„Балто-славянский сборник“

Iš of individual forms in the Russian Lithuanian ir languages mentioned compound forms of Lithuanian verbs, which now do not have Russian language. Because of this to form, as an independent category of Lithuanian verbs, they are not examined separately in the book. It is true that they are mentioned a little bit, when talking about the actor, the participants, the traces. But the whole specificity of these forms (their meaning, making or use) remained ir unrevealed. On the other hand, doubtful, correct forms read I would have read to translate at ar the same ir 4"umaA Ooh. The latter translation, in our opinion, is suitable only for the form I would have o read, the form I would have read to reveal the ar ne specifics would be better suited literal translation £ Obie From wumaeswud. After all, I would have read it in ir Lithuanian, it would have been the same. ne Among the compound forms of the verbal noun in Lithuanian there are the forms ir were beskaitęs, were beskaitęs, were read, but one nė jų ir in the chapter of the epistle. The Lithuanian language attribute is assigned to the adverb in the book, jo without further explanation (p. 239—240). In addition jo to the examples, the book contains ir some remains of the Russian dialect, e.g.: cmodms cmoum (p. 239), plg. stand, but they are not compared to each other. P. 129, 134 it is stated that the Lithuanian verb pranešti had the meaning cooGujumo, but this is not entirely accurate, because it can still mean ir r poxecmu (MumO). P. 189 it is written that being can only have the synthetic permissive form teesie, but in Lithuanian literary language the analytical form tegul būna is actually widely iš used. ir In some cases, the author relies on examples from only one language. In this case, the comparative ir character of the book disappears. This applies to the forms of intransitive verbs of passive iš participants (p. 174), about Russian language TBOpHTeJisHbili AareHTHBHOTO JONoJIHeHHSA (p. 175), about the forms of the Russian imperative pronoun Mepaku, noaywad (p. 188) ir kt Although the book has a number of ir shortcomings, it still gives a fairly complete picture of the ji comparative morphology of the Russian-Lithuanian ir languages. When reading ir and studying it, it is impossible not to see the fruits of the author’s ir work, which are significant for Slavic-Baltic comparative ir linguistics. Iš in fact, it is a fairly good beginning of a great significant work that will lay the foundations for further research in that area. Už this book, no doubt, be will be grateful K. Students, translators, press workers and everyone who is interested in the usage of Russian-Lithuanian morphology. ir ir E. Grinaveckienė Banro-ciaBsanckai c6opuuk, Mocksa, 1972, 424 p. (orB. head. B. H. Tonopos). USSR Academies of Sciences The Institute ir of Slavic Balkan Studies has published a bu stamwerk ,,Balty-slavy collection“. It published fifteen articles and three reviews. ir Most of the articles focus on Baltic issues, but a significant number are simply 0 Lithuanianist. jų The interlinguistic nature of the collection is determined by the larger half (eight to iš fifteen) articles devoted to the relations and contacts of Baltic-Slavic languages. The book begins Z. Article by Zinkevičius "On the development of Baltic vocalism" (p. 5—14). In this article the author seeks new arguments to confirm that the white ,,prokalbéj“ former short long ir vowel a (*a, a). For example, it was argued that the short vowel of the Balts was best preserved in the mixed *o diphthongs on, om, from which only later in some 320 dialects developed an, am, in others — un, um, etc. Z. Zinkevičius presents arguments against such a hypothesis. For example, that the eastern Highlander un, um are not derived from On, gm, is shown by facts such as liet. Antūnas and Aridrius, borrowed from sl. Anton, Andrzej, or Eastern Highland lunta, derived from */anta < tabla, but not from *lonta. The next four articles in the series are from the phonology of Baltic-Slavic languages. This is T. Sudnik, Lazūnai. Phonological systems of Lithuanian, Belarusian and Polish languages (p. 15—155); M. Lekom ceva, On the interaction of balty-slavy border phonological systems (p. 116—134); S. Tolstaja, Phonology of the word end in the Viennese Zemgalish dialect [the phenomena of reduction of the final vowels in the dialect of the villages of Elkiškiai, Sablauskiai, Menčiū and Kanteikiai in Akmenė district] (p. 135—139); I. Toporova, Distribution of phonemes in Lithuanian language (p. 140—173), Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas, 2007. The relations between the Balto-Slavic languages are discussed in several other articles, but not in phonological but in other aspects. M. Lekomceva in her article,,The system of verb grammar meanings of Balty-slavy border dialects“ (p. 174—185) discusses the influence of the Salcininkai region. The Lithuanian verb of Dainavds, Dainiškių, Stasyly and Pušyniškių (Sosenkiškių) villages has influenced the local Slavic languages and how the latter influenced the Lithuanian verb system. The work of E. Grinaveckienė, I. Kovalčiuk, J. Mackevičir E. Romanovič „Lietuvos pasienio šiaurės vakarų baltarusių dialektai“ (p. 377—393) is devoted to the contacts of the Trakai, Vilnius and Šalčininkai regions of the Lithuanian SSR and the border Belarusian (partly also Polish) languages in phonetics, lexicon and word formation. The mutual influence of Lithuanian and Slavic languages in some localities of the same districts is examined in E. Grinaveckienės article „Some phenomena of contact between Lithuanian and Slavic languages (based on material of linguistic contacts in southeastern Lithuania)“ (p. 394—408). In J. Otrembski- ’s article “From the word formations of Slavic and Baltic languages (old Slavic mésec and Lithuanian mėnuo)” (p. 186—192) it is proved that Lithuanian menuo and old Slavic mėnuo are the same word. mięęc are variants, verb variants of the same Baltic-Slavic word. This is another argument for the unity of the Belarusian- -Slavic languages. Interesting conclusions are drawn by R. Ekertas in his article,,On some differences of noun i stems in Baltic and Slavic languages“ (p. 206—216). First of all, the author claims that the examined material confirms his previous opinion that the Baltic languages are more archaic than the Slavic languages, regardless of how this archaicness is interpreted. The Old Russian language occupies an intermediate position between the Slavic and Eastern Baltic languages. Thus, R. Ekert's conclusion does not agree with J. Otrembski'- s. S. Karaliūnas in his article „About the Baltic equivalent of the Slavic *pasti“ (p. 281—288) shows that the Slavic *pasti “to feed, feed; protect, protect" corresponds to lit. pdsėti "to worship (wonderful- )", pdseléti, puoseléti "carefully feed, carefully look after, pamper", lat. pdsét "to pamper, to care, to pity, to protect", past "to care, to look after". A special place in this collection is occupied by a large (sixty pages) L. The work of Nevsky ,,Balty geographical appellation dictionary- “, which contains 1180 about Lithuanian and Latvian geographical terms. Terms are listed in alphabetical order, the source of meaning jų is indicated. ir There are ir no etymological explanations. A dictionary of ir geographical terms of this size is published for the first time in Baltic linguistic literature. Its importance is severalfold. First of all, it will be the basis for comparative geographical terminology studies, of which the 321 Slavic lands have recently received quite extensive?. Baltic material in this area was difficult to access. Secondly, the colloquial dictionary will be very useful for toponymy researchers. Understandably, in the first work of this kind there are inaccuracies and ir shortcomings, the most important of which, in our opinion, is incompleteness. jo Since the author did not provide any conclusioar ns of the introductory notes, the criteria for the selection of terms remain unclear or guessable to the reader. Only from iš the list of abbreviations it can be determined that the author used three most important sources: printed works, Lithuanian language dictionary and The Lithuanian Language Atlas is ir based on its own data, collected from iš Lithuanian dialects. It would seem that the dictionary had to be quite comprehensive. However, we are still missing a considerable number of terms. Most į importantly, the dictionary did not include even some geographical terms printed Lithuanian language dictionary (LCZ) or containing Lithuanian language dictionary in the directory (LK ŽK). For example, it is difficult to understand why the ir following terms are not in the dictionary: aptakė, apteka "river outflow" (LKZ I 272, 273), Black-throated hawk ‘well; road pit, mud, swamp, valley” (LKŽ I 711), bovine, gdlvis „self-made peat in the place of the old river bed in the inlet; iškastos ar pedros stačias krantas’ (LKŽ III gerk/é 85), ‘sea (river) bay’ (LKZ Inhaler III 258), ‘a narrow spot; a narrow stretch of land, enclosed by a į forest ar between water, peninsula” (LKZ IV 21), ifitapas "deep in the sea" (LKŽ IV 122); tear "water carried away, torn gap, ditch" (LKZ IV 226) Clypea "liquid dirt, slurry" (LKŽ VI 128), Species „,perušys, pakriaušė“ (LKZ VI 726), Pelt ‘raist, swamp; large area of forest, field; maži miškeliai’ (LCC), sand "sand, sandstone" (LKŽK) (although sand, sandy is), warm ‘peat, peat land; šilas, giria’ (LKŽK), shark "Moist meadow, swamp" (LCI), wet-legged "The Wet Meadow" (LKŽK) kt. ir The second thing that decreases the scientific value of this article is the occurrence of various minor inaccuracies, for example: dkis ‘akis’, rocky ,,stoney*, apache ‘bottom’, burliūfige "Sailfish", chimney bream "muds", end of the valley “galūkalnė”, deep-sea "deep", "deep" "inplēša", kalndūbris "kalnagūbris", kalniūkštis "Mountain hawk", "Crown hawk", "Moola" ,,mudlas®, perejd “peer”, sausball ‘,saūsbalė’, uzūsilė “ažūšilė”, vagd "vaga", vidiigiriai “Vidūgiriai”, a veranda ‘voldidė’ ir etc. Terms are presented in cross reference. But part of the ju given be strikes, although 3sources, from iš which these terms are taken, the jų place of the strike ir is indicated by a prefix: bliūdas “blind”, pit "pit", lake "lake", kems „kėmsas“, kemzras , kemzras“, kiešynas “jail”, jailhouse "Juūgnas- ", pabals “pabalč” ir etc. These inaccuracies and carelessness ir clearly show that the article in question was prepared and printed with due care. ir be The collection du publishes iš articles on Baltic mythology. Well-known specialist in this field More. Ivanov in the article ,,Reflections of Indo-European Twin Cult Terminology in Baltic Languages“ (p. 193—205), continuing the American scientist D. Word? ir other investigations, show that RTH. Toacrofi, Caansnckas reorpaduueckas tepmurosorns, Mocksa, 1969; 51. 1 wKi, Beaapyckin rearpadiunsis Ha3Bbi, Minck, 1971; M. Jurkowski, Ukraifiska terminologia hydrograficzna, WroclawWarszawa-Krakėw- -Gdanisk, 1971; P. Nitsche, Geographische terminologie des Polish, Cologne, Germany 1964. * D. Ward, The Divine Twins. An Indo — European myth in Germanic tradition, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968. 322 The cult of the twin god is reflected in the ir Baltic languages, especially in Latvian folk songs. Liet. Sons of God, lat. For God's sake (plg. lat. Abelwood boat builder | Both can go up / God divides the jerk / Sun's Daughters Vizin), More. In Ivanov's opinion, there are Indo-European terminology of twin cult (plg. Vedas Divd ndpata ‘God or Dyauh — sons of — heaven", gr. Dioscures — Awbyxovpor Sons of Zeus. D. Researches on Word allow reconstruction of the Indo-European myth about the twin gods — The sons of the sun god — who love their sister with the name of the sun: Vedic Sūrya “Sun” or Duhita Sūryasya "The Daughter of the Sun". More. Ivanov believes that in the Baltic languages the equivalents of this part of the myth of the twin gods are in Lithuanian. Daughter of the Sun, lat. Daughter of the Sun. More. Ivanov once again returns to the question of what is the Latvian folklore word you. The origin of this word has been interpreted very differently (see, for example, suom. God, Lyb. God ‘god’). Based on the reconstructed Indo-European myth of the twin gods, whose plot is based on incest, the undeniable fact that in the ancient Indo-European tradition the twin ir gods could be marked with one word Vedic — Yama, avest. Yima, the author — concludes that the Latvian word jumis belongs to the Indo-European terminology of the twin god, only the subsequent use may have had some influence of the Baltic Finnish language. jo Already started research in this area? Article 1 "Notes on Baltic Mythology" (p. 289—314) continues V. Toporovs. The purpose of this article, as the author writes, is "to reconstruct some features of the hierarchical structure of the Balts' pantheon (or rather pantheons) based on the distribution of theonims in the surviving lists of gods" (p. 289 —290). First (and most) of the article is devoted to the Prussian gods. At the beginning, the author gives a very carefully selected list iš of Prussian pagan gods from various sources. Interpretations of the origin of the names of gods presented in the article will be interesting to specialists in many fields. Based on distributional notes or simply lists of gods recorded in historical sources, Toporov presents two archetypal schemes of ir the Prussian hierarchy of gods. V. One such scheme, in the author’s opinion, could be as follows: Dave. t Perkuns Trimps == Patols (Bardoits) Puškaits —— Pergrubius —— Pilvitis Ausauts (Screaming) (Markopole) The further evolution of this scheme was as follows: 1) Dave got an epithet Okopirms, which later became the basis of the name; 2) Trimps sushi į Potrimps ir Autrimps (in some variants ir Natrimpe); 3) Former name Patols epithet Bardoits separated * B. H. Tonopos, O PepesBnennjulckoli Ymac (U.S.) m ee GanTniickoM COOTBETCTBHM (Ūsiųš), ku. : Huaus B ApeBuocru, Mocksa, 1964, crp. 66—84; O6 oauoit ,, a COD CKO MHOOJIOTEME B CBA3H CO CaAaBsHCKON mapJaensio, ‘Acta Baltico-Slavica“, III, crp. 1966, 143—149; K GaaroCKaHJUAHABCKHM MHOOJIOTHYECKHM CB535M, Donum Balticum, Stockhol1970, p. 534—543. 323 m, from this name and became independent; 4) Patols got the name Pekols; 5) Pekols split into Pekols and Pokols; 6) Svaixtix was added to the pantheon. In the second part of the article, V. Toporov summarizes the historical sources of knowledge about the Lithuanian pantheon of the 13th century. The sources, admittedly, are scarce (Volhynia Chronicle and 1261 insertion in Joan Malala’s “Chronicle”), but even this relatively crude knowledge allowed V. Toporov to arrive at interesting conclusions. Among other things, V. Toporov returns* to the idea that the name of the god Deviriks ([nBepukK+3y, ĮluBupukca]) mentioned in the Volhynia chronicle should be interpreted not as,,God’s rick”, but as,,God’s scourge”. A special place in the reviewed collection is occupied by V. Toporov’s study “Baltica” Podmoskovya” (pp. 217—280). With this work, V. Toporov consistently continues the series of works® of many previous researchers (A. Kochubinsky, A. Pogodin, K. Buga, A. Shakhmatov, A. Sobolevski, M. Fasmer, B. Serebrenikov and others) and authors of the last decade, among them, most importantly, V. Toporov and O. Trubachev, on the spread of Baltic toponymy to the east from the modern-day Baltic territories. In earlier works, the southeastern boundary of the Baltic placenames area was established. The eastern border was unclear. The aim of the study “Baltica Podmoskovja” is to establish the eastern limit of Baltic toponymy. It must be said that the term “Baltic” is used here in a slightly different sense than before. As is known, V. Toporov is one of the most important representatives of the theory that the Slavic languages are formed from peripheral Baltic dialects. This view is quite clearly stated in the article of V. Toporov, "Dél toponymic correspondances in the Baltic territories and west of the Vistula*"- ®, where it is said that the "Baltic-Slavic" period is territorially related to the areas that bordered the historical Baltic lands from the west, south and southeast, and that chronologically it continued from the existence of the old Baltic dialects to the separation from them of those peripheral groups from which the Slavic languages later developed"". One of the most important goals of the study “Baltica Podmoskovya” is apparently to establish this assumption, based not on the Western, but on the Eastern “periphery”*. Therefore, the term “Baltic” is given a very specific, we might say, special content. Here the term “Baltic” is opposed to the term “Slavic” not ethnically or even linguistically, but more historically and typologically. Just as the article talks about,,Baltica” Podmoskovja“, it is possible to talk about 4 See. B. H. Tonopos, K Gaarto-crapsrckum MHOĖOJIOTrH4eCKHM CBA3AM, Donum Balti5 B. H. Tonopos u O. H. Tpy6aues, Jluarsuctuueckuii anaaus ruaponnmos Bepxnero Ilogkenposba, Mocksa, 1962; O. H. TpyGaués, Hassauna per Ilpaso6epexnofi: Yrpanun, Mockea, 1968 ir kt 4 B. H. Tonopos, K Bonpocy 0 TONOHHMHYECKHX COOTBETCTBHAX Ha GaiATHACKHX TeppHTOpHAX H K 3anany OT Bucam,,,- Baltistica” I(1), 1966, p. 103-111. Plg. dar: B. H. Tonopos, O GaaTHIICKHX S/1eMEHTaX B FHAPOHHMHA H TONOHHMHH K 3anany OT Bucam,,Slavica Pragensia®, VIII, 1966, cp. 255-263. 7 Ibid., p. 104, * Recently, a new work by V. Toporov has appeared, in which this hypothesis is based on the appellative lexicon: B. H. Tonopos, Bajiru3Mkei B pycckHx roBopax, Ku. : Bajirnieckie finn H HX B3aHMOCBA3H CO CJABAHCKHMH, OHHHO-YyTOpCKHMH H repMAHCKHMH Si3bikaMH. I'm not going to tell you about the 100-year-- old man who came out of the pox. 51. Dunsejinna, Pura, 1973, crp. 43—46; B. H. Toncpos, K Bonpocy 0 Gajiru3aMax B CJIABAHCKHX S3biKaX (Teopetnuecknit Barasn), "HaBecrua AkanenMun Hayk Jlateuitckoit CCP", 1973, Ne 2, crp. 90—96. 324 "Slavica Pribaltiki", meaning forms of undoubtedly Baltic origin, which in their evolution have gone much further than most už of the others?. Areas whose place names can be interpreted in two completely different directions (as Slavic as Baltic), form the ir areas where the (sometimes ir now happening) differentiation of Baltic ir Slavic elements, more precisely the first — transformation into the second. This content of the term “Baltic” gives a lot of freedom to the researcher, therefore to discuss the “Baltic” of the place names mentioned in the article ar “Slavism” is usually very difficult to do so, it would be necessary to — question the very concept, which, in our eyes, is interesting, original. ir ir Whatever the meaning of the term “baltiSka”, the author presents in the article a number of hydronyms of Pamaskvė, which he considers to be unquestionable baltisms. The presence of local names of Baltic origin in Pamaskvė is not unexpected. First of all, there are many historical facts that show that There was once a white man in the village. Perhaps the most jų — important Russian chronicles testimony that at At the beginning of the second millennium, the Baltic tribe Galindai lived along the Protva river. In the article we — find other historical evidence ir confirming the assumption that The Whites were indeed inhabited in the territory of Pamaskva. Here it is useful to recall the ir surprising results that were obtained by investigating the settlement of Pamaskvė — Troickaja "Možaisko raj." Two books** have been published on the basis of these investigations, the conclusion su of which coincides with historical evidence — Trojickaja for a long time was inhabited by the Balts! ?. By the way, in the second of these books printed by the famous archaeologist V. Sedov's article "Baltic Hydronymy of the Volga-Oka Interval", in which the author provides water names of this region. 180 jo considered baltiSkais'®. So before us — du works examining iš essentially the tų hydronyms of the places themselves, ir finding many of them to be jų Baltic. It is hard to believe that this could be a coincidence. However, these du articles give rise to ir different thoughts. The object of the investigation kę iš essentially tą the same territory, both authors consider Baltic far from the same water names in both ne articles the same hydronyms considered — Baltic are only about tų 70. More than half of the hydronyms V. considered Baltic by Sedov V. are not considered Baltic by Toporov. Ir on the — contrary just less than one third V. Toporov’s “baltisms” received a similar interpretation V. Sedov's article. This fact alone shows that there is a certain subjectivity in the interpretation of baltisms, that final conclusions about the origin of many hydronyms of the Volga-Oka intersection have not yet been drawn. V. Toporov establishes ir a fairly strict eastern boundary of the distribution of Baltic place names, jo which, in his opinion, runs approximately from Kalinino On the Moscow River until its entrance į Okay. It is interesting that V. Toporov's opinion on the eastern limit of Baltic place names almost completely coincides with V. Sedovo'4, 300 In addition to the bridge, V. the bridge is extensively used by the Baltic Sea. This is quite understandable, because the Baltic —*B. H. Tonopos, “Baltica” IToamockosss, cTp. 263. 10 Idem, 270. “ IlpeBuee nocejienne B [Toamockosse, Mocksa, 1970; ĮlpesBuee nocejietnue B TlojiMOCKOBbE, Mocxsa, 1971. 12 Jlpessee noceaenne B [Togmockosse, 1970, crp. 94 ir t.t. 13 JlpeBuee nocesenne B IlojgMockoBbe, 1971, crp. 99—119., 4 B, Cexos, min. veik., p. 108. 325 correspondences determine the etymology of many place names; without it the concept of baltisms itself would not be possible. The Baltic nomenclature, as is known, is still relatively little studied and published, so authors, especially foreigners, always have difficulties, which are sometimes so great that they begin to reflect on the scientific level of their works. This applies in part to the article in question, whose most important shortcoming is perhaps the insufficiently differentiated approach to the Baltic nomenclature. This means that in the Baltic nomenclature, alongside its archaic — Baltic and Indo-European — elements, there are many more innovations that have appeared relatively recently. In solving further problems of the Baltic past, it is important to separate what is new and operate only on its old elements. We have to say that in the article in question this was not always done, so it is full of comparisons and etymologies, which, after making the selection of the Balts just mentioned, turn out to be inaccurate or incomplete. Most importantly, the author often compares the hydronyms of Pamaskvė with the Baltic oikonyms, a large part of which are of personal noun origin. For example, the name of the river Bopua associated with lit. Varkalių km., Varkališkių km. and so on are not possible because both these village names are derived from the personal name Varkalps, and the personal name in turn is derived from the profession name varkaljs "copper jailer". UK utTofika cannot be compared with liet. Getaučių km., Getautiškių km., because these oikonimai are from a compound Lithuanian personal name The Ge-taites, the Ge-taites. The same can be said, for example, about the comparison of the name of the river Momorka with lit. Mastautų km., kuris yra kilęs iš sudurtinio asmenvardžio Mds-tautas. The name of the river is not known. Masių km., Masionių km., because the names of these villages are derived from the surnames Masys, Masionis, and the latter are derived from the baptismal name Motiéjus. : There are more cases where the Baltic nature of hydronyms of Pamaskvė is supported by person-named Baltic place names composed of baptismal names or surnames. For example, the "Baltic" origin of the river name IOmrnunka is proved by connecting it with Lit. Jusėnų km., Jusiškio km., Jusių km., lat. You, You and so on. In fact, all of these names are derived from personal names lit. Jusys, lat. Jusis and so on, which in turn are derivatives of the baptismal name Justinas, the name of the river Mukaxeas is linked to lit. 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles, 1000 miles Mikis, Mikiši, etc. are also mistaken, because these place names are derived from personal names in Lithuanian. Mycenae, Mycenae, lat. Mickey and so on. The last name is from the christening name Michael, lat. Michael. Especially undesirable are such cases, when any hydronym of Pamukkale is compared with numerous Baltic place names, which themselves are of different origins. Let’s say, what is the point of listing the Lithuanian place names Ūla upė, Uličėlės km. (must be Ūlyčėlės) and Ulitėlės km. (must be Ūlytėlės), Uliūnų km., etc., next to the name of the river Yaynuuka, when the names of the villages Ūlyčėlė and Ulytélé are derived from the Slavic ūlyčia “village, farm”, the name of the village Ūliūnai — from the surname Ulitinas, and the name of the river Ūla, a possible object, is an old Baltic hydronym, which is reasonably associated with the spoken name of the river. There are many suspicious and dubious comparisons and etymologies. However, most still seem to be sufficiently reliable, so critical remarks do not undermine the general concept of the article. At the end of the collection are published three reviews: E. Grinaveckienė, J. Senkus: Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966; S. Karaliū326