M. Kondratiuk. „Nazwy miejscowe Południovo – wschodnej Białostocczyzny“

intact, and alongside u it is also frequent in place-name stems and after m, v, j, k, s, p22. At the end of a word, after labials and velars, ū is regularly found (only here u also occurs alongside it: laiku III 37₁₈ ‘they hold’). In all remaining cases, the reflex of Indo-European *ā at the end of a word is o. Thus, here too the original stage of Indo-European *ā must have been *ā. And *ā must have changed in the direction of o only after labials, velars, and at the end of a word (in place names, also after j, v, k, s). In other cases it remained intact (br-ā-ti). But in the cases indicated, this change here must again, apparently, have differed from that in the southern dialect. In place of Baltic *ā, ū(u) is found here; as V. Mažiulis23 has rightly noted, it could not have arisen directly and phonetically from *ā. Thus, in any event, the change of *ā to ū must have passed (and did pass) through the ō stage24. Words with this reflex are precisely what show that stage. However, ō here was most likely narrowed more strongly, becoming more closed. As a result, it could have become similar to ū, changed into it, or even turned into it completely (e.g., pōstam, -m-ī-ti, deiv-ū-tai III 115₁₄ ‘blessed’, poglab-ū, laik-u). A similar development of unstressed Baltic *ā also occurred in part of the Lithuanian Veliuona dialect and in nearby areas25. The Indo-European *ā reflexes discussed here in the monuments of the Old Prussian language allow the following conclusions to be drawn: 1. Indo-European *ā was probably known to all Baltic languages and their dialects as a broad, open *ā. 2. In the southern dialect of Old Prussian, that is, the dialect in which the Elbing Vocabulary was written, this Baltic *ā (whose reflex is a) must have been narrowed and rounded, approaching it (oa), or may even have changed entirely into o. In the northern Prussian dialect—the dialect of the catechisms—Baltic *ā (whose reflex is ā) must have been narrowed and rounded only after labials and velars and at the end of a word (in place names, also before v, j, k, s). In other cases it remained intact here. Its development here must have differed somewhat from that in the southern dialect. Because of greater narrowing, it must have become increasingly tense and close here, changing into ō, whose quality must have been closer to ū, or changing into it completely. The wave of narrowing and rounding of Baltic *ā, spreading across the historical Baltic territory from southwest to northeast, must first have reached the Lithuanian language area, giving a large part of its dialects the reflex ō and changing it to uo in Samogitian (except in the Karklė dialect). It must have reached the East Aukštaitian and East Dzūkian dialects last. Consequently, here ā has remained intact, universally in some places and only in part in others. The wave of narrowing and rounding of Baltic *ā did not reach the Latvian language (except Latgalian), and there it remained unchanged. 3. The Indo-European *ā reflex o in the Baltic languages and their dialects is probably secondary. E. GRINAVECKIENĖ M. Kondratiuk, Nazwy miejscowe Południowo – wschodniej Białostocczyzny, Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk, 1974, 304 p. (with a map). The work “Place Names of the Southeastern Part of the Białystok Voivodeship” by Dr. Michał Kondratiuk, a research fellow at the Institute of Slavistics, published in issue 29 of the Polish People’s Republic Academy of Sciences’ serial publication “Monografie Slawistyczne,” is interesting to Balticists in many respects. 22 See K. Būga, RR, III, p. 106. 23 See V. Mažiulis, Baltų sant., p. 12. 24 Cf. Z. Zinkevičius, BV, p. 12. 25 Plg. A. Salys, Kelios pastabos tarmių istorijai, APh IV, Kaunas, 1933, p. 28; Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1965, p. 68 ir žemėl. Nr. 32, 33. 213 The southeastern part of Bialystok Voivodeship is an area where Baltic and Slavic languages were in intensive contact in the past. On the basis of the conclusions of many researchers (K. Būga, J. Kaminskis, G. Laumianskis, J. Otrembskis, V. Toporov, S. Zajančkovski and others), there is reason to believe that the whole, or nearly the whole, territory surveyed by M. Kondratiukas was once inhabited by Balts. It is true that the Balts may have lived in this territory at different times and for varying lengths of time. But the presence of Balts in these places is indisputable. It is worth recalling here that one of the left-bank tributaries of the Būg (which flows through the very south of the territory under discussion) bears a name regarded as Baltic—Krzna < *Krьsna (cf. Lithuanian Kirsna): Old Prussian (Yotvingian) Kirsnan ‘black’. It is therefore unsurprising that M. Kondratiukas, too, records contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages in his monograph, drawing on place names, more precisely the names of inhabited places, of which he counts 1,585 in the territory under study (the number of sites is somewhat lower—1,338). It is noteworthy that the number of inhabited-place names has more than doubled since the second half of the sixteenth century—from 725 names in the latter half of the sixteenth century to 1,585 today. The structure of the work under review is as follows: 1) introduction (defining the subject of the study, providing historical information about the territory examined, identifying sources, commenting on the research method, etc.); 2) a dictionary of place names; 3) an analysis of the meanings and forms of place names (by meaning, the author distinguishes related, topographic, possessive, cultural, patronymic, ethnic, and other place names); 4) interlinguistic relations (Polish–Russian and Slavic–Baltic); 5) conclusions. The largest and most important section of the work is the second (pp. 19–233), which lists alphabetically all the names of inhabited places (and sometimes other places) in the southeastern part of Bialystok Voivodeship. In effect, this is an etymological dictionary of the oikonyms of this territory, since the origins of the place names included are also indicated. Another indisputable merit of this section is that the author gives the older forms of oikonyms attested in historical documents. Historical variants of oikonyms are very useful in explaining the origins of present-day place names. For scholars of Baltic languages, perhaps the most important part of the work is the one analyzing relations between the Slavic and Baltic languages. The author notes that Lithuanian (Baltic) place names were Slavicized over a long period. Slavicization affected not only the phonetics of Lithuanian place names, but quite often their morphology as well. Examples of phonetic Slavicization include: Dojlidy—Lithuanian Dailidės, Liuli—Lithuanian Liūliai, Paceliszki—Lithuanian *Poceliškės, and so on. The most common type of morphological Slavicization is the addition of a Slavic suffix to a Lithuanian stem (cf. Klewinowo—Lithuanian klėvas, klevynas, klevinis). The author identifies about 45 Baltic place names in all, that is, about 2.8% of all oikonyms. This is a fairly substantial layer of Balticisms (if, of course, they are all genuine), especially considering the already mentioned fact that there were only 725 oikonyms in the second half of the sixteenth century. According to the author, only 50 names of inhabited places are attested in documents from the first half of the fifteenth century. Apparently, most oikonyms took shape over the last few centuries—that is, in historical times, when the old, autochthonous Baltic ethnic element in these lands was insignificant or nearing extinction. According to the author’s calculations, most Balticisms are found between the Narew and Supraśl rivers. Quite a few of them are indisputable. One example is the name of a district of the city of Bialystok. 1 B. H. Toporov, Two Notes on Baltic Toponymy, – Rakstu krājums veltījums… Jānim Endzelīnam…, Riga, 1959, pp. 256 ff. 214 Dojnowo, whose connection with Lithuanian Dainava (village in Šalčininkai District and elsewhere) is obvious. Another part of Bialystok is called Dojlidy. This place name can be compared with Lithuanian Dailidės (village in Šalčininkai District and elsewhere: Lithuanian dailidė ‘carpenter’). There is also no uncertainty about the name of the village Dydulė in Bialystok County, recorded in 1577 as Dzi dziule. It corresponds to the Lithuanian oikonym Didžiuliai (village in Šalčininkai District). Obvious Balticisms also include Kiersnowo, a village in Bialystok County (cf. Lithuanian Kirkšnóvė river, Kirsna river: Old Prussian kirsnan ‘black’); Kiewtaki, a village in Bialystok County (cf. Lithuanian Kiaulakiai, a village in Kelmė District; surname Kiaulakỹs); Kituryki (in 1634 Kiethuriki), a village in Bialystok County (cf. Lithuanian Ketūriai, a village in Šalčininkai District); Kojrany, a village in Bialystok County (cf. Lithuanian Kairėnai, a village in Vilnius District); Liuli, a field and meadow in the village of Hermanuykos, Bialystok County (cf. Lithuanian Liūlynas, a forest near Veisiejai, Liūlė, a meadow in the Kurkliai area); Narejki, a village in Bialystok County; Narojki, a village in Siemiatycze County, near Drohiczyn (cf. Lithuanian Noreikiai, a village in Panevėžys District and elsewhere, and the surnames Noreika, Noreikis); Olmonty, a village in Bialystok County (cf. Lithuanian surname Almantas); Szernie, a village in Bialystok County (cf. Lithuanian Šernai, a village in Vilnius District, and the surname Šernius); Žegunie, a village in Bialystok County (cf. Lithuanian Žegūniai, a village in Kupiškis District, and the surname Žegūnis), and others. Some uncertainty and doubt may arise regarding one or another place name that the author regards as Baltic. For instance, the name Opaka, a village in Hajnowka Voivodeship, could also be considered non-Baltic, since it most likely derives from a physiographic term characteristic of Slavic languages, including Polish—cf. Polish opoka ‘rock, lump of stone’, Czech opoka, opuka ‘rock’, Slovenian opóka ‘shale’2, Belarusian апока ‘stone, rock; limestone’3, and so on. On the whole, however, the author is quite adept at distinguishing Baltic from Slavic place names, so his conclusions about contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages in the southeastern part of Bialystok Voivodeship can be trusted. Thus, M. Kondratiuk’s monograph “Place Names of the Southeastern Part of Bialystok Voivodeship” is a substantial work of multifaceted significance. It is important to emphasize that this work will be useful not only to linguists, but also to historians investigating the problems of Baltic ethnogenesis and, more broadly, the Baltic past. A. VANAGAS A b b r e v i a t i o n s Ad – Adutiškis, Švenčionys District.1 Adm – Adomaičiai, Kelmė District, Pakražantis area. Agu – Agurkiškė, Kapsukas District, Kazlų Rūda area. ahd. – Old High German (Althochdeutsch). air. – Irish. Akm – Akmenė. Akmn – Akmenė, Vilnius District, Glitiškės area. Akns – Ak nystėlės, Utena District, Leliūnai area. Aks – Alk as, Plungė District, Bubėnai area. AkV – Akmuo, Varėna District, Jakėnai area. Al – Alytus. Alj – Alėjai, Raseiniai District. Alk – Alksnėnai, Vilkaviškis District. 2 P. Nitsche, Geographische Terminologie des Polnischen, Köln, 1964, p. 48. 3 І. Я. Яшкин, Беларускія геаграфічныя назвы, Мінск, 1971, p. 13. 1 The area is not specified when its name is the same as that of the locality, indicated by the abbreviation. 215