LIETUVIŲ AREALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS KLAUSIMAI

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

Э. И. ГРИНАВЕЦКЕНЕ, Ю. Ф. МАЦКЕВИЧ, Е. М. РОМАНОВИЧ, Е. И. ЧЕБЕРУК

IRREGULAR PHENOMENA IN THE PHONETICS, ACCENTUATION, AND GRAMMAR OF BELARUSIAN DIALECTS OF THE WESTERN ZONE

The article analyzes a number of phenomena in Belarusian folk dialects that constitute irregular formations in the areas of phonetics, accentuation, and grammar. Most of them are localized within the western zone of the Belarusian linguistic continuum (Grodno, Minsk, and Vitebsk regions).

I. Sound dialectal differences that do not belong to the phonetic system of Belarusian dialects.

а) Belarusian dialects underwent the narrowing of the broad ¹ vowel е and its change into a back vowel о(ё) under stress before a hard consonant, e.g.: бро́за ‘birch’, льон, лёд. However, in western Belarusian dialects, individual word forms show instances of а(<е) in the indicated position after soft consonants, e.g.: маладзúй (instead of маладзёж) ‘youth’, капа́йка (instead of капе́йка) ‘haycock’ (of hay), ужо́ цямне́я (instead of цямне́е) ‘it is getting dark’ (Volkovysk and Shchuchin districts). This phenomenon is also attested in borrowings, e.g.: радла́ука (instead of радле́йка) ‘spatula’, цвяк (< German dialect zweck, cf. Polish ćwiek) ‘nail’. As is well known, in many cases changes in the linguistic system are often not absolute², as a result of which the regularity of certain systemic patterns is disrupted. In this case, the presence of the vowel а in a morpheme under stress before a hard consonant is nothing other than a relic phenomenon that did not yield to the change. This is most likely the preservation of the older quality of the vowel е. A similar change may have been prompted by the predominance in this territory of suffixes with the vocalic elements а, я in nominal and verbal formations, e.g.: авяча мяса, курача пе́р’я³. On the other hand, pronunciation of а for е in this position is also characteristic of dialects of neighboring Lithuanian, e.g.: g’āras (< gēras) ‘good’, v’āža (< vėža) ‘carries’, ž’āmas (< žēmas) ‘low’ (also the borrowing c’v’ákas (< cvėkas) ‘nail’)⁴. Therefore, there is some reason to see in this case, too, a supporting influence from the phonetic system of Lithuanian dialects.

¹ Ср. Нарысы па гісторыі беларускай мовы, Мінск, 1957 (далее — Нарысы), с. 63 (§ 48).

² Cf. ibid., pp. 54–55.

³ Ср. Дыялекталагічны атлас беларускай мовы, Мінск, 1963 (далее — ДАБМ), карта № 185.

⁴ Cf. Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966 (hereafter—LD), map no. 12.

89

Alongside this, cases of the narrowed vowel е, pronounced as the front diphthong ie, are also widely known in this position in the area, e.g.: авёс ‘авё’, лед ‘лёд’, мед ‘мёд’, бе́рда ‘бе́рда’ (Voronovo and Volkovysk districts). Narrowed е is also attested in verb forms in the dialects under study, e.g.: пек хлеб, напёк алапкай, стек лейню, завёс да фёрмы, прывёс пацуйбон, павёу каня, бок разбёг, памёр сын (Vileyka district)⁵. In this case, the leveling of е in the root morpheme may have taken place under the influence of the infinitive form, cf. пекцы: пек, завеці: завёс, павеці: павёу, памерці: памёр. However, the presence of е under stress in individual words may be the result of a stronger influence of stress. As the examples show, under stress the vowel е lengthened considerably and at the same time became more tense and narrow.

In all likelihood, this phenomenon is identical to a similar phenomenon noted in some Lithuanian dialects along the Belarusian border, in which, instead of the long narrow é of the literary language (< from broad *ē), as in the neighboring Belarusian dialects, the irregular diphthong ie is pronounced, e.g.: turėj ~ turėjo ‘had (masculine), had (feminine), had (plural)’⁶.

In this connection, the presence in the dialects under study of stressed o(ё) from closed ancient ē⁷ is also of interest, e.g.: аслён ‘went blind’, бясе́да ‘conversation’ (Novogrudok district), пабёг ‘ran away’, у лес, ён палёс ‘climbed’ на гару, ня улёс ‘climbed into’ у хлеб, слёс ‘melted’ снег (Voronovo district). The noted cases of deviation from the regular change of é to o (ё) are probably caused by its position. Above all, the alternation of vowels е: о(ё) in the root morphemes of verb forms may have had an effect here: нёс: нёсци, вёў: вёсци; е, aligning with о (ё), must have shortened somewhat, as a result of which it became more open and changed to the back vowel о (ё).

b) In individual word forms, underpronunciation of а: о has been noted, e.g.: трава: тро́вы (Vileyka district). This isolated case belongs to the periphery of the area where а>о before у (of the type про́йда: праўда) is distributed in dialects with non-dissimilative akanye⁸. However, in the dialect of the settlement of Solonovo (Vileyka district), where the word form тро́вы was recorded, the forms праўда, дау, лаўка are pronounced. It is possible that тро́вы belongs to the phenomenon of labialization and narrowing of vowel а before ў, which has already disappeared in this dialect, surviving only in the genitive plural form (тро́ў). Subsequently, the vowel was probably leveled in all plural forms (: тро́вы, тро́вам, тро́вах). The survival of this remnant phenomenon is also supported by positional alternation of the type сава́: со́бы in a vocalism exhibiting akanye.

Labialization and narrowing of the first component of the diphthong аи are also observed throughout Eastern Lithuania. This is especially pronounced in the Dzūkian dialects,

⁵ For more examples, see Хрэстаматыя па беларускай дыялекталогіі. Мінск, 1962, с. 7, 8, 9, 46, 47, 122, 131, 142 и др.

⁶ Cf. LKT, с. 388 и др., as well as Е. Й. Гринацевкене, Некоторые явления контактирования литовских и славянских говоров (на материале языковых контактов в юго-восточной Литве, — Балто-славянский сборник, Москва, 1972, с. 399 и сл.

⁷ Cf. Нарысы, с. 56.

⁸ Cf. ДАБМ, карта № 28.

90

e.g.: šāšas || švāšas ‘dry’, lāukas || lūkas ‘field’, radāũ || radžũ ‘found’⁹. This phenomenon has also been noted in isolated Lithuanian dialects in the territory of the Belorussian SSR, e.g.: proūse ‘to wash’, gloūsc ‘to press to the chest’, krōjas ‘blood’¹⁰. From what has been said and from the data presented on the above-mentioned Map No. 28 of the DABM, it is clear that the areas where these phenomena have been noted adjoin one another. It may therefore be assumed that these features are common to both languages.

в) Some variation has been noted in distinguishing the phonemes с and ш in isolated words within the western zone of Belorussian dialects. Most often, in place of the consonant с usual in the other dialects, the consonant ш occurs here irregularly, e.g.: шпіна ‘back’ (Voronovo District), шкапе́ц ‘eunuch’ (Postavy District), шаракано́йка ‘centipede’ (Braslav District), шлоць (< слюта) ‘slush’ (Novogrudok District). In loanwords, these dialects retain the pronunciation of the aforementioned consonants characteristic of the source language, e.g.: паршу́к ‘piglet’, cf. Lithuanian paršiūkas (this word with this pronunciation occupies a compact area in Belorussian dialects¹¹); склю́т, склю́д ‘adze’, cf. шклю́д ‘same’ (Kalinkovichi District), Lithuanian skliūtas; пашку́ства, пашку́да ‘nuisance, abomination’ (Novogrudok and Postavy Districts; these words were most likely acquired through Lithuanian), cf.: паску́да (Rogachev District), Lithuanian paškūstva ‘same’ < from Polish paskudstwo, paskuda.

г) An unusual, optional pronunciation of the consonant к’ before е, not characteristic of Belorussian, has also been noted here, e.g.: ке́йкацца alongside the usual ко́шкаць, ко́шкацца ‘to dig, to dig around’, наке́йзацца ‘to get dirty’, кляке́на alongside кляко́ча ‘it clicks’ (Novogrudok, Ashmyany, and Ivye Districts), заке́лтаць, мі́лці alongside the most widespread закала́ціць ‘to dilute with water, to mix’¹². The instances noted may be caused by the general pattern of hard–soft consonant alternation in conjugation paradigms, but may also be relic or substrate phenomena; cf. Lithuanian kẽsinti ‘to walk slowly’, kiaũzeris ‘gawker’, klekēnti ‘to click’.

д) In these dialects, к is pronounced in place of х in certain lexemes, e.g.: ка́та ‘house’, жані́к ‘bridegroom’, клеп ‘bread’, канюк ‘groom’. This feature usually affects a wide range of vocabulary in localities where the population speaks both Belorussian and Lithuanian dialects. We have noted the following instances in Voronovo District (the village of Starye Smilgini): чаро́мка ‘bird cherry’, чка́я ‘sneezes’, казя́н ‘master’, жані́кі ‘bridegrooms’, чаты́ры па́ры сок ‘four pairs of axes’, пры́ехаў да іх ‘came to them’, не бачыла іх ‘did not see them’, and many others. In traditional Lithuanian dialects, the consonant ch is pronounced as к, e.g.: kòras (literary language chòras) ‘choir’, kaukòzas (< from kolchòzas) ‘collective farm’, kòlera (literary language chòlera)

⁹ Cf. LD, pp. 92–94.

¹⁰ Cf. J. Senkus, Kai kurie Lazūnų tarmės ypatumai, „Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, A serija“, 1(1958), p. 185.

¹¹ Cf. DABM, Map No. 292.

¹² See also A. U. Arashonkava, E. I. Hrynaveckene, I. P. Kavalchuk, Yu. F. Mackevich, Ya. M. Ramanovich, A. I. Chabyaruk, L. F. Shatalava, Da leksika-semantychnai dyferentsyiatsyi ў belaruskikh narodnykh havorkakh, „Весці Акадэміі навук Беларускай ССР, № 1, 1971, Серыя грамадскіх навук“, pp. 95–96.

91

‘cholera’, karāktorius (literary language charākteris) ‘character’, kūdas (from chūdas) ‘thin’ and many others.¹³ The change of х to к is characteristic of other western Belarusian dialects as well.¹⁴ Since the consonant ch is wholly alien to words of native Lithuanian origin and, as the examples show, occurs only in borrowed innovations of the literary language, it may be assumed that the Belarusian dialects of the western zone adopted this feature from the language of their western neighbors.

e) In the same dialect (the dialect of Old Smilgini), loss of initial fricative г (h) is observed, e.g.: iltāi (< giltāi) ‘lazy person’, ōbly (< gōly), aryвь (< garyвь) ‘burns’, adūi (< gadūi) ‘raise’, alavéйка (< galavéйка) ‘smut’, aryвца (< garyвца) ‘upper room’, арошаны (< garošany) ‘pea-based’, умnisak (< gumnisak) ‘threshing-floor worker’, алойка (< galойка) ‘small head’, уста́я (< густа́я) and many others. This phenomenon is a case of language interference under Lithuanian-Belarusian bilingualism, since in traditional Lithuanian dialects initial h in borrowed words is always dropped, e.g.: aktāras (literary language hektāras) ‘hectare’, ēriķas (literary language Hēriķas) ‘Henry’, ērbac (literary language herbas) ‘coat of arms’, imnas (literary language himnas) ‘hymn’; cf. also arielkà (< Belarusian гарёлка) ‘vodka’, arbatà (< Polish herbata) ‘tea’, alasas (< Polish hałas, Belarusian го́лас) ‘noise’, ādelis (< German Handel) ‘trade’¹⁵. In words of native Lithuanian origin, the consonant h is entirely absent.

II. The dialects of the western zone also stand out in their stress patterns.

Feminine nouns with a non-derived stem ending in -а, which in the literary language and in many Belarusian dialects belong to an accent paradigm with fixed root stress, here form a mobile paradigm with inflectional stress in the singular, e.g.: liná, liné, liný, linói (while retaining root stress in the plural: linы, lináy, linám, linámi, на linax). This accentuation type includes the nouns муха, хмара́, груша́, буда́ and several others. Here are a few examples: буда́: у будзе́ саба́ка спіц; скуры́ зня́ў; муха́ кусучая; ве́лька груша́; на дне засталася гушча́ з груцы; скула́; скура́; пад ску́рой; хмара́ цёмная ідзе́ (Voronovo District); (Shchuchin District); (Mosty District); (Ostrovets District); (Iwie District); (Novogrudok District). However, the nouns listed here do not display a consistent pattern of stress shift: in some dialects the mobile accent paradigm includes a large group of nouns, while in others it includes only individual words. Thus, for example, кура́ with inflectional stress is also attested in a number of central districts (Cherven, Rogachev, and others).

Derived nouns with stems ending in -а also fall into the category of inflectional stress, e.g.: сынава́ (Mosty District), свінца́га ‘lead’ (Novogrudok District), рабіна́, каліна́, хваіна́ (Voronovo District), даўніна́ ‘old times’, маліна́, кра́міна́ ‘factory-made material’ (Cherven District), мякіна́, балаціна́.

¹³ Cf. LD, p. 152; Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, I, Vilnius, 1965, p. 66.

¹⁴ See E. J. Grinavetskene, I. P. Kovalchuk, Yu. F. Matskevich, E. M. Romanovich, Northwestern Belarusian Dialects of the Lithuanian Borderland, — Balto-Slavic Collection (hereafter — BSS), Moscow, 1972, p. 378.

¹⁵ Cf. LD, pp. 152–153.

92

(Shchuchin District), альшына́ ‘alder’, маліна́ (Svislach District), даліна́, нізіна́ (Novogrudok District), ганіна́ ‘herd’, ганоля ‘same’ (in many locations, see isogloss map No. 1), сушня, даубня, жаўцюха ‘jaundice’, смярдзюха ‘stinkbug’ (Iwie District), and many others.¹⁶ A considerable number of the suffixal formations cited are sing. tantum.

The accentuation of the words cited above closely resembles that of the nominative singular of a corresponding group of nouns in the neighboring Lithuanian language. In Lithuanian, disyllabic and polysyllabic feminine nouns with a short ending and a short or strongly accented penultimate syllable, as well as ancient oxytones, are always stressed on the ending in the nominative singular, e.g.: šakà ‘branch’, rankà ‘hand’, trobà ‘hut’, sveikatà ‘health’, pabaigà ‘end’. This rule also applies to borrowings: kvietkà ‘flower’, terbà ‘sack’, skūrā ‘hide’, vyšnià ‘cherry’, kamarà ‘storeroom’. Most likely, this accentual feature of the western Belarusian dialects is identical to the corresponding stress system of Lithuanian. Words of Lithuanian origin used in Belarusian dialects may have contributed to this phenomenon: their original accentual structure, corresponding to that of the source language, has been adopted and preserved here, e.g.: naùdā ‘benefit’, salā ‘island’, kūdra ‘pond; good tract of forest’, mīlta ‘food made from oat flour’, dūlka ‘dust’, etc.; cf. Lithuanian naudà, salà, kūdra, milta ‘food made from sour milk and buckwheat flour’, dùlkė. However, some Belarusian borrowings from Lithuanian also show accentual deviations from their source forms; cf. Lithuanian bandà ‘loaf of bread’ and Belarusian бо́нда ‘same’, Lithuanian kùlsė ‘hip’ and Belarusian кулиша́ и кулúша ‘same’, Lithuanian maurai ‘duckweed’ and Belarusian маўра́ ‘same’, etc.

Thus, in the lexical composition of nouns with stems in -а in the western Belarusian dialects under study, a substantial group consists of nouns with inflectional stress in the singular forms. This provides grounds for assuming that the distribution of this accentual type took shape under the influence of the numerous Lithuanian forms mentioned above, in the context of Belarusian-Lithuanian contacts. As a result, the type of -а-stem nouns with inflectional stress expanded in the borderland dialects, although individual forms may differ.

It should be borne in mind that the influence came both from individual borrowed lexemes and from the structural type as a whole, which could have prompted a tendency for stress to shift to the ending.

III. Grammatical differences distinguishing the western zone of Belarusian dialects from the rest of the Belarusian dialect continuum.

a) The lexical inventory of a-stem nouns in the dialects of the western zone was expanded through the remodeling of other stems, e.g.: мыша́ ‘mouse’, мышиё; гус я ‘goose’, гусёю, гусёй¹⁷. Possibly, the influence here came from

¹⁶ Cf. also BSS, pp. 379—380.

¹⁷ Cf. DABM, maps Nos. 80—83; also Linguistic Geography and Grouping of Belarusian Dialects, Minsk, 1968, pp. 139—140; Linguistic Geography and Grouping of Belarusian Dialects, Minsk, 1969, map No. 56; Baltų kalbų veiksmažodžio tyrinėjimai, Vilnius, 1973, p. 247; also BSS, p. 379.

93

and the grammatical system of neighboring Lithuanian dialects, in which feminine nouns generally have no word forms with a zero inflection.

b) In the Belarusian literary language and in a considerable number of dialects, the word стада ‘herd’ is neuter. In the western dialects it forms its case forms like nouns with an а- stem, e.g.: стада, стады, стадзе, стаду, стадай(ю), у стадзе (see isogloss map No. 1). In this case, too, the change in gender is most likely attributable to the supportive influence of Lithuanian, where the direct equivalent of the word under study is a feminine noun, cf. bandā ‘herd’.

It should be noted that borrowings from Belarusian are known in ancient written records of Lithuanian and in its dialects: stōdas, stodā “herd”¹⁸. Judging by their form, one may assume that they have no connection with the gender category of the word стада, which is currently used in Belarusian dialects of the western zone. Following K. Būga, the Lithuanian forms stōdas, stodā belong to more ancient borrowings, and the gender of the latter depends purely formally on the phonological systems of both Lithuanian and Belarusian at that time (cf. Lithuanian pōśmas < па́смо, bōgnas < ба́сно, reklā < pieklo, provà < право¹⁹). In this case, the influence of the phonological laws of Belarusian dialects on the change in the gender category of dialectal стада is entirely absent; cf. Belarusian гора (neuter) < горе, дзе́рава (neuter), стада (feminine), дружыка (masculine), and so on.

As a result of the processes noted, in different parts of the Belarusian dialects of the western zone the lexical inventory of nouns with an а- stem is larger, and this is to a considerable extent due to Belarusian-Lithuanian contacts.

c) Belarusian dialects have their own specific means of expressing spatial, temporal, and other relations. In the literary language, this role is usually performed by combinations of prepositions with various case forms. In the dialects of the zone under study, however, prepositionless constructions often serve this function.

Corresponding to the prepositional construction with the preposition with + accusative case for expressing a temporal circumstance, colloquial speech in the Belarusian dialects under study uses the instrumental of time. To denote a momentary action, the instrumental of time is most often expressed by an adverbialized instrumental singular form of a noun, e.g.: at night (standard language: at night) they picked apples (Voronovo District); at noon (standard language: at noon) she arrived; he came from time to time (standard language: from time to time); what time shall we meet (Iwie District); not at the same time (standard language: not at one time) I will come (Ashmyany District). To denote the repetition of an action, the instrumental of time is expressed by the instrumental plural form of a noun, but its forms are not adverbialized, e.g.: for weeks (standard language: during the weeks) there were pockets; in the evenings we will write (Navahrudak District).

¹⁸ См. P. Skardžius, Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen, Kaunas, 1931, с. 207; картотека „Словаря литовского языка“, хранящаяся в рукописных фондах Института литовского языка и литературы АН Лит. ССР.

¹⁹ Ср. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961, с. 46.

94

Nouns referring generally to a period of time are specified by particular words. Demonstrative pronouns are very often used in this function, and adjectives less often, e.g.: цяперашнім часам добра жыць; гэтым днямі былі даўшы; гэтым годам многа есьць яблык, гагад, грыбоў (Navahrudak District); гэтым часам не спіцца; Норыя прыйшла гэтай парой (Vawkavysk District).

The instrumental plural also expresses an extended period of time during which certain changes take place, e.g.: кругія куча камней гадамі расце (Vileyka District).

Constructions with the instrumental of time are more or less characteristic of all Belarusian dialects, especially for denoting states that last for a certain period of time. This determines their grammatical function—expressing a temporal adjunct, e.g.: цяплом іду жыта жаць; марозам павешалі сушыць бялізну; такою сушаю жыта ня абыйдзеце; вайной пагарэлі (Navahrudak District); і дажджом есьць работа (Shchuchyn District); у нас святам ня робяць; нядзелькай паедзім с табой; яна яшчэ дзеўкай хварэла (Voronovo District); днём вянуць кветы (Vawkavysk District). However, constructions of this type are most concentrated in the western zone when denoting momentary and repeated actions. As already mentioned, in the literary language and other dialects they correspond to synonymous prepositional phrases.

These instrumental-of-time constructions are widespread in neighboring Lithuanian dialects and in the Lithuanian literary language, e.g.: nakčią nūkrētė obuolius; kokiu laiku eisim; ne vienu laiku parėjom; sekmadieniais būdavo turgai; vakarais mezgū; dabartiniais laikais lengva gyventi; šiąs metais daug grybų; tuo laiku dar nemiegų and many others. Therefore, in this case too, one may discern the supportive influence of analogous Lithuanian constructions.

Alongside these, constructions with the instrumental of place, instrumental of means, and instrumental of quantity are also widely used in the dialects under study, e.g.: старанамі шоў дождж; вол баразной шоў (Ashmyany District); ён ляціць вуліцамі (Iŭje District); мылі лугам адзежду; ехалі машынай; канём паедзе (Voronovo District); за Алачку годам старэй (Shchuchyn District). These syntactic constructions also have direct equivalents in Lithuanian, e.g.: šonais lijo; jautis vagą eina; jis laksto gatvėmis; širmu skalbė; mašina važivo; arkliu važiuos; už Ong metais vyresnis. In the Belarusian literary language and other dialects, however, synonymous prepositional constructions are widespread in these cases instead of prepositionless constructions, e.g.: у баках шоў дождж; па баразне шоў вол; ён ляціць па вуліцы; мылі ў лузе; ехалі на машыне, на кані, за Алачку на год старэй and so on. It follows that Lithuanian, in this case too, most likely exerted a supportive influence on the semantic system of the Belarusian dialects of the western zone.

d) In the linguistic area of Belarusian folk dialects under study, some syntactic constructions less characteristic of Slavic languages have also been noted, but they are widely used in neighboring Lithuanian and its

95

dialects. The latter primarily include the partitive genitive (genetivus partitivus) and the genitive of purpose, e.g.: каля кустоў ламой ёсьць (Ashmyany district), cf. Lithuanian prie krūmų yra šakų; užėjo į gadaū ёсьць (Iuye district), cf. Lithuanian jau įogų yra; пришоў ён раз каня (Iuye district), cf. Lithuanian atejo jis kartą arklių; схажу я сала (Shchuchyn district), cf. Lithuanian einù aš lašinių, and others. Such constructions have not been preserved in literary Belarusian or in other dialects, e.g.: каля кустоў ламы ёсьць; ужо ягад ёсьць; прыйшоў ён каб далі каня; схажу я па сала, etc.

The material under study, collected by dialectological expeditions in 1972–1975, sheds new light on the problem of studying Baltic-Slavic linguistic, ethnic, and historical contacts and considerably expands their scope; it also makes it possible to pose a number of theoretical problems concerning the elucidation of the linguistic situation in the Belarusian-Lithuanian borderland today.

MAP No. 1

Distribution of the words гайня (гангля) and стада (gen. sg. стаду) in the Belarusian dialects of the western zone 1 — гайня (гангля), 2 — стада (gen. sg. стаду)