Материалы к истории литуанистики из архива И. И. Срезневского

LIETUVIŲ TERMINOLOGIJA LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA G. K. VENEDIKTOV MATERIALS FOR THE HISTORY OF LITHUANIAN STUDIES FROM THE ARCHIVE OF I. I. SREZNEVSKY The exceptionally rich archive of I. I. Sreznevsky, which is of great interest above all for the study of the history of Slavic studies, contains many valuable materials on the history of other fields of philology and history as well, including the history of Lithuanian studies in Russia in the nineteenth century. In the portion of this archive held at the Central State Archive of Literature and Art in Moscow (TsGALI) (f. 436, inv. 1, item 1433), there are 34 letters from the Lithuanian linguist, collector, and publisher of Lithuanian folk songs Jonas Juška (Ivan Vasilyevich Yushkevich), written to I. I. Sreznevsky in 1856–1878. Besides some autobiographical information, these letters contain very interesting material on J. Juška’s work on Lithuanian, particularly Lithuanian dialectology, and folklore. Ten letters that had until now remained outside the scholars’ field of vision are published in volume II of “Baltic-Slavic Studies” (Moscow, “Nauka,” 1974). Here we publish three items sent by J. Juška to I. I. Sreznevsky at different times during their correspondence. They are of considerable independent interest for characterizing the early work of J. Juška and his brother Antanas on the Lithuanian language, as well as the early history of the study of this language in Russia. 1. The dictionary of Sanskrit-Lithuanian correspondences compiled by J. Juška, which, as far as we know, is not mentioned in the existing literature on J. Juška, was sent to I. I. Sreznevsky with a letter dated 3 January 1856—the earliest of J. Juška’s letters to the Russian Slavist held at TsGALI. It must therefore have been compiled by the end of 1855. J. Juška gave the dictionary no title; it is written on six sheets. The material is arranged in two columns on the recto and verso of the sheets, in the order (alphabetical) in which it is published below. The words beginning with the letter “T,” marked in the manuscript with the numerals 1, 3, 4, and 2, are left here in the places they occupy in the manuscript dictionary. As can be seen from the text of the dictionary, J. Juška gives no Sanskrit equivalents for a number of Lithuanian words. The words ugnis and uksusas, which appear on the same line in the manuscript, are presented here on separate lines. 203 Contrary to J. Juška’s assertion that he had marked the stress on “every Lithuanian word” (see below), a whole series of words (Lithuanian ones) in fact appear in the dictionary without stress marks. The entire non-Russian portion of the dictionary of Lithuanian-Sanskrit correspondences, as well as the two other items, is published here without any changes to the orthography. The Russian portion of all the items, however, is given according to the norms of modern orthography, except for characteristic errors (or slips of the pen) by J. Juška, which are specifically noted. Our additions to the text (expansion of abbreviations, etc.) are enclosed in square brackets. The reason that prompted J. Juška to compile a dictionary of Lithuanian-Sanskrit correspondences, the purpose he pursued in compiling it, and the sources of the Lithuanian material are clearly set out by J. Juška himself in his letter (1) to I. I. Sreznevsky1 of 3 January 1856. In essence, this entire letter (excluding, naturally, the customary address to the recipient and the closing expression of “highest respect and devotion”) is precisely about the dictionary he compiled. This is what J. Juška himself wrote about it2: “While reading Hilferding’s study3 in the Proceedings of the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, which deals with a comparison of the Slavic and Sanskrit languages, I came across many Sanskrit roots and words either wholly similar to Lithuanian ones or very close to them, both in the concepts they express and in their phonetic form. Not daring to draw my own conclusions from the data before me, I limited myself to collecting them, thinking that in this way I could prepare material more or less suitable for philological research. I borrowed the Sanskrit words from the above-mentioned article by A. Hilferding, and the Lithuanian ones from the living Lithuanian dialect spoken by Lithuanians inhabiting the northeastern part of Raseiniai District and the western part of Kaunas District, which is familiar to me as a native of that area, with the exception of several words (abida, ajszkus, bar’wa, biloti, griowis, kute, kusziti, lobis, pota and stegti), which I borrowed from the work: Giwatas Didiuju Karwajdu senowes. T. Dewinakis (Translation of Cornelii Nepotis Vitae Excellentium Imperatorum)4. I marked the stress on every Lithuanian word according to local pronunciation.” 1 For the convenience of subsequent references (after the publication of the letters in the aforementioned “Baltic-Slavic Studies”), the letters’ sequential numbers in that collection are given here in parentheses. 2 TsGALI, f. 436, inv. 1, item 1433, fol. 1. 3 The “Hilferding study” mentioned here (below: “A. Hilferding’s article”) is “A Comparison of the Slavic Language with Sanskrit” (by A. Hilferding, published in “Supplements to the Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Department of Russian Language and Literature,” vol. II, 1853, in the series “Monuments and Specimens of the Folk Language and Literature”). 4 The translation by T. Devinakis, i.e. S. Daukantas, of “Giwatas Didiuju Karwajdu senowes,” from which J. Juška took the ten words listed, was published in 1846. As can be seen from J. Juška’s letter (2) to I. I. Sreznevsky dated 17 January 1856, by that time he had read in Lithuanian the books “żiwatas Jezaus Kristaus” and “żemaitiu wiskupiste” (1848) by M. Valančius (“Bishop Volončevskii”), as well as “some minor translated works by Mr. Dovkont (i.e. S. Daukantas—G. V.), published under various pseudonyms” (TsGALI, f. 436, inv. 1, item 1433, fol. 7). Among the latter was also the work mentioned in the letter 204 The dictionary of Lithuanian-Sanskrit correspondences apparently made a favorable impression on I. I. Sreznevsky, as he informed J. Juška immediately upon receiving the letter containing the dictionary materials. This can be inferred from the fact that in his reply of 17.1.1856, that is, exactly two weeks after the first letter had been sent, J. Juška sincerely thanked I. I. Sreznevsky for his review and advice. “I offer you my most heartfelt gratitude, gracious sir, Izmail Ivanovich,” he wrote, “for your kindly attention to my first attempt in the field of philology and for communicating to me those instructions and recommendations of yours which, when followed by our young scholars, have already brought substantial benefit to scholarship and earned them a respected standing in the scholarly world”5. I. I. Sreznevsky’s benevolent attitude toward J. Juška’s first scholarly undertaking, at that time a teacher at the Novgorod Gymnasium, undoubtedly encouraged the budding Lithuanian scholar and strengthened his desire to continue studying his native language. J. Juška wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky about his scholarly plans: “… Having gathered a considerable store of materials, I have resolved to attempt to compile a comparative Lithuanian grammar, taking as my basis the Essay on the Comparative Grammar of the Russian Language, published by the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Am I capable of undertaking so immense a task, and will I carry it out worthily? I do not know. For now, I can only say that the idea of presenting a coherent system of the laws of the Lithuanian language, in accordance with the general laws of human speech, animates all my work on this subject, and that this undertaking is one of my most pleasurable occupations at the present moment”6. 2. Another item published here is a set of specimen entries for the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary,” on which J. Juška worked persistently for many years. It has long been known that J. Juška was working on a “Lithuanian Root Dictionary.” In response to a letter from “the superintendent of the Ragnit diocese, K. A. Jordan,” I. I. Sreznevsky, commissioned by the Department of the Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, drafted a “Memorandum,” which was read at one of the Department’s meetings in June 1857 and published that same year7. The memorandum states, among other things: “… In due course, I had the honor of submitting to the Department a report concerning another expert in the Lithuanian language, who was engaged in studying it, Mr. Juškevič; Mr. Juškevič’s work was approved by the Department and was not- the book “Giwatas Didijų Karwajdu senowes” of 3.1.1856. J. Juška acquired all these books during the summer of 1855, while staying in Lithuania, and they were the first Lithuanian-language books with which he began his scholarly studies in Lithuanian studies. In the letter cited here, dated 17.I.1856, he wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky: “For a long time I have ardently wished to study the Lithuanian language thoroughly, but I did not have a single Lithuanian book. Last summer I managed to visit the Kovno Governorate and acquire several recent Lithuanian books, with which I began my studies; yet I still had neither a Lithuanian lexicon nor a grammar” (ibid.). 5 Central State Archive of Literature and Art, fond 436, inventory 1, storage unit 1433, fol. 7. 6 Ibid. 7 See the section “Extracts from the Minutes” in “Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Department of the Russian Language and Literature,” vol. VI, 1857, pp. 254–255. 205 which were printed in the Proceedings. He is now bringing his attempt at a Lithuanian root dictionary to completion, drawing on the riches of the vernacular in various parts of Lithuania. It may be hoped that Mr. Juškevič’s work will prove a notable addition to Russian linguistic literature and that, circumstances permitting, it will be published under the patronage of the Academy’s Second Department8 (italics ours, — G. V.). I. I. Sreznevsky believed that, “to improve this work,” J. Juška should be provided with “outside assistance,” among which K. A. Jordan’s dictionary materials could occupy “a prominent place.” In this connection, I. I. Sreznevsky proposed approaching K. A. Jordan with a request to provide the Department with his materials “without any conditions, solely as a voluntary donation”9. By decision of the Department, a copy of I. I. Sreznevsky’s memorandum cited here was sent to Academician K. A. Veselovsky, acting in the capacity of Permanent Secretary, for communication to Jordan; its subsequent fate and consequences are unknown10. In June 1861, I. I. Sreznevsky informed the Department of the Russian Language and Literature that J. Juška “may be expected to prepare, in the near future, a Lithuanian root dictionary adapted to the needs of the Slavic language”11. These details, reported more than 100 years ago by I. I. Sreznevsky, essentially exhaust what is known about the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” even today. No further details are known either about the work itself or its fate. The “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” is not listed among J. Juška’s surviving manuscripts12. It has been suggested that J. Juška did not complete it13, or that, having received it, the Department of the Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences for some reason did not publish it14. The letters from J. Juška to I. I. Sreznevsky, prepared for publication in “Baltic-Slavic Studies,” and the specimen entries from the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” published below contain material that makes it possible to form a more definite judgment about the contents of J. Juška’s work and the progress of his work on it. We first learn of J. Juška’s work on the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” from his letter (10) to I. I. Sreznevsky dated 8.XII.1856. In it, he wrote that the “work”15 he was sending along with the letter was intended as an “introduction 8 Ibid., cf. p. 255. 9 Ibid. 10 This copy itself, dated 20 June 1857 and now held in the papers of Academician A. Kunick in the Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Leningrad), was recently published in: B. Tolutienė, A. Juška leksikografas, — „Literatūra ir kalba“, V, Vilnius, 1961, p. 291—292. 11 Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Department of the Russian Language and Literature, vol. X, 1861—1863, p. 158. 12 B. Tolutienė, A. Juška the lexicographer, p. 364. 13 B. Tolutienė, A. Juška the lexicographer, pp. 124, 128; see also: Mažoji lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija, vol. I, A—J, Vilnius, 1966, p. 728. 14 B. Tolutienė, A. Juška the lexicographer, p. 124. 15 Probably what is meant is his “Notes on the Characteristics of the Lithuanian Language,” published later, in 1861, under the title “Ape kalbtas lietuviszko ležuvo” (“On the Dialects of the Lithuanian Language”) in “Materials for a Comparative and Explanatory Dictionary and Grammar— 206 of the proposed root dictionary of the Lithuanian language 16. Here, too, J. Juška reported that he had already “collected 600 Lithuanian roots” and was thinking of “first compiling, according to a certain system, a catalogue of Lithuanian roots, and only afterwards undertaking their sorting”17. It follows that J. Juška began work on the “Root Dictionary” as early as 1856. It is possible that the initial dictionary database for his work on the “Root Dictionary” consisted of materials he had gathered while compiling a dictionary of Sanskrit-Lithuanian correspondences and writing a review of A. Schleicher’s book “Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, I. Grammatik” (Prag, 1856), initially published in “Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Department of Russian Language and Literature” (vol. V, 1856)18. J. Juška drew a substantial amount of material for the “Root Dictionary” from the “Lithuanian Bible.” I. I. Sreznevsky gave him this book from his library when J. Juška visited him at the end of 185619. J. Juška began working on it in early January 1857, immediately upon his return from Petersburg. He began by reading the New Testament so that he could compare Lithuanian with Slavic using the Ostromir Gospel, which he had at hand. By mid-February he had already read more than two thirds of the entire Holy Scripture. A letter (12) dated 19.II.1857, in which J. Juška informs I. I. Sreznevsky of this, also contains interesting details about how he excerpted examples from the “Lithuanian Bible.” “As I read,” he wrote, “I underlined every phrase in which I encountered a new word, or a word whose meaning was unclear, or which had a different meaning. I entrusted the transcription of the underlined phrases to pupils in the fourth and fifth grades, and they have already given me more than five thousand slips, each containing a separate phrase, with one or two initial syllables of the following word indicated in the upper left corner of the slip”20. Having thus assembled a substantial collection of lexical material from the “Lithuanian Bible,” J. Juška began processing it in mid-February. “I am now setting about compiling the foundation of the proposed root dictionary,” he writes to I. I. Sreznevsky21. тики“, т. V, 1861. О работе над этим трудом Й. Юшка сообщал ранее И. И. Срезневскому в письмах (4) от 24.VIII.1856 г., (6) от 8.IX.1856г., (7) от 31.X.1856 и (8) от 6. XI.1856. См. ЦГАЛИ, ф. 436, оп. 1, ед. хр. 1433, л.л. 9–10, 12–13, 14, 16, 19. 16 TsGALI, fond 436, inv. 1, item 1433, fol. 22. 17 Ibid. 18 In a letter (4) dated 24.VIII.1856, J. Juška, with his characteristic modesty, wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky about this review that “it was written both hastily and carelessly” and “does not possess the qualities that would entitle it to be submitted to the Department” (TsGALI, fond 436, inv. 1, item 1433, fol. 9). 19 In the “List of Books Borrowed… from Academician Sreznevsky’s Library,” which J. Juška sent upon his return to Novgorod, item no. 6 is the “Lithuanian Bible,” with no publication details (TsGALI, fond 436, inv. 1, item 1433, fol. 24). Apparently, this refers to that very edition of the “Lithuanian Bible” (4th ed., Tilsit, 1724), from which J. Juška cited examples to illustrate the differences between modern and ancient Lithuanian. See I. V. Juškevič. On the Dialects of the Lithuanian Language, pp. 361–365. 20 TsGALI, fond 436, inv. 1, item 1433, fol. 26. 21 Ibid. 207 He expected to obtain rich material for the “Root Dictionary” from his brother, the priest Antanas. “From my brother,” he wrote in the same letter of 19.II.1857, “I hope to receive shortly up to three thousand Lithuanian words collected from the living vernacular speech of Lithuanians in the vicinity of Panevėžys. This is important material for my work”22. Whether J. Juška already had a firm intention at that time to reflect in the “Root Dictionary” the “living vernacular speech of Lithuanians” in the vicinity of Panevėžys is difficult to say. Letter (14) of 5.IV.1857 seems to indicate that he intended to base the “Root Dictionary” solely on data from written sources. “While collecting materials for the intended root dictionary, I write down on cards only those words that I encounter while reading,” he informed I. I. Sreznevsky23. Probably in March–April 1857, J. Juška received two more books in Lithuanian from I. I. Sreznevsky: K. Donelaitis’s “The Seasons” (“Metai”; J. Juška calls it “A Rural Poem” and “The Four Seasons”) and K. Širvydas’s “Articles of Tales” (“Punktaj Sakimu,” apparently the second edition, 1845). In letter (13) of 25.III.1857, he wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky that these books “are of considerable importance for the study of the Lithuanian language”24. Later, in another letter [(15) of 9.V.1857], he again observed: “I found Donelaitis’s rural poem to be a very abundant source for my work”25. The new sources of lexical material interrupted the work, already begun, of compiling entries for the “Root Dictionary” on the basis of data drawn from the “Lithuanian Bible.” “Having received two new sources for my work,” he wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky, “I set aside for a time the processing of words excerpted from the Bible and took up reading Donelaitis. On the first pages, reading proceeded rather slowly, because almost every word had to be investigated (in the original: ‘had to’; G. V.)”26. As he excerpted words from K. Donelaitis’s poem, J. Juška also immediately carried out an initial processing of the material he was collecting. How he did this can be seen from his letter (13) of 25.III.1857. He wrote: “I write the words on cards; I assign a separate card to each root. If the words developed from a single root do not fit on one card, I attach another card to it, numbered second. I arranged the cards alphabetically by letter. For each letter I made two sections of cards. In one I placed cards on which roots that developed into various forms were written; the other contains cards with roots that appeared in one, two, or three forms. For the time being, the cards are arranged in piles on the table. These piles every day 22 Ibid., fol. 27. 23 Ibid., fol. 29 24 Ibid., fol. 28. 25 Ibid., fol. 41. In his letters, J. Juška renders K. Donelaitis’s surname in various ways: Donalaitis, Donalaitis, Doneleitīs, Donalait, and even Dopaleitis, evidently a slip of the pen (the Lithuanian n is written instead of the Russian letter и). 26 TsGALI, fond 436, inventory 1, archival unit 1433, fol. 28. 208 grow”27. J. Juška explained the forms excerpted from K. Donelaitis’s poem with examples and accompanied them with translations into Russian28. At the beginning of April, in a letter (14) dated 5.IV.1857, J. Juška sent seven sample entries for the “Root Dictionary” (“seven sample cards for the root dictionary I intend to compile”), reporting at the same time that he was continuing to collect material (the number of words “increases daily, the mass of materials grows”) and that he would arrange them into “an organic system” only after examining all the “Lithuanian sources” in his possession. He continued reading K. Donelaitis’s poem, from which by that time he had already excerpted (and, one may assume, partly processed) up to 600 roots. As for the words excerpted from the “Lithuanian Bible” (about 6,000 in number), J. Juška reported that “they will have to wait for another worker”29. Two months later, in a letter (15) dated 9.VI.1857, J. Juška informed I. I. Sreznevsky that he was engaged in “processing words,” of which he already had 10,000, and that he hoped to “make considerable progress with his work” during the approaching summer vacation30. In letter (16) of 20.VII.1857, he again wrote that he was occupied with “sorting Lithuanian roots”31. However, work on the “Root Dictionary” proceeded more slowly than J. Juška had expected and hoped. Four months later, on 23.XI.1857 (letter 17), apologizing for not having reported for a long time “on the state of his work,” J. Juška wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky: “I cannot boast of any notable successes with it, but henceforth it advances daily. The reasons for its slowness are official duties, the scope of the work itself, and poor health”32. He also reported that “a great deal of material gathered from sources has accumulated,” and hoped to present I. I. Sreznevsky with “at least the beginning of my work” in mid-December, that is, in about a month, and to explain in person in the near future “some circumstances relating to this subject”33. Apparently, J. Juška here means the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary.” J. Juška kept his promise. In letter (18) dated 16.XII.1857, he reported: “By today’s post I am sending the beginning of my work to the editorial office of the ‘Scientific Notes’,” promising to prepare “the following sheets” by the holidays (probably Christmas)34. 27 Ibid., fol. [28a]. 28 Ibid., fol. 41. 29 Ibid., fol. 29. 30 Ibid., fols. 41–42. It is possible that this was precisely the message by J. Juška that I. I. Sreznevsky had in mind when he wrote in June 1857, in the “Note” cited above concerning K. A. Jūrdanas’s Lithuanian-Russian dictionary, that J. Juška “is now… bringing his attempt at a Lithuanian root dictionary to completion.” Judging by J. Juška’s letters, I. I. Sreznevsky had no other factual basis for this claim. 31 Ibid., fol. 43. 32 Ibid., fol. 45. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., fol. 46. 14. Lietuvių terminologija 209 An eye disease forced J. Juška to spend the next several months “almost in complete inactivity”35 [letter (19), dated 13.IV.1858]. For “his work,” as stated in this letter, he was now expecting a “new rich source”: L. Ivinskis, publisher of a Lithuanian calendar, had promised to send him for review “the first three parts of the Polish-Samogitian dictionary he was compiling”36. A month later [13. V.1858, letter (20)], J. Juška reported: “My work is progressing very quietly now; I hope to devote myself to it more seriously in my free time”37. In the summer of 1858, J. Juška visited Lithuania. “The main purpose of this… journey,” he wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky on 27.VIII.1858 (letter 21), “was both to gather new materials for the Lithuanian-Slavic root dictionary I am compiling (in earlier letters J. Juška called it the ‘Root Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language’ or simply the ‘Root Dictionary’—G.V.) and to determine more precisely the principal dialects of our Lithuanians, as well as to clarify what I already have”38. In connection with this, he intended “to travel through all parts of our Lithuania, listen more closely to the speech of Lithuanian peasants, and talk with experts and lovers of the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian antiquities”; however, because of the short time at his disposal (one month), he had to “limit himself to visiting the towns of Vorniai, Eirėgala and Pušalotas and their surroundings”39. J. Juška returned from his trip to Lithuania with rich materials for the “Root Dictionary.” He wrote in the same letter: “I acquired a considerable store of materials for my root dictionary. I found many new root forms of the language in the songs and tales mentioned above, transcribed in villages that were mostly remote and surrounded by forests, and from old people who spoke only their native language. I wrote down many new words in conversation with them. I also acquired several printed books that I did not yet have. Among them were remarkable works on the customs of the ancient Lithuanians (by Dovkont, under the pseudonym Laukys)40. But I found an incomparably richer source in my brother’s newly revised handwritten lexicon of the Pušalotas dialect (14 versts from the town of Panevėžys). Here the meaning of every word is illustrated by an example taken from living speech, together with the word being explained. Each word is accompanied by synonyms, whose meanings are explained in their respective entries. For example, for the word kalbėti, ‘to speak,’ 50 synonyms are given. This feature of the lexicon mentioned is very important for a Lithuanian lexicographer. The translation is into Polish because my brother does not know Russian”41. Apparently, the “Root Dictionary” is also referred to in letter (22), dated 17.XII.1858, in which J. Juška laments that over such a long period 35Ibid., fol. 47. 36Ibid. 37Ibid., fol. 49. 38Ibid., fol. 50. 39Ibid. 40 Имеется в виду книга С. Дауконтаса: Budą Senowęs Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ir Žamajtiû (1845). 41TsGALI, fond 436, inventory 1, file 1433, fol. 51. 210 for a time, “had not yet fulfilled the word given regarding his work”42. He explained this by two reasons: the main one was “an eye disease, the consequence of which was eye irritation that prevented him from working enough for the progress of his work to become more noticeable”; the other was “daily official duties, which took up all the best time and deprived him of all freshness of strength and vigor of spirit”43. J. Juška hoped that, upon moving to a new post in the village of Medved (where “the new position would be freer and easier”44), he would be able “to take up the work he had undertaken with greater energy and success”45. The next and final mention of the “Korneslov” belongs to the Kazan period of J. Juška’s life. Having described in his letter (25) of 22.III.1862 his journey to Kazan and his first impressions of the city, J. Juška went on to tell I. I. Sreznevsky that his work at the Kazan Military School took up most of his time, and that consequently only the evenings remained for him “for the Lithuanian root dictionary.” He wrote that, during his month and a half in Kazan, he “had only managed to compile tables of words beginning with vowel sounds,” and expressed the hope that later, once “his teaching activities had settled into their routine,” he would “have more free time” (for studying the Lithuanian language)46. In subsequent letters, J. Juška reports work on a “Lithuanian-Russian dictionary” [(28) of 28.XII.1866]47, on the “Lithuanian-Russian dictionary being compiled by us (i.e., by J. Juška and his brother Antanas, — G. V.)” [(30) of 5.X.1876]48, on an “attempt at a Lithuanian-Russian dictionary” [(31) of 29.III.1877]49, and so forth—that is, on the scholarly dictionary and on the well-known “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” on which the Juška brothers worked and which was published much later in three installments (1897—1922). Work on the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary,” however, was apparently interrupted in the mid-1860s, about ten years after it began, and was never resumed. The reason should probably be sought in the forced change of residence and employment (after Kazan, from 1864 he was an inspector and then a Latin teacher in Nizhny Novgorod; from 1867, a Latin teacher in Yekaterinburg), which hindered systematic study of the Lithuanian language50, the sla- 42 Ibid., fol. 52. 43 Ibid. 44 This refers to the anticipated appointment of J. Juška as inspector of the Novgorod Cadet School, which was probably located in the village of Medved. 45 TsGALI, f. 436, inv. 1, file 1433, fol. 52. 46 Ibid., fol. 57. As we can see, in his earlier letters J. Juška does not write that he would soon submit the prepared “Korneslov” to the Department of Russian Language and Literature. Whether I. I. Sreznevsky relied on this when informing the Department that J. Juška’s work on the “Korneslov” was nearing completion (see above, p. 206) is not known. It is possible that some of J. Juška’s letters have not survived. Perhaps J. Juška promised to finish and send the “Korneslov” during one of his meetings with I. I. Sreznevsky. 47 TsGALI, f. 436, inv. 1, file 1433, fol. 66. 48 Ibid., fol. 69. 49 Ibid., fol. 70. 50 After moving to Yekaterinburg (now Sverdlovsk), J. Juška wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky [letter (29) of 12.II.1867] that, as he hoped, his teaching position would give him “more time to study the Lithuanian language as well,” and added: “Life in the Urals, too, should not weaken my Lithuanian spirit” (TsGALI, f. 436, inv. 1, file 1433, fol. 68). 14⁴ 211 his health, and then the intensive work on the aforementioned “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”. Such is the information contained in J. Juška’s letters to I. I. Sreznevsky concerning the progress of J. Juška’s work on the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” and the sources of its lexical materials. Let us now turn to the question of what J. Juška’s “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” was supposed to be. There can hardly be any doubt that the idea of creating the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” was suggested to J. Juška by I. I. Sreznevsky (possibly in the summer of 1856, when I. I. Sreznevsky was vacationing in Novgorod). In any case, in one of his letters [(17) of 23.XI.1857], reporting on the “state of his work,” by which he probably meant the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary,” J. Juška acknowledges that this work owed its “idea and spiritual and material assistance” to I. I. Sreznevsky51. There is no doubt that I. I. Sreznevsky was not only kept informed about the preparation of the “Root Dictionary” (as is clear from what has been said above), but also set out his views on what it ought to be, what its entries should contain, and so on. J. Juška paid close attention to the advice of the already eminent scholar and followed it. In letter (13) of 25.III.1857, J. Juška wrote: “…Holding your advice and instructions in high regard, Izmail Ivanovich, in my deliberations I confine myself to defining the meanings of the word under consideration, explaining them with phrases in which it occurs, and comparing Lithuanian roots only with Slavic ones”52. It can therefore be stated with confidence that it was I. I. Sreznevsky who recommended limiting the entries in the “Root Dictionary” to explaining word meanings, illustrating them with textual examples, and comparing Lithuanian roots only with corresponding Slavic roots. J. Juška did, however, “allow himself,” as he writes in the same letter, to “compare Lithuanian words with Latvian and Old Prussian words”; but, apparently to justify this initiative in I. I. Sreznevsky’s eyes, he immediately adds that he had included “Latvian and Old Prussian in the scope of my studies for my own benefit, wishing to become acquainted with these languages as close relatives of the Lithuanian language”53. Nevertheless, J. Juška left the final decision on whether to include Latvian and Old Prussian words to I. I. Sreznevsky. “The inclusion of words and roots from the Latvian and Old Prussian languages in the root dictionary I intend to compile will depend entirely on your advice and instructions, Izmail Ivanovich, which I value highly and will faithfully carry out”54. The “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” was thus supposed to be a comparative Lithuanian-Slavic dictionary incorporating corresponding words from Old Prussian and Latvian, languages most closely related to Lithuanian. It was envisaged that, unlike Lithuanian and Slavic words, Latvian and Old Prussian words would be explained with examples 51 TsGALI, fond 436, inventory 1, file 1433, fol. 45. 52 Ibid., fol. 28. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., fols. 28–[28a]. 212 will not be, but will be cited “only in order to show which roots have been preserved in the closest branches of the Lithuanian language”55. Accordingly, I. Juška proposed including in the “Root Dictionary” not all Lithuanian words, but only those that are of interest specifically from a comparative perspective. This is apparently how his following words in letter (14) of 5.IV.1857 should be understood: “Of the collected materials, only what is essentially important and in accordance with the purpose will be taken for the work (so in the manuscript, — G.V.)”56. As for “the scope of the proposed work,” I. Juška believed that “one could limit oneself to only those forms that help explain the various types of roots and their meanings”57. A concrete idea of the development and content of the dictionary entries in the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” is provided by the seven sample entries (“sample cards”) that J. Juška sent to I. I. Sreznevsky with letter (14) of 5.IV.1857. These entries are written on 10 cards measuring approximately 9 × 11 cm. The existing (archival) pagination (fols. 30–39) does not reflect their actual sequence. We publish them in the alphabetical order of the head roots. The sample entries for the “Root Dictionary” were sent by J. Juška at the request of I. I. Sreznevsky. This is clear from the same letter from J. Juška: “I was very pleased that you, most highly esteemed Izmail Ivanovich, asked me for sample cards of the root dictionary I had planned”58. J. Juška sent these entries “in the form they are in,” but considered it necessary to emphasize that “they are far from being in their final form”59. They reflect the initial stage of work on the “Root Dictionary.” This is evident from the fact that J. Juška generally provides illustrative material from K. Donelaitis’s poem (examples are marked with the conventional abbreviation “Don.”), with a Russian translation, and occasionally from the “Lithuanian Bible” (more precisely, the Gospel), citing Old Church Slavonic parallels from the Ostromir Gospel (abbreviated O.E.). J. Juška himself also writes about this: “The cards I am sending contain forms from Donelaitis (sic! — G.V.), and only a few from the Gospel”60. He also noted that “of the seven roots being sent, two, it seems, are not found in the Slavic language: lik and mau”61. The letter (14) of 5.IV.1857 quoted here is also extremely interesting because in it J. Juška assesses his own abilities (as always, very modestly) in compiling the “Root Dictionary” and places great hope in I. I. Sreznevsky’s assistance and guidance in this complex and important scholarly undertaking. He wrote: “I cannot but confess to you, most highly esteemed Izmail Ivanovich, that my knowledge of contemporary philology is very limited; and my view of the undertaking 55 Ibid., fol. 29. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 213 the work may be quite inaccurate. If I venture to undertake so important a work, requiring extensive and thorough knowledge of modern philology, and if I can do anything useful, it is only under Your guidance. Therefore, highly esteemed Izmail Ivanovich, place upon me a new debt of filial gratitude if, judging from the sample cards I am sending, which show my approach to the work begun and the methods I employ, you do not refuse (in the original: “refuse,” — Г. В.) to communicate to me frankly and directly your opinion of my work, and at the same time your paternal advice” 62. It is not known how I. I. Sreznevsky evaluated the sample articles for J. Juška’s “Root Dictionary,” or how he responded to his request for general guidance in compiling the “Root Dictionary.” In subsequent letters, J. Juška says nothing about this. Nor is I. I. Sreznevsky’s opinion known of the “beginning” of the work, which J. Juška intended to send him and probably did send in mid-December 1857 (see above, p. 209). We can only presume with a fair degree of confidence that both J. Juška’s sample articles and the “beginning” of his work made a favorable impression on I. I. Sreznevsky, since J. Juška continued working on the “Root Dictionary” and regularly informed him of its progress. And when J. Juška regrets the slow progress of this work, he complains of eye trouble or official duties that took up much of his time and energy, but not of any unsympathetic or critical attitude on I. I. Sreznevsky’s part that might have cooled J. Juška’s desire to continue working on the “Root Dictionary.” Such is the information contained in J. Juška’s letters about his “Lithuanian Root Dictionary.” It casts considerable new light on this important work by the Lithuanian linguist, to which he devoted much effort and time free from official duties. Unfortunately, J. Juška’s work did not become a “remarkable acquisition for Russian linguistic literature,” nor was it published under the patronage of the Academy of Sciences’ Department of Russian Language and Literature, as I. I. Sreznevsky had wished and hoped, consistently supporting J. Juška’s Lithuanian studies in word and deed. It should be assumed that work on the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary” was not completed. Otherwise, J. Juška would certainly have informed I. I. Sreznevsky, who had been kept abreast for many years of the work on compiling the “Root Dictionary.” In conclusion to what has been said about the “Lithuanian Root Dictionary,” let us note the following. The information already cited allows us to conclude that the relations between J. Juška and I. I. Sreznevsky were not merely formal and were not limited (as is also clear from other letters by J. Juška published in “Baltic-Slavic Studies”) solely to purely scholarly matters, as B. Tolutienė63 believes. The relations between the aspiring Lithuanian scholar and the already eminent Slavist, after I. I. Sreznevsky’s stay with his family in the summer of 1856. 62 Там же, л.л. 29 и 40 (архивная пагинация письма прерывается потому, что между этими листами вложены 10 „пробных карточек“ с нумерацией от 30 до 39 л.). 63 В. Tolutienė. A. Juška leksikografas, p. 293. 214 In Novgorod, their relations became quite friendly and warm, especially in the early years of their correspondence, although J. Juška always regarded I. I. Sreznevsky with profound respect. The following incident bears this out. At the very end of 1856, J. Juška spent three days in St. Petersburg, where he spoke with I. I. Sreznevsky about his scholarly pursuits. Inspired by the welcome and conversation, J. Juška wrote to I. I. Sreznevsky soon after returning from St. Petersburg: “Several days have now passed since my fortunate journey to the capital. I returned from this three-day trip with such enthusiasm and readiness for new work as one can acquire only (in the manuscript: бріобресть, — Г. В.) through the special favor of fortune. I owe my new life exclusively to you, highly esteemed Izmail Ivanovich; I thank you, and do not know how to thank you. I also thank Ekaterina Fedorovna (I. I. Sreznevsky’s wife, — Г. В.) for her most attentive hospitality; I spent those three days as if among my closest and kindest relatives”64. Let us also note that, in response to J. Juška’s request, I. I. Sreznevsky sent him the books he needed and offered advice, which J. Juška, still inexperienced in the scholarly description of language, required. J. Juška greatly valued his help. In letter (12) of 19.II.1857, for example, he wrote: “The further I advance in my studies of the Lithuanian language, and the more familiar I become with the most ancient monuments of Slavic writing, the more I am convinced of the significance and importance of your guidance and assistance; the more deeply a feeling of respect and gratitude toward you, Izmail Ivanovich, as the cause of a new period in my spiritual life, takes root in my heart. Please believe my words, Izmail Ivanovich: they are the expression of my soul”65. 3. “Names of Degrees of Kinship” was sent by J. Juška to I. I. Sreznevsky with letter (22) of 17.XII.1858.66 It states: “I am sending with this letter the names of degrees of kinship in the Lithuanian language. They were collected by my brother, Fr. Antanas; I arranged them according to their mutual relations and translated them into Russian.”67 This makes clear that in the original list of kinship terms—that is, the list sent to J. Juška by his brother Antanas—the terms were arranged differently (perhaps alphabetically, with or without Polish translations), and that in the version published here they are grouped by J. Juška according to degrees of consanguinity and affinity. 64 ЦГАЛИ ф. 436 оп. 1 ед. хр. 1433, л. 23. 65 Там же, л. 28. 66 In the collection of J. Juška’s letters to I. I. Sreznevsky, “Names of Degrees of Kinship” is mistakenly enclosed in letter (8) of 6.XI.1856 (leaves 17–18 in the overall pagination). On the face of this list’s title, another hand has written: “From a letter to the editor I. V. Juškevičius”; before the word “Names,” “I hereby submit” has been inserted, and above the words “collected by Fr. Antanas,” the words “my brother” have been added. These additions were probably made to facilitate I. I. Sreznevsky’s presentation of this material at a meeting of the Department of Russian Language and Literature. 67 ЦГАЛИ, ф. 436, оп. 1, ед. хр. 1433, л. 52. 215 I DICTIONARY OF LITHUANIAN-SANSKRIT CORRESPONDENCES, COMPILED BY I. JUŠKA A Abída, offense, vādh, to offend. Ájdrus, windy, vidḥra, clear. Ájszkus, clear, jaças, brilliance. Ákis, eye, akś, id. Álksnis, alder, alka, tree. Áikanas, hungry, to crave. Ánksztas, narrow, jug, narrowness. Ánglis, coal, angāra, id. Arklis, horse, arvan, id. Artí, near, ārāt, id. Ászara, tear, asra, id. Ászis, axle, akśā, wheel. Ássu, or essu, esmi or esmū, I am, asmi, id. Ásztras, sharp, aç, to sharpen, açra, point. Áukszstas, high, ūccha, id. Áusti, to weave, vē, ūi, id. Áugti, to grow, vakś, id. Áusis, ear, gavśa, id. Áuszra, dawn, djāutra, light. Awis, sheep, avi, id. B Bagóts, rich, bhaga, happiness, bhōga, wealth. Balá, bog, mala, dirt, palata, id. Báltas, white, bhāla, light. Bánda, herd, kāṇḍa, crowd. Bárwa, color, paint, varṇa, id. Barzdá, beard, barba (Latin). Básas, barefoot, paç, to go. Baczka, barrel, vak, to be bent. Bárscczej, borscht, bhṛtja, food. Bažnicze, church, vāsa, building. Bárti, to scold, garh, id. Biégti, to run, bhag, id. Biárzas, birch, bhurga, id. Bibis, penis, pāju, buttocks; çepa, id. Bijótis, to fear, bhēś, bhī, id. Biłóti, to speak, bhā, to shine; bhas, to speak. Blúdas, dish, bowl. Blusá, flea. Bóba, woman, old woman, paru, nurse. Bókszta, tower, vēça, house. Brazdá, furrow, ṛh, to pasture; vardh, to cut. Brísti, to ford, gāh, id. Brólis, brother, bhrātṛ. Buczióti, to kiss, çub, id. Bújlis, bull. Búris, multitude, vāra, id. Búti, to be, bhū, id. C Cibúle, onion, çara, id. Ciéna, price, ci, I gather. Ciélas, whole, kēvala, id. Cúdas, wonder, kuh (for kudh), to astonish. Cupk, expresses a ringing sound, ciṅ, to ring. D Dalís, share, dal, dā, dō, to divide. Dantis, tooth, dança, id. Degti, to burn, dah, id., du, id. Dengti, to cover, sthag, id. Deszinas, right, dakṣiṇa, id. Diena, day, dina, id. Dieti, to put, dhā, to place. Dirbti, to work; dariti, to do, drāgh, to strive, drāh, to stay awake. Diwaj, wonder, div, to shine. Draskíti, to tear apart, dru, to damage. Draúgas, companion, friend. Drebiéti, to tremble, bṛh, to fear. Duktíe, daughter, gen. dukteres, druhī and duhitṛ, id. Dūmas, smoke, dhūma, id. Durís, door, dvār, dvāra, id. Dūrnius, fool [sic!], dus, dur, badly. Dūrti, to prick, dṛ, id. Dū’ti, to give, dā, id. Džiūti, to dry, çam, çuś, id. Dzwániti, to ring, dhvan, svan, id. E Ejti, to go, ṛt, at, it, id. Éžeras, and azeras, lake, asra, corner. Éžis, hedgehog, ahi, id. G Gajdís, rooster, gai, to make a sound. Galwa, head. Gana, enough, ghaṇa, much. Garsas, sound, voice, gṛ, to make a sound. Gajletis, to regret, repent, khai, id. Gaubti, to bend, çōca, id. Gejsti, to thirst, gādh, kak, id., gṛdh, id. Geležis, iron, asala, id. Geltónas, yellow, harisa, id. Gesíti, to extinguish, put out, gah, to destroy. Giárkle, throat, kṛka, id. Giedóti, to sing, gai, id. Gímdti, to give birth, jan, id. 216 Gínti, to drive, ghṛṇ, and ghịn, to seize. Gísla, vein. Gíwas, alive, giv, to live. Giwáte, snake, gam, to move. Góbszus, greedy, gádh, also, to desire. Godoti, to respect, gēv, to honor. Griaúti, to rumble, gr, to make a sound. Griówis, ditch, krivi, pit. Grébti, to seize, gṛh, hṛ, id. Griékas, sin, ghur, to be ignorant. Gudínti, to excite, gádh. Gúžas, swelling from a blow, guhia, buttocks. I Imaníti, to understand, to be able, umā, same. Ímti, to take, to seize, jam, same. Iszmaníti, to understand, midh, mēdh, same. Iáunas, young [sic!], youthful, juvan, same, júni, young woman. Ieszóki [sic!], to search, iěh, same. Iúngti, to join, ju, jung, jug, to bind. Iaugti, to join, jat, to put in order. Iúngas, yoke, juga, same. Iúsznikas, blood soup, júša, pea soup. K Kalbiéti, to speak, khjā, to chatter, valk, id. Káǰlis, skin, čar-man, id. Kálas, stake, čala, id. Kalė, bitch, čava, puppy. Kadrā, blanket, çal, to cover; čali, covering. Kaktá, nape, ghāta, id. Kámpas, corner, kōna, id. Kanápis, hemp, çana, id. Kąnsti, to bite, kans, to destroy. Kárwe, cow, çṛ, to pierce, çru, horn. Kasá, braid, kača, hair. Kásti, to dig, kaš, to test. Katé, cat, gāh-aka, id. Káulas, bone, çalāka, id. Kauti, to forge, ku, to produce a sound. Kawóti, to hide, gal, kag, to cover. Kiaúle, pig, kōla, ditto. Kiaúzsis, egg, koça, ditto. Kiális, knee, gānu, ditto. Kelí, several, kala, a small quantity. Képti, to bake, pač, ditto. Kíbti, to cling, čib, to seize. Kírmis, worm, kṛmi, ditto. Kírpti, to cut, kṛp-ana, ditto. Kírsti, to chop, khur, kṛt, ditto. Klíszas, lame, klíva, ditto. Klausíti, to obey, çru, ditto. Kréjwas, crooked. Krésti, to shake, tras, ditto. Kraújas, blood. Kúlti, to pound, ghṛṣ, ditto. Kŭrmis, rat, çuṣira, same. Kúrti, to heat, čur, to burn. Kuósiti, to cough, kās, same. Kupetá, bump [sic!], kuta, patala, same; kupa, cliff. Kúte, bread, kuta, house. Kúsziti, to touch, kuč, same. Kwepiéti, to smell, vās, same. Kiáke, cone, cikha, tip. L Léngwas, light, laghu, same. Lépsna, flame, plu, to blow. Linaj, flax. Lipti, to cling, lī, same, lip, to mold. Lísti, to climb, liç, to go. Lízdas, nest, nída, same. Lúbieti, to have an inclination, lubh, same. Ł Łábas, prosperous, good, labh, to acquire. Łajzíti, to lick, lih, ditto. Łápas, leaf, palāça, ditto. Łaúzti, to break, lup, ditto. Łóbिस, property, labh, to acquire. Łúpas, mouth, lapana, mouth. Łúpti, to beat, lup, ditto. M Májszas, sack, maçaka, same. Majszíti, to mix, miçr, same. Majníti, to change, mē, same. Márgas, motley, mārga, backside. Mážas, small, man-āk, less. Miaúti, to moo, mukha, sound. Maldā, prayer, mantra, same. Miliéti, to love, mil, to be in relations. Miésa, meat, mānsa, same. Miênuo, month, mās, same. Mígła, fog, gloom, mih, to wet. Mínti, to knead, mī, mināmi, I knead [sic]. Mirkióti, to squint, mis with the preposition ut, to open the eyes, with the preposition ni, to close the eyes. Mírti, to die. Mízti, to urinate, mih, same. Mólis, clay, mala, dirt, māuli, earth. Móteris, moteriszke, woman, mātṛ, mother. Mojóti, to rock, mā, to wave. 217 Mótina, mother, mātṛ, ditto. Mūras, stone wall, pura, house; mur, to enclose with a stone wall. Murmėti, to grumble, marmara, rustling. Mūse, fly, makša, ditto. Mūszti, to strike, muš, mich, mī, ditto. N Naujās, new, nava, navja, id. Najkinti, destroy, nakk, id. Nészti, carry, nī, id. Nósis, nose, nasā, id. O Ōbalis, apple tree, amra, tree, amla, sour. P Pajniōti, confuse, çul, id. Pakūta, epithemia, kuth, to be sad. Párszas, piglet, pras, give birth. Pík­ti, be angry, vakš, makš, id. Pláukti, swim, plu, id. Póta, feast, pā, drink. Praszti, ask, pračh, id. Priételis, friend, prijja, dear; pri, love. Pūjkus, proud, vakš, grow. Pūlkas, multitude, crowd, varga, id. Pūʼlti, fall, pat, id.; pad, move. Pūʼdas, pot, pūta, vessel. Pūrwas, mud, parikšā, swamp. Putrā, gruel, trn, to eat. Pīhwas, belly, pāli, thigh. R Rātai, cart, ratha, id. Rāgas, horn, çru, id. Rāṇka, hand, rankh, to move. Rasā, dew, rasa, water. Raudōti, to sob, to cry, rud, to make cry. Raudōnas, red, rāhita, id. (for rodhita). Rautī, to tear, khur, id. Rāwas, horn, krivi, pit. Riedīti, to dress, rādh, to do. Riekti, to shout, ru, kruç, id. Riātas, rare, rīti, limit. Rietīs, sieve, riš, to separate. Riežti, to cut, Russian id. Rinkti, to gather, çṛan. Rīti, to devour, Greek, to swallow. Rīkšte, switch. Rugēj, rye, rāgī, a kind of grain in India. 218 Rūpintis, to care for, rup, to trouble. Rīžtis, to resolve, riç, riš, to kill. Rópe, turnip. S Sāpnas, dream, svapna, id. Sapnuōti, to see in a dream, svap, to sleep. Saūle, sun, sūrja, id. Sėgti, to attach, saǵ, id. Sėkti, to follow, sač, id. Sesuo, sister, gen. seseres, svasṛ, id. Siedėti, to sit, siesti, to sit down, sad, sīd, id. Siėkti, to reach, to get, sagh, id. Sidābras, silver, sita, obhra, white gold. Sīla, strength, çila, nature, character. Sīlnas, weak, alpa, id. Siūrbi, to sip, sṛǵ, to pour. Siūsti, to send, prėsājāmi, I send. Skęsti, to drown, skand, to fall. Skūsti, to shave, ghṛṣ, to scrape. Smértis, death, māra, mor. Smirdėti, to stink, to smell foul [so!], mṛdh, to be damp. Sodžiālka, pond, çada, mud. Spjaūti, to spit, plu, to wet. Spīrti, to kick, prš, to strike. Sprōgti, to burst, pras, to stretch. Stenėti, to groan, stan, id. Stėjgti, to strive, stigh, to enter. Stiebas, stem. Stīklas, glass, stuč, to shine. Stōgas, roof, stagh, to cover. Stōti, to stand, stowieti, to stand, sthā, id. Su, with, sam or sa, id. Sūditi, to judge, sundh, to cleanse. Sūpti, to rock, kšubh, sōpana, id. Sūnus, son, sūnu, id. Sūris, cheese, sara, condensed milk. T Tamsūs, dark, tamas, darkness. Tamsībė, darkness, dhvānta, id. Tārti, to say, tark, to speak. 1. Tarp, between, antar, id.; inside (ап instead of sam). Tatūszis, daddy, tāta, id. Tėkti, to flow, tik, to move. Tiatā, aunt, tāta, venerable. Tiewas, father, pitṛ, id. Tītas, bridge, dharana, id. Tawōras, goods, dvr, to acquire. Traūkti, to drag, trakh, id. Trānk­smas, anxiety, dhrānkš, to cry out. Trīnti, to rub. Trōkszti, to thirst, trš, id. Trusiėti, to care for, dru, to run. 3. Turiëti, to hold, dhr. dhi, id. Twóra, fence, dhára, id. Twóti, to cut, to roll, çvas, id. Twínti, to overflow (of a river), dhumí, river. Twírtas, strong, sthira, id. 4. Túszczias, empty, hoarse, tučchna, id. 2. Tasziti, to hew, takš, id. U Úbagas, beggar, bhikš, to beg. Ugnís, fire. Úksusas, vinegar. Úrwa, burrow, ulwa, hollow. Úžpakalis, buttocks, phalaka, id. W Wábalas, beetle, váḍh, bádh, to disturb. Wáikas, child, gáha-ka, id. Wajkszióti, to walk, vá, id., vakh, vát, id. Wagis, thief, váḍh, id. Wálgiti, to eat, vágā, food. Walijti, to have strength, valita, strong. Wanduó, undū, water, voda, wet; und, to be wet; vana, nitha, kam, kamandha, water. Wárgas, calamity, · varga, strength; to make uniform. Warlé, frog, var-anga, testiculus, vjanga, id. Wárna, crow, kârawa, id. Wárpas, ear of grain, vap, to fertilize. Wadínti, to call, hyé, id. Wártaj, gate, vára, id. Wáškas, wax, mákša, id. Wásara, summer, vasára, desire. Wárras, copper, āra id. Wésti, to lead, váḍh, id. Wéjzieti, to see, to look, wejdas, face, appearance. Wiéra, faith, var, to wish, to choose. Wiédras, bucket, pátra, vessel. Wiéjas, wies, wind, vá, to blow; vátara, wind. Widús, middle, madhja, id. Wilktis, to drag oneself, vargh, to move. Wirti, to boil, to cook, bhṛ, id. Wiras, man, vára, id. Wissados, always, sada, id. Wóditis, to quarrel, váda · quarrel. Wóditi, to harm, vadh, id. Wógti, to steal, vast, to offend. Wóžiti, to weigh, vága, strength. Z Zujkis, hare, kiškis, id., caça, id. Zansís, goose, hansi, id. Zibiéti, to shine, dju, djut, gūt, dhup, id., sibh, to shine. Zigis, step, çaǧǧ, to go. Zínsti, to suck, cŭs, id., cŭči, teat. Ziáme, žéame, žéme, earth, gmā, id. Isi = žióti, to gape, gábh, id. Ziuriéti, to look, to behold, çri, id.; ghṛ, to shine. Zónka, wife, ganí, gnā, id. Zwakis, candle, víti, light. Zwirblis, sparrow, vara, id. Zuwis, fish, vasu, id. Zwaigždé, star, cvid, to be white. Zwiéris, beast, dhurja, hvárja, horse. SZ Szaká, branch, çakhá, bough. Száltis, cold, gelu, Latin. Szárka, magpie, sāra, turdus salica. Sziaszi, six, šaš, id. Sziausztis, to bristle [sic!], hṛš, id. Sziaréj, wool, hṛš, to bristle [sic!]. Szirdis, heart, hṛd, id. Szkáditi, to harm, kaç, id. Szlówe, glory. Szlúbas, lame, khōl, to limp. Szókti, to dance, to jump, çaç, id. Szúdas, manure, súda, dirt. Szuwá, szu, gen. suznés, dog, çvan, gen. çunas, id.; çavaka, puppy. Szwéntas holy, çvi, to shine. CZ Cziúpti, to feel, čup, id. Cziúrkszti, to seep through, čut, čjut, to drip. И. В. Юшкевич. II SAMPLE ARTICLES OF LITHUANIAN ROOT VOCABULARY, COMPILED BY I. JUŠKA [1] Lik, liek, lajk, Latin lik. leek. Lik-ti, present liek-u, past lik-au, to remain. Latin lik-t, to lay, place, put. Pa-lik-ti, present pa-liek-u, past pa-lik-au, to leave, abandon; to remain. Latin pa-lik-t, to remain. Ir palik-kęs miestą Nazaret (Matt. 4. 13). And having left the city of Nazareth. 219 Pa-łajk-as, genitive pa-łajk-o, remainder, what is left. Latin at-leek-as, at-leek-s, pa-lik-s, ditto. Pa-łajk-is, masculine, pa-łajk-ie, feminine, remaining; old, worn-out, useless, good for nothing Isz-si-łajk-i-ti, present isz-si-łajk-au, past isz-si-łajk-iau, to subsist, provide for oneself, live. Kajp jusū Mylĭsta žiemos bėdoj issilajkėt’? How did Your Grace manage to provide for yourself in the hardship of winter? (Don. 1. 160). Łajk-i-ti, present łajk-au, past łajk-iau, to hold, consider someone to be something. Ir Burūs prastus per kiaulū jowalą łajko. And he considers simple peasants no better than pig fodder (Don. 1. 254). Pa-si-lik-ti, to remain. Ir ten pa-si-lik-o ikki Erodui numirus (Matt. 2. 15). And he was there until Herod died. O.E. At-lik-ti, to finish, complete. Juk dar Čzēso yr’ ir męs at-lik-sime darbus. For there is still time, and we will finish our work (Don. 1. 390). [2] Majn, Latin mi, main, Slavic мѣн (-main). Majn-a, genitive majn-os, me. Latin mi-hschana, majn-a, majn-oschana. Majn-i-ti, present majn-au, past majn-iau, to change. Latin mi-ht, main-iht, majn-oht. [3] Mau, mow, Latin mau, mauk. Mau-ti, present mau-ju and mau-nu (j, n, interchangeable), past mow-iau, to put on, don, insert. Latin mau-t, to bridle, put on a bridle. Už-si-mau-ti, to put on oneself. Ir sawo skrandą buriszką wieszėt ussimowęs (Don. 1. 126). And having put on his peasant sheepskin coat to go visiting. Nu-mau-ti, to take off. Latin po-mau-t. Kepurrę nu-mau-ja (Don. 1. 262): He takes off his hat. Mau-di-ti, present mau-d-au, past mau-dž-iau, to bathe. Mau-di-tis, to bathe oneself. Latin mauk-t, to pull off, strip off. [4] Mil, miel, mejl, mal, Old Prussian myl and mil, Latin mihł, Slavic мил. Mil-ie-ti, present mil-iu, past mil-ie-jau, to love, Old Prussian milyt, Latin mihł-eht, mihł-oht, mihł-inabt. Miel-as, m., miel-a, f. (Don. 1. 129), dear, beloved; Old Prussian mil-s, myl-as, Latin mihł-s. Meil-ie, gen. mejl-ies, love. Old Prussian myl-an (82), myl-in (89), Latin accusative mihł-iba, mihł-estiba. Mejl-ing-as, m., mejl-ing-a, f., gracious, friendly, benevolent. Latin mihł-igs. Sometimes children separate their parents with their graciousness. Sometimes children’s kindness separates parents from them. (Don. 1. 184). As though some benevolent benefactor. (Don. 1. 186). She greeted her gracious friend (Don. 1. 47). Mal-on-ie, gen. mal-on-ies, mercy, favor, benevolence (Don. 1. 158). Mīl-ist-a, gen. mīl-ist-os, mercy (used chiefly by Samogitians when addressing persons of rank). How did Your Grace manage to get by in the hardship of winter? (Don. 1. 160). [5] Min, men, man, mon; Latin min, man; Old Prussian men, min; Slavic мѣн, мън, мин, мѧ (=men) At-min-ti, pres. at-men-u, past at-min-iau, to remember, recall. Pa-min-ie-ti, pres. pa-men-u, past pa-min-ie-jau, to commemorate, call to mind, remember, not forget. Latin pee-min-neht, to think about something. But remember us too (Don. 1. 139), but do not forget us either. 220 Isz-min-tis, gen. isz-min-t-ies, mind, reason. Latin manna (prah̄ts). Isz-min-ting-as, gen. isz-min-ting-a, intelligent, judicious, wise. The wisest men came from the eastern lands to Jerusalem (Matt. 2. 2). O.E. Behold, wise men came from the East to Jerusalem. Pra-man-i-ti, pres. pra-man-au, past pra-man-iau, to invent, devise, make. New bast shoes are being woven. (Don. 1. 251). New bast shoes are being woven. Pra-mon-ie, gen. pra-mon-ies, invention, creation, work, image. The sun set about melting the frost’s creations with ice. (Don. 1. 3). The sun undertook to melt the frost’s creations of ice. Nu-si-min-ti, pres. nu-si-men-u, past nu-si-min-iau, to lose heart, be cowardly, grow timid. Past participle nu-si-min-es, nu-si-min-usi, disheartened, frightened; timid, cowardly; Mortally frightened (the owl) (Don. 1. 230). Mortally frightened (the owl). Old Prussian men-entwey, infinitive (1st class, 2nd conjugation), to mention, recall. At-min-t-is, gen. at-min-t-ies (n-cz-io), memory. Old Prussian men-isnan (in classes 1 and 2), men-issnan (in class 1), min-isnan (in class 2), accusative, same. Latin pee-min-neschana, pee-minna, same. O.E. memory. [6] Pju, pjau, pjow, pie, pej; Latin plau, Slavic пи. Pju-kl-as, gen. pju-kl-o, mowing; Latin plau-schana. Pjau-ti, pres. pjau-ju and pjau-nu (j and n contracted), past pjow-iau, to cut, mow, reap, saw. Latin plaut, same. Pie-wa, gen. pie-wos, meadow; Latin pla-wa. Pej-l-is, gen. pei-l-io, knife (Lat. nasis). Per-pjau-ti, to cut through, sever.... gerklė përpjaut (Don. 1. 233), to cut through the throat. [7] Spjau, spjow, Lat. ssplau, Slavic плю, пле, блю and бле. Old East Slavic плъ, плъ. Spjau-ti, present spjau-ju and spjau-nu (j and n abbreviated), past spjow-jau, to spit, spit out (cf. to vomit, vomit). Lat. sspIaut. Spjau-di-ti, present spjau-d-au, past spjau-dži-iau, to spit. Lat. splau-diht. Old East Slavic плъ-вати. Tai ir Bur’s tur spjau-dit (Don. 1. 123). He, too, must spit. III NAMES OF DEGREES OF KINSHIP IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE, COLLECTED BY K. S. ANTONIUS JUŠKEVIČIUS PREDOMINANTLY IN THE VICINITY OF THE TOWN OF PANEVEZYS (IN THE PUSZOLAT PARISH) Names of spouses in relation to each other. Moteristė, (dial., motė, mother), marriage. Pats, gen. patės, husband. Literally means “himself.” Wīrs, gen. o, husband. (A word in common use). Prejkszas, -o, (Prussian and Samogitian), second husband. Užkuris, o, (Prussian), second husband; (Samogitian, Obv.), third husband. Užtupis, -o, (Prussian), third husband; (Samogitian), fourth husband. Untszupas, -o, (Prussian), third husband; (Samogitian), fourth husband. Pati, gen. paczós, wife, literally means “herself.” Genterė, -es, (Prussian) wife of two brothers. 221 Husband’s relatives in relation to the wife. Szeszuras, -o, (жмуд.) Szás zuras, -o, (литов.) father-in-law. Anita, -os, (general), mother-in-law. Deweris, -o, (Pusz.) brother-in-law (Samogitian, obsolete). Diweris, -o, Inté, -es, (Pusz.) sister-in-law; wife of one’s brother-in-law. Mosza, -os, (Pusz.) sister-in-law [sic] (Samogitian, obsolete). The wife's relatives in relation to the husband.. Oszwis, -o (Prussian) Uoszwis, -o (Lithuanian) Uszwis, -o (Samogitian) father-in-law. Oszwé, -es (Prussian) Uoszwé, -es (Lithuanian) Uszwis, -o (Samogitian) mother-in-law Uszwené, -es (Samogitian), mother-in-law. Łajgonas, -o (Prussian), wife's brother. Łajgonéné, -es (Prussian), wife's brother's wife. Swajné, -es (Prussian), sister-in-law [sic] Swajnis, -o (Prussian), brother-in-law. Names for the father and his kin in relation to children. Téwas, -o, (general), father. Swotas, -o, (Push.), father of a young [sic] person or a young man. Tetis, gen. teczó, (Push.), father. Tetajtis, gen. tetajczo, (Push.), dear father. Tetutis, gen. tetuczó, Tetuszis, -o, Patéwis, -o, (general), stepfather. Patetis, gen. pateczó, (Push.), stepfather. Dédé, -es, (general), uncle, father's or mother's brother. Dédina, -os, uncle's wife Dédéna, -os, Teta, -os, (general), paternal and maternal aunt. Tétuła, (Push.) Tétuté, (general), dear aunt. Tétulé, (Push.) Tété́nas, -os, (Пуш.), uncle, husband of one’s aunt. Tétuténas, -os, (Push.), same. Brolenas, -o [так! Было -os, но s зачеркнуто], (Пуш.), cousin. Brolauczá, -os, (Пуш.), female cousin. Names for the mother and her relatives in relation to children. Moté, -es, (Пуш.), mother. Obsolete in other dialects. Moczé, -es, (Пуш.), mother. Obsolete in other dialects. Motina, -os, (general), mother. Matulé, -es, (general), mother dear. Matuté, -es, (general) Moczeka, -os, (general), stepmother [sic]. Pamomé [sic], -es, (Пуш.), stepmother [sic]. Awinas, -o, (Пуш.), maternal uncle. 222 Awinéné, -es, (Push.), aunt, wife of one’s paternal uncle. Seserénas, -o, (Push.), cousin, son of one’s maternal aunt. Seserécza, -os, (Push.), cousin, daughter of one’s maternal aunt. Names of children in relation to their parents. Sunus, -aus, (general), son. Marti, gen. marczós, daughter-in-law; Slavic: daughter-in-law. Posunis, o, (general), stepson. Dukté, -es, (general), daughter. Dukra, -os (Push.), daughter. Podukra, -os (Push.), stepdaughter. Anukas, -o, (Push.), grandson. Anuké, -es, (Push.), granddaughter. Names of ancestors. Boczús, -aus, Praboczús, -aus, Predkas, -o Prád́kas, -o ancestor. Senis, -o, (общее) Senelis, -o, (общее) Senutis, (cz)o (общее) Sentevis, -o (общ[ее]) Sursenis, -o, (общ[ее]) Sursenélis, -o (общ[ее]) Parkarszes, (sz)usó, (общ[ее]) Sené, -es, (общее) grandfather old man. old man. old man. old father. aged. aged. senile. properly Senelé, -es, (general) Senuté, -es, (general) Senmoté, -es, (Pushkin) Sursené, -es, (general) Sursenélé, es, (general) Bobuté, es, (general) grandmother old woman. little old woman. old woman. old mother. aged. aged. properly Names of children in relation to one another. Brolis, -o, (common), brother. Brólelis, -o, (common), little brother Brolajtis, (cz)o, Brolajtelis, -o, (diminutive) Brolelukas, -o, (diminutive) Brolitis, (cz)o, Brolitelis, -o, (diminutive) Brolitukas, -o, (diminutive) Brolitužis, -o, (diminutive) Brolukajtis, -(cz)o, (diminutive) Brolukas, -o, Brolekelis, -o, (second degree) Brolulajtis, (cz)o, (second degree) Brohutelis, -o, Brolulis, -o, Brohutajtis, -cz(o) [takl], (second degree) Brohutis, (cz)o, Brohužajtis, (cz)o, Brohužis, -o, Brohuželis, -o, (Push.) (second degree) Diminutive forms 223 Pusbrolis, -o, half-brother. Brotuszis, -o, (Push.), nephew, brother’s son. Old Russian bratanʹ, Church Slavonic bratanichʹ. Brotuszė, -ės (Push.), niece, brother’s daughter. Old Russian bratana. Church Slavonic bratanichna. Seja, -os, (Push.), sister. Sejelė, -ės, (Push.), little sister. Sesù, gen. sesers, (general), sister. Seserinczús, -aus, nephew, sister’s son. Seserinczá, -os, niece, sister’s daughter. Dwinei, -u, (general), twins. Dwinickej, -u, (Push.), twins. Names for persons related through spiritual kinship. Kumas, -o, (general), godfather. Kuma [sic!], -os, (general), godmother. Pirszlis, -o, (general), matchmaker. Podé, -es, (Pus.), godfather. Podéné, -es (Pus.), godmother. Swotas, -o (Samogitian), wedding attendant, witness at the registration of the newlyweds. Swoczė, -os (general), proxy mother. Biczùlis, -o (general), one who has taken a beehive for good luck. Bitùinkas, -o, (Pus.), same. Giminė, -ės, (general), kin. Giminajitis, (cz)o, relative. Giminajtė, -es, female relative. Gentís, -es, kin. Gentistė, -es, kinship.