a Belarusian phonetic phenomenon that began in the early sixteenth century. As Lithuanian loanwords in some Belarusian dialects show, this rule is still developing in some places today.

That Lithuanian -(i)uo- readily becomes -(i)o- in the speech of Slavs who have learned some Lithuanian is also clearly shown by their pronunciation of Lithuanian words, such as dóna < dúona, dót < dúoti, póla < púola, prausiós < prausiuosi, sólòse < súolose, važiót < važiuóti, etc.; cf. also Polish pabucok ‘kiss!’ < Lith. dialectal pabučiok, važok ‘go!’ < Lith. dialectal važiuok, dos’u < Lith. dúosiu [15, pp. 351, 352].

³ That Ёдлавічы has nothing at all to do with Polish jodła ‘fir’ is clearly shown by the Belarusian dialect spoken in the area: there ‘fir’ is called ёлка, while ‘juniper’ is called gzlėнец < Lith. dialectal ėglis.

⁴ For the loss of initial a in the Belarusian word Ло́ша (< Lith. Aluošià), cf. their баркулёз (< туберкулёз) ‘tuberculosis’, а́дка (< сладка) ‘sweet’ [1, vol. 1, p. 260; vol. 2, p. 630], etc. The river name Ло́ша < Aluošià derives from the root al-, cf. alėti ‘to flow’, ‘to run’, and the suffix -uoša, -uošia [11, p. 206]. The rule presented here, whereby (i)uo in Lithuanian loanwords becomes (i)o in Slavic languages, could also help refine the Lithuanian source of the Upper Dnieper hydronym Ло́ша, considered a Balticism [12, p. 194]. It could itself be Lith. Aluošià, just like the Belarusian Ло́ша of the same formation < Lith. Aluošià.

125

The phonetics and derivation of most other Lithuanian words, strongly affected by the influence of Belarusian dialects, have diverged much further from Lithuanian phonetics, sometimes to the point of being almost unrecognizable, and have often changed irregularly. This is especially characteristic of older Lithuanian loans found in Belarusian dialects farther removed from the present-day contact zone between Lithuanian and Belarusian dialects, as well as of individual Lithuanian loanwords that have mostly receded into the passive Belarusian vocabulary. This is perhaps best illustrated by the sometimes relatively numerous variants of the same Lithuanian loanword found in different Belarusian dialects. Compare, for instance, the characteristic Belarusianized forms of the loanwords burbulas, paišyti (paišyti), pleiskanės, skerštuvės, svirtis (svirtis, dz. svirsnia) and some others: burbulas > бу́рбу́лка, бу́рбалка, бу́рбалька, бу́ро́лька, бу́рбалмка, бу́льбамка, бу́рдайка, etc. [1, vol. 1, pp. 201, 236, 237, 241–243]; paišyti > по́йцаць, бо́йцаць, по́йсаваць, по́льсаваць, по́ясаваць, пульсаваць, etc. [1, vol. 1, p. 202; vol. 4, pp. 36–37, 45, 186]; pleiskanės > пласко́ні, плас-ко́ні, плас-ко́не, паско́ні, паско́не, пло́скуни, пло́скания, пло́скунькі, пло́сканя, по́сканни, пло́скунь, пло́скань, пласку́нькі, пласку́ни, пласканя, пласканина, пласкунькі, паскані, пасканя, пасканіна, etc. [1, vol. 3, pp. 529–530; vol. 4, p. 53; 2, p. 435; 18, map no. 283]; skerštuvės скярсту́лі, скярсту́ля, скарсту́лі, сквярсту́ля, скярста, скярсты, скярста, скярсту́нне, скверты, скярэная, etc. [1, vol. 4, pp. 441, 446, 471]; svirtis (svirtis, svirsnia) >сверць, сверць, свіршня, біршня, швершня, швіршня, свір, асвір, ацвір, свірня, etc. [1, vol. 1, p. 106; vol. 4, pp. 386, 395, 396–397; vol. 5, p. 475]; greitpolkė ‘a kind of polka’ > грэйпо́лька [1, vol. 1, p. 495]; jūd­rė ‘flax weed’ > юдрыца, лютрыца [1, vol. 5, p. 540]; liūrba ‘thick wood shaving’ > люрба, ну́рба, ру́льба, рульбіна [1, vol. 2, p. 705; vol. 4, p. 314], suktinis ‘a type of dance’ > сюптынь [1, vol. 5, p. 62]; šalavija > шалаўя [1, vol. 5, p. 453]; šelmūš > шаламянь, шаламя, шаламяц [1, vol. 5, p. 452]; šunavija > шуя [1, vol. 5, p. 512], etc.

Thus, Belarusian dialects contain a fairly large number of words whose phonetic form more or less resembles Lithuanian words and whose meanings are identical or close to those of the corresponding Lithuanian words. This means that the phonetics of some Lithuanian loanwords in Belarusian dialects that have not yet been identified often conceal undiscovered sound laws that make it possible to recognize a given foreign word as a Lithuanian loanword.

The phonetics of some such unequivocal Lithuanian loanwords show that in some Belarusian dialects a monophthong a occurs in place of the Lithuanian diphthong uo, e.g., эда́ ‘elm’ < Lith. guoba [20, vol. 3, p. 7]. Cf. also other cognate forms occurring in Belarusian and Polish dialects; e.g., Belarusian эдб, эдбіна, га́бы, эдбі [1, vol. 1, p. 397; 5, p. 303], Polish gab, gabina [21, p. 788]; cf. also Ганкі ‘marsh and shrubs’ [8, p. 55] < Lith. Guobos, Guobės ‘a pasture name’ < guobos. There are also further cases in which Belarusian dialects have a in the stem of such a loanword. They can often serve as a key to identifying some other words in Belarusian dialects suspected of being Balticisms.

The rule whereby Lith. uo > becomes a in Belarusian dialects антара́плацеці ‘pasūkos’ < Lith. dialectal antarãpluostės ‘the same’ [1, vol. 1, p. 82], as well as надзінка ‘pot’ [18, p. 822] < Lith. puodynė.

Applying the rule whereby Lith. (i)uo > becomes (i)a in Belarusian dialects, the lexeme жо́жаль ‘a kind of marsh grass’ and the relatively numerous other words from the same root and meaning-

126

its phonetic and derivational variants — а́джэль, а́жэль, а́ждаль (< through metathesis from а́джаль), а́жджаль, а́жджыль, а́жджэў, а́жджар, а́жджмыр, etc. [1, vol. 5, pp. 174, 333, 550—551]. These are most likely compound words. In terms of phonetics and semantics, their Lithuanian source could be the synonymous lexeme juodžolė ‘a medicinal plant of marshes’; compare also juodšaknė ‘cinquefoil’.

Lithuanian loanwords displaying this phonetic feature occur sporadically in Belarusian dialect localities, as well as in personal names, e.g., Абалікума ‘personal name’ [19, p. 15]; compare also Абалікучы ‘a village in Breslauja District, called a'buol'ikščiai~Obuolýkščiai by the local Lithuanians’ [5, p. 174]; Абалічкі ‘a village in Varanavas District’ [9, p. 12], cf. Belarusian Абалікавы; Абаль ‘personal name’ [19, p. 15], and also Lithuanian obuolys; Едгалі ‘a village in Breslauja District’ [9, p. 91] < Ядгалі (owing to fronting of a word-initial a before j), cf. Lithuanian Juodžgalys ‘a village in Anykščiai District’; Едглани ‘a village in Astravas District’ [9, p. 54] < Ядглани, cf. Lithuanian Juodaklonis ‘a village in Trakai District’; Едглкны ‘a village in Ašmena District’ [9, p. 42] < Ядглкны, cf. Едглани; Едзі ‘a village in Smurgainys District’ [9, p. 91] < Ядзі, cf. Lithuanian Juódžiai ‘villages in Anykščiai, Jonava, and other districts’, etc.

In exactly the same way, the diphthong uo has developed into a in one or another Latvian loanword that entered Belarusian dialects. For instance, Belarusian агус ‘black heron’, as etymologists surmise, may derive from Latvian guoris ‘heron, bittern’ [20, vol. 3, p. 66].

The rule whereby Baltic uo becomes a in Belarusian dialects corresponds to the sound-correspondence rule for Baltic-Slavic common features and coincides with it completely; compare Lithuanian dúoti and Belarusian даць, Lithuanian guoba and Belarusian габа. As the examples show, the complete coincidence of these two rules is real, but in our view it is most likely coincidental. While recognizing it as a rule governing Baltic-Slavic common features, linguists do not apply it to identify Balticisms in Slavic languages [22, p. 265]. In fact, the rule whereby stem a in Belarusian Lithuanian loanwords corresponds to Lithuanian uo may have arisen later than the Baltic-Slavic common-feature rule uo: a, or independently of it. Two factors could have provided the basis for its emergence. First, Lithuanian uo > Belarusian a is most likely unstressed, e.g., zabá < guoba, zabý < guobos. Later, this a could have become generalized and stressed as well. There are, however, cases in which the syllable in question in such a loanword is stressed only. Here, perhaps, the pronunciation of the vowel uo as ua/va may have played a role (compare the same pronunciation still found today in some southern Lithuanian dialects: duáda~dúoda, duána~dúona, glúaksnis ‘willow’, kuádas~kuódas, šlúata~šlúota, vuága~vuóga ‘berry’, etc. [23, pp. 234—236; 24, p. 77, map no. 66]⁵; further compare cases in which the stem diphthong uo in words of some Lithuanian and Latvian dialects developed from ua, e.g., Lithuanian dialectal apuolùs ‘roughly round’, Latvian apuols (< round), etc. [25, p. 276; 26, p. 18; 27, p. 37]. In this case, the semivowel u in the sequence ua must have disappeared through assimilation to the preceding consonant (šlúata > *šláta, and the like; cf. *apvyñs < apvynys, etc.), and the remaining a would have merged with the old Baltic a: (cf. šlá:ta and brá:lis). Once this had happened, the pronunciation of a vowels of different origin could have become identical, and such Baltic a could have given Belarusian (and other Slavic) Balticisms the same equivalent, the vowel a; compare Belarusian zab, Polish gab < Lithuanian *gábas < guobas and Belarusian mдрлляцца ‘to get smeared’ [Kaunas dialect] < Lithuanian *terliátis, etc. It follows that the change of Baltic uo into Belarusian a was indirect and may have proceeded through the ua/va stage in Baltic dialects. In this connection Lithuanian uo > Belarusian.

5 The area in which Lithuanian ua was pronounced dialectally may once have been larger.

127

a rule could reflect the development of the Lithuanian dialect diphthong uo through the ua stage. Although linguists have not recognized it to date, it is an indisputable fact that may have arisen at a time when old Baltic a· was intact [cf. also 3, vol. 1, p. 228].

There are cases in which uo in the stem of a Lithuanian loanword that has become Belarusian has developed into their uo y. Among such Balticisms, the Slavic apýd is the clearest example. Its Baltic origin is universally accepted [28, pp. 17–18; 29, p. 90]⁶. Another indisputable Lithuanian loanword with this phonetic feature is the compound Belarusian word дмана́наўцу ‘comb’, used right on the Lithuanian border, where Lithuanian is still spoken (< Lithuanian dialectal antarà:plus’t’ė’s < antarà:płuoštės ‘etc.’ [1, vol. 1, p. 82; 14, p. 189; 16, p. 61]. Lithuanian loanwords exhibiting this vocalism also include Belarusian а́русть, я́русь, я́рус ‘gooseberry’ [16, p. 97; 30, p. 131] < Lithuanian dialectal agruozdas. Belarusian бужа́нда and бужа́лка ‘the head of a flail’ [1, vol. 1, p. 235; Sud.] are also genuine Lithuanian loanwords, deriving from Lithuanian words with the root buož- — buožė, buožė, buožėlė ‘the head of a flail’. The Belarusian loanword бужгалкі ‘tadpoles’ [1, vol. 1, p. 498] displays the same vocalism; it originated from Lithuanian buožgalv[iai] and the Belarusian suffix -ki> *бож-галкі. As the loanword became progressively more Belarusian, its initial б, through distant regressive assimilation to the plosive z (due to—галкі z), changed into з, yielding *бож-галкі > *зож-галкі. Gradually, *зож-галкі shed the difficult-to-pronounce consonant clusters -ж- (> -ж-) and -лк- (> -лк-), darkened root o to y, and thus, having greatly obscured its etymological connection with Lithuanian buožgalviai, evolved into the present-day зўжгалкі. Another Lithuanian loanword displaying this vocalism is клюня/клюня ‘a building for storing grain’ [1, vol. 2, pp. 480–481; 18, pp. 791–797, maps nos. 235, 236], derived from Lithuanian klūonas; further compare Belarusian Клу́нічча ‘the area between houses and meadows’ [8, p. 118] < Lithuanian kluонiena ‘a meadow beside a threshing barn’.

The words стулінда, сталінда ‘someone who creeps about, someone hunched up’ are also most likely Lithuanian loanwords (e.g., Стулінда – хто ходзя стуліўшыся; І гэта стулінда пашла ў ягоды; Пашла стулінда (about a cat) [1, vol. 4, p. 613]. Ах ты сталінда гарбараты; Сталінда прышла, худзіна такая) [V. Baj.], whose phonetics conceal the Lithuanian uo>Belarusian y (and a) correspondence. As their formation shows, both words are compounds. Their first elements are стул- and стал-, while the second element in both is лінда. In keeping with the rules by which Lithuanian uo becomes Belarusian y (and a) in dialects, their first elements can be traced to one and the same root, *стуол-. Its Lithuanian phonetic and semantic source would be stuolys ‘a tree stump’ (the latter’s neutral meaning has been metaphorized in the loanword). The occurrence of phonetically distinct, synonymous variants стул- and стал- in neighboring Belarusian dialects would suggest that the two may have been borrowed at different times. The second element of the lexemes in question, лінда, is most likely wholly Lithuanian; compare linda ‘someone who creeps about’.

The Lithuanian loanword стума ‘build, stature, figure’ (e.g., Од жонку ўзяв: ні хараства, ні стумы) [2, p. 463; 4, p. 195] has analogous phonetics. Its Lithuanian

⁶ Recently, Belarusian etymologists have questioned the Lithuanian origin of apýd. Their suspicion is aroused by its fairly common additional z (загрыд) and the form орыд found in Old Belarusian. Consequently, they compare apýd with Russian орыднца ‘weapons storehouse’, while also conjecturing “nji ne ору́дні” [20, vol. 1, p. 152]. In fact, the additional z or the word-initial o in place of a are additions made by Belarusian dialects themselves to the Lithuanian loanword apýd. Neither of these two features of apýd in any way undermines its Lithuanian origin.

128

The source is a word of the *stuom-* stem, cf. *stuomuõ*. However, the ending *cmýma* suggests that it may also have originated from the Lithuanian dialectal form *stuoma*, cf. also *stúomas* ‘trunk, torso’.

Lithuanian uo > and Belarusian y have also affected the place names Гу́бин ‘grove in Varanavo District’, called Guobýnas by local Lithuanians; Гу́бінакель ‘road through a grove in Varanavo District’, called Guobýnakelis by local Lithuanians [17], Юда́йчяй ‘village in Breslauja District’ [9, c. 78] < Lithuanian Juodáičiai ‘same’, as well as Губе́йки ‘village in Lida District (BSSR)’ [9, c. 69] < Lithuanian Guobeikiai.

Lithuanian uo > and Slavic y have also affected some Lithuanian place names in old Slavic documents, e.g., Висуны < Vyžuonos, Опуле < Apulė, Шалтунь < Šaltuona, Юдки < Juodkys, etc. [3, vol. 1, p. 229; 22, s. 265]⁷.

The rule whereby Lithuanian uo corresponds to y in Belarusian dialects is entirely analogous to the phonetics of such Lithuanian–Belarusian shared features as Lithuanian duóbti: Belarusian ду́быцца ‘a boat with a hollowed-out hull’, Lithuanian lúobas: Belarusian луб ‘bast’, Lithuanian lúostas ‘layer’: Belarusian лусок ‘snake’s shed skin’, Lithuanian úostas: Belarusian ву́це, etc., as well as to the phonetics of Baltic borrowings from Belarusian, such as Lithuanian Samogitian puokai < nyx, etc. [31, p. 190], Latvian bloda ‘bowl’ < блúда, doma ‘thought’ < ду́ма, skop ‘stingy’ < скуп, etc.

K. Būga considers this vowel correspondence between the Baltic and Slavic languages to have occurred before the 11th century [3, vol. 3, p. 497].

As their vocalism shows, Lithuanian loanwords used in Belarusian dialects were borrowed only relatively recently; for some time they remain unchanged and clearly reveal their source. Later, as they adapt to the phonetic system of Belarusian, they begin to lose those Lithuanian vocalic features that are inconvenient for Belarusian, replacing them with sounds more suited to Belarusian dialects. First of all, Lithuanian a (including in diphthongs) narrows and becomes o. Lithuanian diphthong uo has changed particularly markedly. As the examples show, in loanwords it has merged with three Belarusian vowels. Unchanged uo has been preserved only in the very peripheral Belarusian-speaking areas bordering Lithuania, where Lithuanian is still spoken as well (e.g., apýod < arúodas in the Apso, Gervėčiai, and neighboring areas); elsewhere it has become a monophthong. In loanwords borrowed after the 16th century, Lithuanian uo has become o (e.g., akóma < akúotas, etc.); in loanwords dating back to the 23rd century, uo has most likely become a via the Lithuanian dialectal stage ua (e.g., ab < guóbas, etc.). Because it accidentally coincides with the Baltic–Slavic shared-feature rule uo: a (e.g., úoga: žuoda), this latter rule has not hitherto been recognized by linguists; however, as the examples show, it objectively exists. In loanwords borrowed before the 11th century, uo has become y (e.g., apýd < arúodas). This rule fully matches the phonetics of certain Lithuanian and Latvian borrowings from Slavic languages (cf. Lithuanian Samogitian puokai ‘fluff’ < Belarusian nyx ‘same’, Latvian doma ‘thought’ < Slavic ду́ма, etc.) and the rule characteristic of the phonetics of Baltic–Slavic shared features (cf. Lithuanian lúobas: Slavic луб, etc.).

In our view, the identified patterns of lituanism vocalism provide a fairly reliable key to further searches for borrowings of this phonetic type in Belarusian dialects.

7 The name Воро́вна, recorded in old Slavic documents for a castle from the time of Mindaugas [3, vol. 1, pp. 131—136], would suggest that its original Lithuanian form may have been *Varýota (Lithuanian a > Slavic o; the diphthong uo is still intact here, but was most likely written oy instead of vo by chroniclers of the time who had little knowledge of Lithuanian).

9. 1880

129

Э. ГРИНАВЕЦКЕНЕ, Ю. МАЦКЕВИЧ

SOME PHONETIC FEATURES OF LITUANISMS IN BELARUSIAN DIALECTS

Summary

At the outset of borrowing, Lituanisms in Belarusian dialects are not subject to the influence of Belarusian phonetics, which makes it comparatively easy to establish their source, e.g., gákta ‘the front part of a sledge’ < Lith. gáktos ‘same’, làužė ‘pile of brushwood’ < Lith. làužas ‘same’ (Malkūnai, Ignalina district, Lithuanian SSR). As they adapt to the Belarusian phonetic system, such borrowings gradually lose those elements of Lithuanian vocalism that are absent in Belarusian, and thus become Slavicized. Slavicization is more evident in the narrowing of the Lithuanian monophthong a and the first component of diphthongs in which this monophthong occurs, and in its transformation into the monophthong o, e.g., góhty < Lith. gáktos, kóiračka ‘left-handed person’ < Lith. kairýs ‘same’, lòužė < Lith. làužas, bòmblė ‘pimple’ < Lith. bamblys ‘any kind of thickening’, šiklėnda < Lith. skilándis, and others. The remaining vocalism of Lituanisms is also subject to Slavicization. It has been noted that, depending on the time of borrowing, the Lithuanian diphthong uo corresponds to three Belarusian vowels. In borrowings from Lithuanian after the 16th century, it developed into the monophthong o, e.g., akóta ‘fish bone’ < Lith. akiotas ‘same’, and others. This change also occurs today, e.g.: Ёдажеме̇ ‘name of a hill in Braslav district, BSSR’ < Lith. Juodadėmýs ‘same’, and others. In borrowings after the 13th century, the Lithuanian diphthong uo developed into a, coincidentally matching a law characteristic of Balto-Slavic communities; cf. gab ‘elm’ < Lith. guóbas and Belarusian dūnė: Lith. dioti. In earlier Lituanisms, the Lithuanian diphthong uo developed into y, which coincided with two known sound laws, the first characteristic of the oldest Slavic borrowings in Baltic languages (cf. Belarusian аруд ‘granary’ < Lith. arúodas ‘same’ and Belarusian пух > Lith. Samogitian puokai), the second characteristic of the earliest Balto-Slavic communities (cf. also Belarusian луб ‘bast’: Lith. liùbas ‘same’).

The patterns examined in this article for the adaptation of Lithuanian vocalism to the Belarusian phonetic system are, in our view, a reliable key for further searches for Lithuanian loanwords in Belarusian dialects.

E. GRINAVECKIENĖ, J. MACKIEVITSCH

ON THE PHONETICS OF SOME LITUANISMS IN BELARUSIAN

Summary

In this article, Belarusian Lituanisms with the roots o (ė) / a (я) / y (ю), derived from Lithuanian words with the root (i)uo, are examined.

LITERATŪRA

1. Слоўнік беларускіх гаворак паўночна-заходняй Беларусі і яе пагранічча. Мінск, 1979—1986. Т. 1—5.

2. Сцяшковіч Т. Ф. Слоўнік гродзенскай вобласці. Мінск, 1983.

3. Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1958—1961. T. 1—3.

4. Grinaveckienė E. Lietuviškos kilmės leksika Lietuvos paribio baltarusijų šnektose // Lietuvių kalbos specialioji leksika. V., 1983. P. 182—204.

5. Grinaveckienė E. Kai kurios Apso tarmės būdingesnės ypatybės // Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai, A serija, 2(9). V., 1960. P. 173—191.

6. Júodelėnų šnektos (Ёгла́вичы, Breslaujos raj. BTSR) 1977 m. ekspedicijos užrašai, turimi E. Grinaveckienės.

7. Akmenynės šnektos (Šalčininkų raj. LTSR) 1982 m. ekspedicijos užrašai, turimi E. Grinaveckienės.

130

8. Мікратанімія Беларусі. Мінск, 1974.

9. Бірыла М. В., Ванагас А. П. Літоўскія элементы ў Беларускай анамастыцы. Мінск, 1968.

10. Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas. V., 1963.

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

12. Топоров В. Н., Трубачев О. Н. Лингвистический анализ гидронимов Верхнего Поднепровья. М., 1962.

13. Гринавецкене Е. Й., Ковальчик И. П., Мацкевич Ю. Ф., Романович Е. М. Северо-западные белорусские говоры литовского пограничья // Балто-славянский сборник. М., 1972. С. 377—393.

14. Гринавецкене Е., Мацкевич Ю. Ф., Романович Е. М., Чеберук Е. И. Бытовая лексика литовского происхождения в Западной Белоруссии // Lietuvių terminologija. V., 1975. P. 163—195.

15. Zdancwicz T. Litewskie elementy słownikowe w gwarach polskich okolic Sejn // Lingua Posnaniensis. Poznań, 1960. T. 8. S. 333—352.

16. Лаўчюте Ю. А. Словарь балтизмов в славянских языках. Л., 1982.

17. Senųjų Smilgių šnektos (Старые Смильгины, Varėnavo raj. BTSR) 1973 m. ekspedicijos užrašai, turimi E. Grinaveckienės.

18. Дыялекталагічны атлас беларускай мовы. Мінск, 1963.

19. Бірыла М. В. Беларуская антрапатанімія. Мінск, 1969.

20. Этымалагічны слоўнік беларускай мовы. Мінск, 1978—1985. Т. 1—3.

21. Słownik języka polskiego ułożony pod redakcją Jana Karłowicza, Adama Kryńskiego, Władysława Niedźwiedzkiego. Warszawa, 1900. T. 1.

22. Skardžius P. Russisch-weissrussisches дзякло (дзякло) und litauisches duoklė // Lingua Posnaniensis. Poznań, T. 7. S. 265—270.

23. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės (Chrestomatija). V., 1970.

24. Lietuvių kalbos atlasas. Fonetika. V., 1982. T. 2.

25. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V. 1968. T. 1.

26. Endzelīns J. Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos. V., 1957.

27. Jonaitytė A. Palatvės vakarų aukštaičių nedėsningos fonetikos žodžiai ir jų kilmė // Leksikos tyrinėjimai. V., 1972. P. 31—41.

28. Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955—1962.

29. Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. М., 1964. Т. 1.

30. Матэрыялы для слоўніка мінска-маладзечанскіх гаворак. Мінск, 1974.

31. Grinaveckis V. Žemaičių tarmių istorija (Fonetika). V., 1973.

· 48

Document details