Dėl poros fonetinių reiškinių interpretavimo

rios end would be lat. Beer ,,ein Kalk-, LehmschligelME I 306. Jų 's vowel ratio would be as it mų has, for example, pr. playnis: liet. Plumeria, lat. steel, o connecting the semantic link would form, perhaps, lat. bite , there Provision bag, the Speisepaudel" ib. 304 (hereinafter referred to as verbs bit ,,push", bi-d-id ,,pushing, smoking, pushing and pushing“). S. THE QUEENS ON POROS PHONETICS 1000 mg/ day INTERPRETATION 1. Lithuanian literary language ie, equivalents uo in the Dūnininkai dialect When XVI dunes a. in their i* ~ y ir i* ~ ie pronunciation had coincided, well shows J. Blast the dictionary! data. Here are the Russian-written placenames of the mud area next to the Žemaitijos genders su H - Yeah. - Yeah. I, I. ie) frequently presented ir su e, ie (=1k. ie), e.g. : CeroBa (p. 289), CuroBa (p. 290) ‘upé, jungianti Paršežerį su I'm looking. Cka6s nieBa (p. 290) (Pavandenės valsčius), KsBjiec nuBac MHIIKAC (p. 159) (Karšuvas valdsčius), YKapauuseruc (p. 112) “The soil of Krazi vald”, YKapjiuHBHTbI (p. 112) ‘Karšuvos valsčiaus dirva’ ir d. kt Forms su e, ie (=Ik. ie) most likely — a result of the exaltation of placenames. That this is probably the case, shows the iš hypercorrectisms of place-name forms in this dictionary, me t. y. instead of i my writing e((=ie), e.g. : Exus (p. 108) = Yžnė “Karšuva village river' near lonxxHH I (p. 246) = Payznps "Karsuva Manor'; Ilekottrn (p. 225) = Pykdiciai “Pajūrio valsčiaus dvaras’ nearby [Tukoiitn (same) etc. ir So, already ir The users a. of the 16th-century dialects could not distinguish the overlapping I'm going. y ir ie (also ū ir uo). The first hints about the pronunciation of the uo diphthong ie in the Žemaičių dialect can 7, ū already be found in A. Schleicher’s Lithuanian grammar®. Subsequenšį tly, the statement no ir was specified in more detail. J. "Yushka". It is clearly attested by all the ir linguists who have studied the Žemaičių mudininkų spoken language — K. in the works A. of Jaunius, J. Salis, P. Gerulis, V. Jonikis, Z. Grinavecki, A. Zinkevičius, V. Balašaitis, ir Vitkauskas and in the publication „The dialects of the Lithuanian language in the comparatively qualified texts of these dialects“. But the linguist A. This is not recognised by the RIAA. In the article „,,What do the Dūnininkai have instead of literary language ie, uo“* he seeks to check, ar , ,bendrinés lietuviy kalbos ie, the equivalents in the uo Žemaičių dinininky dialect are long monophthongs not different i, ū, from the long ones 7, ū = y, ū“ (p. 143). For this purpose, as the author of the article indicates, “, word pairs were chosen, which in the common language of the ir Altay dialect are se distinguished only by ie: 7, uo : ū oppositions: griiodas : grain, kuédas : body ‘cast’, cast : 1! See. Teorpaduuecknit CJIOBAapb JApeBHeil >xxoMOHTCKOHK seman XVI croserus, CocraBjienHbllt HBanoM SikoBjreBuueM Cnporuconm, Busibua, 1888, 363 cTp. * Zr. Handbook of Lithuanian Language of August Schleicher, I, grammar, Prague, 1856, p. S. 3 Zr. Jon's Juszka, Kalbos resort Iēžuv'o ir I€tuviszkas statraszimas or orthography, in St. Petersburg, 1861, p. 12, 14. 4 Zr. LKT, p. 93-129. 5 Zr. A. Girdenis, Ka have dinininkai instead of literary language ie, uo,,,Baltistica“ lyti, rietas rytas, VI(2), 1970, p. 143-146. 14. Us. No. 1026 209 žiedūkas žiydūkas, : attempted to : determine, ir they are distinguished ar in dialectal language of persons who came from these places of the territory of iš the dinininkai: Karklėnai, Laūkuva [...], Ūžventis, Vafniai [...], Batakiai [...], Efžvilkas, Laūksargiai [...], Skaudvilė, Šaukėnai, Tauragė district [...], Vainūtas [...], Midwife [:..]. Informants are asked vo to translate those pairs their į dialect to say, differs ir in its dialect ar ir (if it turned gu out to be different) what is different“ (p. 143—144). ,,The results of the study, as — stated by the author, proved surprisingly — clear and unambiguous: in all the ir mentioned places of the (including ir such peripheral speeches as Eržvilko ir In the middle of the 2000s, there was no longer a need be for the two to be separated, — as they were no longer actively engaged in their respective careers. ir Instead of the common language uo ie, everywhere are pronounced sounds ir of a slightly lower tension intensity than instead of y, i [...]“ (p. 144). For to „,ie, uo equivalents in the Dūnininkai dialect, it seems most appropriate to interpret to write as diphthongs if, ir uy“ (p. 144). However, the šį experimental ir jo method from a scientific point of view can hardly be considered ar successful. The first one taken for the experiment 1k. a pair of words griodas ir griidas į mud dialect can not even be translatir ed (so it is contradicted ir and experimented), because the word decembris mudists do not have®. Thus, the experiment based on an artificially translated non-Žemaitiška form is in this sense wrong. The informants of the experiment, as the quotation shows, were the true local representatives of the mud-speaking peoples ne (a scientific experiment, and especially one aimed at correcting the previous opinion, it would seem that only the latter’s tar= timi should be relied on), but only persons who came from the territory of the mudmen“. But the latter, being separated from the native dialect and influenced by Ik. influence, of course, its Žemaitijos pronunciation cannot fully represent the phonetics of the speakers of that area, And merely translating, —as A. Girdenis points out, —in dialect corresponding lk. words pairs and trying to Zemaitini them, hardly anyone could succeed in pronouncing those spoken pairs of sounds exactly as they are pronounced in the dialect. After all, in this case, the informants of the experiment played only the role of imitators. And there is no equality between imitation and reality. Thus, the objective truth does not actually emerge from the statements of these informants, and it is not possible to judge from it what those mudmen really have instead of Ik. Yeah, uh. The experimental encryption methodology also complicates the situation. As A. Girdenis points out,,,After some training (after 4-5 attempts), they (=auditors, i.e. persons who listened to the pronunciation of the experimental sounds, note of us — E. G.) easily determined which sound — -i or if, # or uy — even isolated, out of context presented words should have” (p. 145). The encryption of the experimental object is usually carried out in this way, but if the auditors did not perceive the heard thing immediately, but only after 4-5 training tests — the clearest proof that the results of such a study cannot be as,,absolutely clear and unambiguous," as A. Girdenis considers them. As we can see, the conclusions of the experiment are considerably strained. This makes it really difficult to accept them and to rely on them. Thus, A. Girdenis' experiment is not yet capable of correcting the old law about Ik. ie, uo equivalents in mudmen's conversations. $ Instead of it, these conversations lively use the verbs. Among other things, the word grūte,,gruodas* nie« is not mentioned anywhere by V. Grinaveckis, who raised this phenomenon, to whose article A. Girdenis sends the reader to look for examples of this type (p. 143). ? It should be noted that A. Girdenis is not always demanding when choosing informants for the experiment: an informant from Lauksargių šnėkta probably represents the mud dwellers in the experiment, although Lauksargių šnėkta in fact belongs to the northwestern Highlanders, cf. LKT, p. 173 and map. 210 2. Here it is. Lithuanian linguist V. Mažiulis, having thoroughly familiarized himself with the Prussian sources and their language, has in his significant linguistic studies of recent years put forward a new concept, according to which it is proved that already in (common) Baltic antiquity id. *a will have been converted to *6%. Based on this, he innovatively explains the origin and development of many morphological phenomena of Lithuanian and Baltic languages and their relationship with the corresponding ones of other languages. morphological characteristics of languages. Since this concept is still the subject of lively debate?, without claiming to the final solution of this question, we will try to ide. *4 to analyze the question of development in Baltic languages from the perspective of dialectologist. V. Mažiulis, presenting the vowels of such 16th century Prussian words (Sembos dialect)" as m-u-ti III 673'mother', br-a-ti 'brother' and the 13th —15th century local names of this region By-o-ten, Bey-o-ten (compare with Lithuanian Bij-0-tai), Grind-o-s (compare with Lithuanian grifid-0-- s), Layp-o (compare with Lithuanian liep-a)"* on the one hand and the vowels of such 14th —15th century forms (representing, apparently, the Prussian submedieval dialect?- ?), as m-o-the E 170'mother', br-o-te E 170 'brother- ', mens-o E 154, 374'meat' on the other, and considering the data of the Prussian language as landmarks of the history of vowels in all Baltic languages!, argues and justifies two hypotheses: a),,the Prussian *ū in the word m-ūt-ti III 67, (=Lithuanian m-o-té, Latin m-4-te) cannot have been derived from *4[...]. This pr. *ū is probably derived from a long labialized vowel of the lower back rising, marked pr. *6“; b),,the sembu vowel *a (br-a-ti III) is derived from the older sembic *6“**. At the same time, he states that,, Such pr. *0 [...] shows and the oldest written monument of the Prussian language —Elbing Dictionary“! *, On the basis of all this he concludes that “,ide. *4 vowel development, in the direction of vowel *0” (pr. E oa resp. o=li. o, t. y. d, la. dialect. d etc.) should be considered a (common) Baltic antiquity thing““! * and everywhere they hold firmly. In connection with this, it should be noted that, when speaking about the Prussian language, K. Būga clearly refers to its two most pronounced dialects: the northern and southern, which differ considerably from each other*”. The first source of Prussian language, the Elbing (E) dictionary, was written in the southern (Pamedan) dialect around 1400, while the Prussian catechisms were written in the northern (Sembos) dialect about 150 years after the appearance of this dictionary. So, speaking of ide. *a 8 See B. Maxiojiuc, 3aMeTKu iro NMPYCCKOMY BoKajin3aMy. —Boripochi TEOpHH H HCTOpun s3bika, Jlennnrpag, 1963, ctp. 192—194; V. Mažiulis, Baltų ir kitų Indoeuropiečių santykiai, Vilnius, 1970 (hereinafter —V. Mažiulis, Baltų sant.), pp. 11—25 etc. This also concerns Mr Hu. Kasnayckac, K pasputuio o6uie6a ituiicKoil CHCTeMbI IJIaCHBIX, „BOTIpOCbi S13bIKO3HAHHSi“, 1962, Ne 4, cp. 20—24. ® Zr. 3. 3unkapuutoc, O pa3sutun OGasaThiickoro BoKAJIK3MA, —BaaTo-caaBaHCKHiL cOopuuk, Mocksa, 1972 (hereinafter —Z. Zinkevičius, BV), c1p. 5—14. 10 Zr. V. Mažiulis, Baltų sant., p. 11—12. I! But plg. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961 (hereinafter —K. Būga, RR, III), p. 106 mentions the Semba place names Dywone—lauken, Kopte (Kupte), Aucopte, Pobeti, near Pubethyn as well as the words pėstam, pomien, peroniskan, encops, encopts and others. 12 See V. Mažiulis, Baltų sant., p. 13. 18 Zr. V. Mažiulis, ibid., p. 21. 14 See V. Mažiulis, ibid., p. 12. 15 Zr. V. Mažiulis, ibid., p. 13. 16 See V. Mažiulis, ibid., p. 24. 17 See K. Būga, RR, III, pp. 104-110. 18 Zr. V. Mažiulis, Monuments of the Prussian language, Vilnius, 1966, p. 27—29. gas 211 correspondences in the vocalism of Prussian language monuments and from them to decide about ide. *4w development of all Baltic languages, the peculiarities of the vocalism of not one, but two independent phonetic systems — the South and North Prussian dialects — and their differences are not to be overlooked. The difference between these two Prussian dialects is reflected, among other things, in the vocalism of Prussian words and Prussian place names mentioned by V. Mažiulis (different ide. *a reflexes- ). However, both hypotheses presented by V. Mažiulis are based solely on the # and a reflexes of this origin in the Semba dialect (northern Prussian dialect). But how then to interpret in the same texts of the Semba dialect, before the same labial (or palatal) next to @ (m-ū-ti, poglab-ū) parallelly existing and O, o (postam, Layp-o)? Thus postam, Layp-o and similar examples of vecalism with d(0) from ide. *a would show that in the Semba dialect the o reflex objectively existed next to its ū(u). And its real coexistence with # still does not show that it is older, especially that the Semb place name Kopte K. Būgos is presented with its adjacent form Kupte." The presence of semb 6(o) as well as ū(u) next to a (brati) also does not give any basis for their a to be derived from the semb *5 (i.e. from the semb archetypal *06). In the southern Prussian dialect, V. Mažiulis is only mentioned with ide. *a reflexes o and oa (oa: s-oa-lis E 293 'grass' case, according to V. Maziulis, also means, no doubt, pr. *6“*?), its vowel a remains unexplained (<ide. *4) in such words as pon-a-sse E 90 'nose' (cf. n-o-zy E 85 'nose'), pom-atre E 180 'pamoté' (cf. m-o-the), coexisting with the reflexes 0, oa of the same origin (m-o-the, lubbo E 206 'Brett'*, m-oa-zo E 178 'Mume'). So if in the southern conversation ide. *4 are represented by three reflexes, all of which are to be taken into account here, and their interrelationship to be revealed. All this would show that the real (not archetypal!) ide in the monuments of both (northern and southern) Prussian dialects. *a reflex d. It existed in parallel with other reflexes, usually in other positions of the word. However, this does not mean that all the other dialects are identical. *4 reflexes could have come out of him and that he was their predecessor, the very first ide. *4 reflex of (general)- whites in antiquity or should at least have some priority over them. So the idea. *a situation of different reflexes would not confirm the opinion that ide. The development of *4, “in the direction of the vowel *6”, would have begun with *6, which should be considered a (common) thing of Baltic antiquity. Different idea. *4 Reflexes in these monuments of Prussian writing indicate that its development in both Prussian dialects was not the same. They first show that the a reflex in the southern dialect could (and probably does) indicate the very original ide. *4 corresponding in it, confirming the traditional opinion that ide. *a (general) in the ancient Balts was also *a. Because it is short in this case, it could not change the situation. However, the very fact that even in the oldest Prussian source — the Elbing dictionary id. *a reflex a existed in reality, again as if not confirming the conclusion ide. *4 development (general) in the ancient Baltic, beginning with *6. The other monuments in this dialect are id. *a reflexes (oa, 0) would indicate that here white *4 (not *6) will be narrowed and becoming somewhat more closed. Because of all this, it will be labialized and only become (s-oa-lis) or become o (m-o-the, gald-o-E 365“ gelda'). In the northern Prussian dialect, the development of this *4 will be clearly distinct, having been different. In this dialect, the Prussian writing monuments also have three-letter ideas. * 4 reflexes. After the labial and palatal, the word stem usually has the reflex #, although sometimes it is replaced by d (o) in the same cases. In all other cases, id. *4 left here 1* Plg. K. Būga, RR, III, p. 106. 20 See V. Mažiulis, Baltų sant., pp. 13–14. 2 See. J. Endzelins, Old Prussian language, Riga, 1943, p. 205. 212 Hello. o near u common ir places in name trunks ir po m, v, j, k, s, p? ?. In the end of the lip po palatal ir lawfully has # (only here next occurs in u: time III 37,4 "they hold’). In all other cases, the end of the word ide. *4 reflects reflex o. So here it is. *4 the primary stage will also have been *a. O *4 o direction will be kites only lip, palatal po at the end of ir the word (in pronouns also ir po j, v, k, (s). In other cases, he remained healthy (BR-A-TI). However, the change in the cases mentioned here again, apparently, will differ from the southern dialect. Instead *4 of the Balts, we have ū(u), as V. Maziulis® has correctly pointed out, which simply could not have phonetically emerged from *4. So that *4 transformation į ū, anyway ar so, had to pass (and passed) through d the degree? *. O tą degree just as the ir words indicate su this reflex. But here it 6 will probably be narrower, becoming more closed. As a result, it could become similar to #, only turn into it or turn into it altogetherti (e.g. postam, -m-ū-ti, deiw-ū-tai 111 115,, "selig', poglab-ū, laik-u"). A similar development of unpronoun- *4 ced Balts has taken place in ir some of the Lithuanian Velyūniškiai schneck and nearby places**. Here discussed ide. *a reflexes in Prussian language monuments allow to draw the following conclusions: ide. 1. *4 probably was known to all the dialects of the Baltic languages ir jų as a wide open *a. 2. In the South Prussian dialect, t. y. the dialect in which Elbing Dictionary, this Baltic *4 (the present reflex will be a) narrowed, labialized, approaching the jo (0a) ar ir completely out of o. tune in the North Prussian — dialect in the — dialect of catechisms of the Balts *4 (available reflex will be a) narrowed labializavesis ir only lip, palatal end po of the word ir (in pronouns even ir before v, j, k, (s). On other occasions here he remained healthy. Jo change here will be somewhat different from the southern dialect. Because of the greater narrowing here it will become more and more tight, closed, and, turning out which in its color į 6, will have been closer iš ar ir completely transformed into it. The wave of *4 labialization ir of the Baltic narrowing, spreading through the historical Baltic territory to iš the į southwest northeast, will first reach the area of the Lithuanian language. 6, jį ma uo (excluding Karklė snake). The eastern ir highland dialects of the ji eastern Dzūki will arrive later. This is to why there ir is now in places it 4 is preserved generally, o in places — only in iš part. Languages of Latvia (except Latgalians) the Baltic *4 narrowing ir jo wave of labialization did not reach, ir here it remained unchanged. 3, It's going. *4 reflex in o the dialects ir jų of the Baltic languages is probably secondary. E. GRINAVECKIENĖ M. Kondratiuk, Local Names Southeast- — ern Bialostocczyzny, Wroclaw — Warsaw — Krakėw — Gdansk, 1974, 304 p. (with a map). Polish Folk Republics Scientific The Academy's serial publication ,,Monographs Slawistyczne“ In the 29th issue of the journal is published the article of Dr. Michal Kondratiuk’s work “Place names of the southeastern part of Bialystok Voivodeship” is interesting for Baltists in many aspects. ir 22 See. K. Buga, RR, III, p. 106. 288 See. V. Mažiulis, Baltų sant., Lithuania p. 12. *! Plg, Z. Zinkevičius, BV, p. 12. * Plg. A. Salys, A few notes on the history of dialects, APh IV, Kaunas, Lithuania 1933, p. 28; Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius, 1965, p. 68 ir map. No. 32, 33. 213