Iš senųjų lietuvių kalbos socialinių terminų tyrinėjimo istorijos

SOCIAL LINGUISTICAL PROBLEMS QUESTIONS OF LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS, XIX (1979) Juozas KARACIEJUS FROM THE HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF SOCIAL TERMS IN THE OLD LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE The history of social terms in the Old Lithuanian language has not been studied separately, it seems, anywhere. Of course, this does not mean that the names of the social institutes of the Lithuanian language were completely ignored in linguistic literature. Some of them appeared in linguistic works when, after the historical comparative method accumulated more data, people became interested in the Indo-European area, i.e. when, using the facts of ancient history, archaeology and other auxiliary disciplines known at the time, they tried to locate the Indo-European ancestors, their civilization. Some of the social terms of the ancient Lithuanian language are studied by so-called linguistic paleontology. [Pictet A., 1859—1863; lllpaneps O., 1886, 25], who were the first to attempt to reconstruct the Indo-European (including Lithuanian) civilization, social structure and the origin and evolution of social institutions, tried to examine their names as terms, rather than as separate words illustrating the manifestation of phonetic laws. The greatest contribution in this field in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was made by O. Schrader, who, in addition to numerous historical linguistic works, published a dictionary of Indo-European realities in 1901 [Schrader O., 1901]. In short, the works of O. Schrader, H. Hirt [Hirt H., 1905—1907] and especially of the representatives of the French school of sociology, led by A. Mey, helped to provide a relatively solid basis for further studies of Indo-European social terms. Furthermore, many additional materials for linguists have been accumulated by prehistoric archaeology, ethnography and other auxiliary disciplines. It is also worth noting that at the beginning of the 20th century, linguistic studies included the facts of the Tocharian and Hittite languages, which also provided significant new data for researchers in this field. It is true that, after structural linguistics was fully formed in the 1920s, the questions of the origin of the Indo-Europeans and their civilization were for a while slightly less of an interest than in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, because most linguists began to study language as a system in general using structural methods. Of course, it is not necessary to form an opinion, the Indo-European realities were completely ignored. All of the above mentioned reasons have brought new corrections to previously made conclusions, confirmed or refuted some of the previously raised hypotheses. In addition, many new ideas were given by the facts of Indo-Iranian languages, because in the ancient written monuments of these peoples there is a lot of talk about the social structure of Indo-Iranians, about the division of their society into three groups [Dumėzil G., 1930; Benveniste E., 1932; 1938]; it is, without doubt, a creature of very ancient times (see also Dumėzil G., 1958; Benveniste E., 1969, I, 279—292). The summary of all recent research in this field can probably be considered 1969. The very interesting work of the well-known French linguist E. Benveniste “Dictionary of Indo-European Social Terms” [Benveniste E., 1969], which appeared in Paris, in which the author very originally explains the history of the names of the old Indo-European (including a considerable part of the Lithuanian) social institutions. On the same occasion, it should be recalled that, in addition to the already mentioned special works examining the Indo-European ancestors, their civilization and social structure, the origin of many social terms of the ancient Lithuanian language is explained in various etymological dictionaries and in smaller works, which it is not possible to list all here — it would take much more space. Furthermore, this paper does not claim to be a comprehensive history of the study of social terms of the Old Lithuanian language, but only with one other example wants to 125 show that not all the studied social terms of the Old Lithuanian language origin, their emergence and history of existence is clear, although from the first edition of the large book of A. Piktė to the appearance of the dictionary of E. Benveniste a whole century passed. Of course, in the history of Lithuanian social terms a not secondary role is played by the fact that the monuments of Lithuanian writing, which are almost all translations from other languages, date back only to the 16th century. This reason and their ecclesiastical content bring very little benefit to the history of old Lithuanian social terms, and various state documents, in which we should mainly find material for this question, were written in non-Lithuanian language and only such social terms entered them later, whose exact equivalents were not in the language of the document or were not known to the scribe who wrote the document (cf. Lingis J., 1970, 292; Jablonskis K., 1941). But let us return to the history of the study of social terms in the ancient Lithuanian language and look at how the names of social groups were studied in linguistic literature. In addition to the form lidudis “people, crowd, group” in Lithuanian dialects, there is the folk form “a large family (both own and foreign), crowd, group”. The first form with the meaning "People, people" is found in ancient writings, for example, in M. Daukša's "Postila" we read: Šitai pasakiau jums džiaugsmą..., kursai bus visai liaudi (liaudžiai) (LK Ž VII 391). Nearest airports; Folk relatives are the Latvian laudis,,Lente, Volk, Gesinde“, the ancient Prussian ludis,,Wirt®, ludini „„Wirtin“, ludysz,,Mensch* [Fraenkel E., 1962, 360—361] and the ancient Slavic /juds,,napon‘‘, ljudije,,monu*, the ancient German high-German liut, the ancient English leod, the German Leute,,mioau* [Pacmep M., 1967, 545; Fraenkel E., 1962, 360—361: Pokorny J., 1959, 684 —685; Schrader O., 1901, 807 —808; Benveniste E., 1969, I 323; also BenBenncr 3., 1974, 355]. Furthermore, all these words are associated with the Greek &asbdepoc "free", Latin liber "free", liberi "children", Gothic liudan "to grow", ancient Indian rédhati "to grow, to rise", Albanian /'ind "to be born", pol'em, people, nation" [Fraenkel E., 1962, 360—361; Pokorny J., 1959, 684 —685; ®acmep M., 1967, 545; Schrader O., 1901, 807 —808; Tpy6aues O. H., 1959, 169] and so on, which are derived from ide. root */eudh-[Pokorny J., 1959, 684 —685]. However, until now the origin of the Lithuanian (or Baltic) word people and its closest relatives in Slavic and Germanic languages is not quite clear [Ernout A., Meillet A., 1951, 632; Chantraine P., 1970, 337; Tpy6aues O. H., 1959, 168]. This is believed for two reasons: firstly, the Greek ėAsddepoc "free" and the Latin /rber "free", liberi "children" seem at first glance to have nothing in common with the social term used in the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages to name the people, secondly, both Greek and Latin words used as social terms are derivatives of the reconstructed form *(e)leutheros. This adjective form, according to E. Benvenisto, is derived from the noun *leudhoarba *leudhes-[BenBenncr D., 1974, 356]. Despite the fact that E. Benveniste in his “Dictionary of Indo-European Social Terms”, based on semantic reconstruction, seems to have reliably proved the connection of the mentioned social terms of the Greek and Latin languages with ide. The author of the most recent etymological dictionary of the Greek language, P. Chantraine, who must have been acquainted with E. Benveniste’s conclusions, writes that the comparison of Latin liber and Greek ėied9eposc with terms used in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic languages to name people is possible, but difficult to prove (Un rapprochement de lat. /iber et de grec ėisebYsepos avec des termes désignant le peuple en germanique et en balto-slave peut séduire, mais ne se laisse pas démonter —Chantraine P., 1970, 337). Thus, even now, the history of this, like many other, social term in Lithuanian language still has many dark spots. Therefore, it is not surprising that for some time there was even doubt about the Lithuanianness of lidudies, because neither Lithuanians, except probably for personal names, e.g. : 126 Vyliaudas, Liaudginas [Būga K., 1958, 256], nor in Latvian, we do not find any older derivatives of this root. Against such an opinion was once ne expressed by K. Būga, stating that ,,lidudis is one of the oldest words of our language- “, ,,Languists all over the world are delighted with its antiquity“ [Būga K., 1959, 56]. Bet K. Byga compared the Lithuanian folk name only with the su Latvian Jaudis, Slavic ljuds, ljudije and the ancient Germanic highland liut did not ir indicate jo further relatives [Būga K., 1958, 382]. The term K. was not adopted by the public as a term for a social group. He only tried to defend the rights of the Lithuanian people in the Lithuanian language from the purist. — This would be a brief history of the study of the Lithuanian social term lidudis, which gives us relatively little knowledge about the origin of this social institution. This is probably because the Lithuanian (resp. Baltics) people as a social term was examined by other ide. in the background of other languages, mostly based on the laws of sound correspondence, without being interested in the history of the formation of the social institute in Baltic languages and, moreover, often ignoring be semantics, which occupies an important iš place in the history of terms. Semantics can provide a lot of additional material to explain the history of the formation of old social terms and their jų etymology. For example, quite recently S. Karaliūno (1976, 89) the idea of the lexems liūti, liūdėti, which are usually derived from ide. iš root */eud- [Pokorny J., 1959, 684], ir folk, folks semantic and etymological connection, seems to be the first attempt. 2. The origin Iš of family history is also not completely clear, although ir this old social term of Lithuanian language is not as isolated as the just examined lidudis. ką Be family of the basic form relatively widespread old form in Lithuanian family (plg. neighbor, -a, ram), which is now used in some dialects in the same sense as family. ta In the past, the jų use was be undoubtedly much more strictly differentiated, cf. šeimynauti (:Seimyna) "to look for a family" [Skardžius P., 1943, 499]. Be In the English-speaking world, the term is commonly used to refer to a family, a family ir member, a tą relative, a relative's wife, or a relative's ar wife. Similar is in Latvian, next to the base word saime ir — ,,Hausgesinde, Familie in weiteren Sinne“ used as saimenieks ,» Wirt, Hausherr“, saimniéciba , Economy, household, house manager®, saimniekuot,,management, economy driving“ [Fraenkel E., 1965, 970]. In Prussian language monuments we find seimins,,Gesinde", which is a prepositional form in the sources, iš seemingly of the untried form *seime. O. Shredder his own In Reallexikone, speaking of the family name ide. languages, completely ignores the basic words of Lithuanian and Latvian languages Seima saime ir and, based on the Slavic semitic, Semitic and Lithuanian family, Prussian seimins, reconstructs the common Baltic Slavic ir (lituslavische) form *sei-mi- [Schrader O., 1901, 223]. O. Shrader seems to have deliberately omitted to refer to the almost identical forms of Germanic (plg. Gothic haims "cenenne", Old German Highlander heim ‘ponuna’) and some iš Greek (plg. xoun “,village’’) language equivalents (plg. Schrader O., 1901, 143), as most authors of etymological dictionaries, who, assigned to the still jų Lithuanian ir kiémas, kaimas. Latvian ciems, Prussian caymis, all derived iš from ide. root *k'ei-* “liege”. Here we are again faced with the unsolved su question of the relationship between Lithuanian family, yard, village. ir O. Shrader Lithuanian courtyard, su kdimas compared Greek xėpr "village", gothic haims „cenienne“ at sen. Slavic peace, noting that the Lithuanian courtyard “village”, the Gothic haims and Greeks probably once meant peace of long wanderings xu po (plg. [panep O., 1913, 61). 127 Lithuanian family, kdimas, kiémas in connection with Greek su xcopy and Germanic words, meaning settlement, doubted,,Greek language etymological dictionary“ E. Buazakas [Boisacą E., 1916,426; 544]. Slightly later than Shredder O. and E. Buazakas, Buuga K. wrote: “It will be healthier for the Lithuanian word (kimas) xow7j'g not raining at all. It is more like the į truth that kiėmas, kdimas is not distinguishable from these words: sl. po-chi „to rest”, pokojo, lot. guies, Lithuanian pig cinema” [Būga K., 1959, 254 ir in. 1; otherwise @acvep M., 1971, 347 — 348]. Siai K. The etymology ne of Biiga was long accepted by V. Mažiulis, considering it the most reliable [Mažiulis V., 1960, 208]. In a word, the history of the emergence of the Lithuanian family and the yard as social institutions remains quite clear, even though recent ir research has shown ne that the term so close to the Lithuanian family: šeimynai, Slavic semeja belongs to the terms that denote territorial unity [Tpy6auep O. H., 1959, 164—165]. In addition, as already mentioned, the relationship is not quite clear not only between Lithuanian family: kiémas, but also between family: šeimyna. Mr. Skardzius's opinion that the family ta (plg. neighbor, -a) is a compounded adjective, meaning "family, belonging to the family", says very little about it as a social term [Skardžius P., 1943, 269]. The only thing that is clear is that the family is a very old term (cf. Latin vicinus, “near neighborhood being” from vicus, Lithuanian neighbor: kdimas [Skardžius P., 1943, 269]. They also include the term ke-ke-me-na ko-to-na used in Greek (Mycenaean) Linear B texts, meaning commonly used land. [MBays B. B., 1957, 43—44; Chantraine P., 1970, 606]. Thus, in the history of these Lithuanian (or Baltic) social terms (Family, family; courtyard, village) there are still many unrecognized ideas, which, using the facts of social history and the ir findings of the latest linguistic research, must be mastered, since their formal origination from ide. root *k’eiseems to be difficult to explain by the facts of Baltic languages. 3. Lithuanian Be nation, the nation is recognizir ed by Latvian Prussians, cf. la. nation ,,Species, gender, genus; the people, the nation“, pr. tauto „land“ [Fraenkel E., 1965, 1069]. Its creative identity and the similarity of its phenomena with other ideas. Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Illyrian) has long attracted the attention of linguists studying the social structure of Indo-Europeans. Already A. Piktė compared the Lithuanian nation, the Latvian nation with relatives of other nations. with language words: osk touto, goth ir tiuda etc. [Pictet A., III, 89). 1877, In fact, A. Piktė gives the meaning "Germany" to Lithuanians. In this sense, he took the word from the dictionaries of Prussian authors, because, according to K. Būga, “the word nation is known to linguists.- .. only in the meaning,,- Oberland, Deutschland”, i.e., such as neither the old nor the new Lithuanian writers know, except for the dictionaries of Ruigis, Milkas and Neselman [K. Būga, 1958, 381]. After pointing out that the word fauta is used by writers with the meaning,,- nJIeMS, HanKai“;,,- gens, natio“ and adding a string of examples from the writings of M. Daukša, S. Daukantas and J. Juška, K. Būga did not examine this social term of the old Lithuanian language more extensively. But his remarks, it seems, have helped the social term nation to take hold in linguistic literature, at least alongside the meaning “Oberland, Deutschland” and the meaning in which it has been used since ancient times (cf. Trautmann R., 1923, 315; Walde A., Pokorny J., 1930, 714; Feist S., 1939, 496). Because the social term in other ides. The circumstances of the emergence of *feuta, in the words of E. Benveniste, are clear [Benveniste E., 1969, I, 366], that is to say in detail about the closest relatives of the Lithuanian faute in other languages. language, there seems to be no need for them, because they do not help us to clarify the history of the formation of the nation as a social institution in Lithuanian and Baltic languages in general. Furthermore, this is a separate and complex issue requiring special research. Its history would seem to be much clearer if we could find out how the nation relates to another old social term of Lithuanian language /idudis/, which has already been mentioned and is also used to name a social group. 128 Perhaps we have here a very old phenomenon of iš social history, inherited from deep antiquity, after all, the old difference in use of both these terms is not clear, all the more so that both (tautė, it seems, more often) include old binomial į personal nouns of Lithuanian language, both of which do not have clear, root-bearing, older forms, which would tą greatly complicate the explanation of the history of these social terms. Po these brief remarks, it seems clear that the social terms of the old Lithuanian language, studied by other ide. against the background of languages, the history is far from clear. Ji requires much more research to answer the questions that are į always arising. This is perhaps also because the word, the term was often seen as a member of ir some strict system existing į in abstraction, į sometimes even į ir “Forget” that alongside phonetic laws, which, by the way, also do not avoid exceptions, semantic laws exist, which are more be difficult to explain. ir The development of vocabulary is always closely related to su the development of society, its culture and way of thinking ir ne everything here can be explained only by relatively strict phonetic laws. To explain the origin and history of social nų terms, jų undoubtedly, be retrospective sociolinguistics can help a lot, which, according to J. Desheriev, to help overcome the shortcomings of the historical comparative method (more: Hewepues IO. JI, 1977, 358 — 359), perhaps most clearly revealed when studying the names of old social institutions, because when examining history, linguistic facts alone are not enough. jų First of all, it is necessary to clarify how the concept of having social significance arose, i.e., to clarify t. as much as possible the reasons for the emergence of the social institution itself, its existence and ar disappearance. In a word, first you need to get acquaintsu ed with the facts of social o history, only po to begin to examine linguistically the social term itself, the history, jo because “a comparative historical analysis allows to establish that a term, later used to designate individual social groups, did not initially have this social meaning” [HBanos B. B., 1957, 51]. This seems to be true not only for the ne names of social groups, but for all social terms in any language, provided they are not borrowed. Be never forget that when a social institution disappears, the passive lexical stock does not necessarily disappear or į withdraw ir tą the word meaning the concept. He, having lost his previous specific meaning, can over time acquire new meanings to remain a full-fledged citizen of the ir language. Literatūra Benveniste Ė. Les classes sociales dans la tradition Avestique. — Journal Asiatique. Paris, 1932, t. 221, Nr. 1. Benveniste E. Traditions indo-irniennes sur les classes sociales. — Journal Asiatique. Paris, 1938, t. 230, Nr. 4. Benveniste E. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. T. I. Economie, parenté, société. T. 2. Pouvoir, droit, réligion. Paris, 1969. Boisacq E. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grec. Heidelberg — Paris, 1916. Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1958, t. I; 1959, t. II. Chantraine P. Dictionnaire ėtymologigue de la langue grecgue. Paris, 1970, t. 2. Dumėzil G. Le prėhistoire indo-iranienne des castes. — Journal Asiatigue. Paris, 1930, t. 216, Nr. 1. Dumėzil G. L' idėologie tripartie des indo-européens. Bruxelles, 1958. Ernout A., Meillet A. Dictionnaire ėtymologigue de la langue latine. Paris, 1951, t. I, 3e ėd. Feist S. Verlgeichendes Wėrterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Leiden, 1939, 3 Aufl. Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wėrterbuch. Heidelberg-Gėttingen, 1962, 1965, Bd. I, II. Hirt H. Die Indogermanen. Strassburg, 1905—1907, Bd. 1—1I. Jablonskis K. Lietuviški žodžiai senosios Lietuvos raštinių kalboje. 1941, d. I. Karaliūnas S. Lie. čiūtnas „dailus, švarus, tvarkingas...“, taisti (-čia) „ilgėtis, liūdėti“ ir jų giminaičiai. — Baltistica. V. 1976, t. 12(1). Lingis J. Išnykę ir pasikeitę sccialinės reikšmės žodžiai lietuvių kalboje. — Donum Balticum. Stockholm, 1970. Locher J. P. Lettisch rauta, plur. tauti usw.: Varianten des Stammauslautes in ihrer Beziehung zur Wortbedeutung. — In: Donum Balticum. Ed. by Velta Rūke-Dnavina. Stockholm, 1970. Locher J. P. Die ,,„Darbay senuju lituwiu yra žemaycziu“ von Daukantas: Zur Genese des Textes — eine Analyse auf der Grundlage der Wortfeldes tauta — giminė. — Baltistica. II priedas. 1977. 9. Us. Nr. 1554 129 Mažiulis V. Dėl žodžių dyūras, kiėmas. — Kalbotyra, V., 1960, t. 2. Pictet A. Les origines Indo-européennes ou les Aryas primitifs. Essai de palėontologie linguistigue. Paris — Genéve, 1859—1863, pt. 1—2. Pictet A. Les origines Indo-européennes ou les Aryas primitifs. Essai de paléontologie linguistique. Paris, 1877, t. I-III, 2¢éd. Pokorny J. Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch, Bern und Miinchen, 1959, Bd. I. Schrader O. Reallexikon der indogermanisches Altertumskunde. Strassburg, 1901. Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. V., 1943. Trautmann R. Baltisch — slavisches Worterbuch. Gottingen, 1923. Walde A., Pokorny J. Vergleichendes Worterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin und Leipzig. 1930, Bd. I. Bensenuct D. O6mas auarsuctuka. — M., 1974. JNemepues O. J. ConnajisHas aunrsuctaka. — M., 1977. Usanos B. B. Counajibuast oprannsauis HHAOEBPONEHCKHX TMJIEMEH NO JHHTBHCTHUYECKHM JaHHEIM. — BecTH. HCTOpHH MHpoBoH KyabTypsl. M., 1957, Ne 1. Tpy6aues O. H. Mcropusi cJiaBsHCKHX TEPMHHOB POJCTBA H HEKOTOPBLIX JAPEBHEHIIHX TEPMHHOB oOmecrBeHHoro crpost. — M., 1959. dacmep M. DTHMOJIOrHUECKHIT cJI0Bapb pycckoro s351Ka. — M., 1967, 1971, 1. 2, 3. Wipaneps» O. CpaBHHTejibHOe si3bIKOBR/IeHHe H nepBobuiTHas ucropua. — CII6., 1886. Wipaneps O. Hupoesponeiins. — CI16., 1913. Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas H3 MCTOPHH H3YUEHHS CTAPbIX LAY MIbHBIX TEPMHUHOB JIMTOBCKOIO A3bIK Pe31ioMe Heropus crapbiX COlHHAaJIbHbIX TEDMHHOB JIHTOBCKOTO sI3bIKa OT/ĮEJIbHO JĮO CHX TIOp HHTJE He GkiJia OninCcaHa, HO B JIMHTBHCTHYECKOI JHTEpaType O HHX HEOJHOKPATHO TOBODHJIH TIpejĮCTABHTEJIH TaK Ha3LIBaeMOH JHHTBHCTHUECKOIT TaJIieOHTOJIOTHH B KOHIJe XIX —B Hatajie XX BB. B ncropun craPpBIX COLHAJIbHLIX TEDMHHOB JIHTOBCKOTO A3bIKA EIIĮe MHOTO HesiCHBIX BONpOCOB, XOTS pe4b O HHX IIIJIA HE TOJIBKO B KpYTIHHIX paGoTrax A. Ilurre, O. Illpanjepa, I'. Xupra, D. BekBenncra, HO H B pa3HbIX BTHMOJIOTHUECKHX CJIOBADSIX, B CTATbHX, HOCBAINCHHbLIX BOMPOCAM INpapojįHHbi, KYJIbTŪYDpbI H IHBHJIH3AIUH JPEBHHX HHJIOCBPOTIEHIES. B crarbe onHcbiBaecTC51 HCTOpHA H3YUEHHS COLHAJIbHbIX TEPMHHOB JIHTOBCKOro si3bika lidudis —„NOK, Hapojg, Toana alojeit”, tauta „Oonbuias ceMbsi, uessib, TOJINa JIIOJeH”, Seima „CceMbs”, šeimyna „VeJISijįb, CeMbs”, fauta „TIEMS, HanuHsi” Ho Jejaercs MOMbITKa J0Ka3aTh, UTO 6e3 nOMOINIH PeTPOCMNEKTHBHOH COHNHAJIbHOHK JIAHTBHCTHKH HeJIb351 TOYHO ONpejĮeJIHTb MPOHCXOXKJIeHHe 3THX TepMHHOB.