Semantika ir etimologija

LEXICON INVESTIGATIONS LITHUANIA TSR SCIENCE ACADEMY SEMANTICS IR ETYMOLOGY SIMAS THE QUEENS 1. Some issues of semantics Man lives and acts in the sea of ir language phenomena. Language as a whole of its meanings forms a vitally important environment of human existence itself and is one of the ir components of human sign behavior. „The meaning always appears as an immediate given: it is sufficient a ’homme pour vivre agir dans et monde signifiant“, un says one of the most — famous semioticians of our time A. Graham*. How much human thinking behavior is ir conditioned by language, demonstrated by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ir L. Weisgerber's Linguistic Relativism. ,,Semantiniy fields“ theory, which in developing L. Weisgerber raised the aforementioned principle of linguistic relativism, was important only for the study ne of relational language thinking — language ir culture, but — gave semantics lexicologists a structural method. Thus, ir instead of ir classical semantics solving the two problems of finding the laws of semantic tų change in the classification — of meanings, the problems ir of descriptive semantics highlighting the semantic — structure took the first į place in recent decades. In answering the question as to how many ir meanings can constitute a structure, Hjelmslev indicated that they can be į considered to constitute a structure for two reasons: because the partial L. meanings (significations particulières) depend on the deduction variants that are logically derived from the possible relationships envisaged by the description of the form; 1) due to the fact that the general iš 2) "values", or sematemas, depend on values (de valeurs), which also arise forms define possible correlations?. Despite the fact iš that the ir meaning of words is the area of language that is the most difficult to systematize and formalize, that it is often unclear where one segment of the content plan ends and another begins, that therefore subjectivism and arbitrariness ir have a favourable soil in this area, yet it seems that lexicon and meanings can be studied by applying more precise, structural ir linguistic methods. This is ir the case for the semantics of the genius of F. de Saussure's concept of the two planes of language—the plan du contenu ir and the plan de l'expression—and their subsequently established isomorphism, which allows "A concevoir la structure sėmantigue comme une articulation de Vunivers sėmantigue en unités significations minimales (= ou sėmes), correspondant aux traits distinctifs du plan de I'expression (= ou pheémes)". Based on these cardinal principles of general language theory, the task is to obtain clear information about the minimum semantic elements (seman1 A. J. Greimas, Du sens. Essais sémiotiques, Paris, 1970, p. 39. 2 L. Hjelmslev, Pour une sėmantigue structurale, in: Essais linguistiques (= Works of the Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, vol. XII), Copenhagen, 1959, p. 108. * A. J. Greimas, op. cit., p. 40. tic primitive) relationships, ir jų describing at least a limited number at present, the structure of semantic theory is postulated*, efforts are jų made to create semanting theory based on the principles of generative grammar”. | Whatever theory of structural semantics we develop, the study of structural semantics, it must be assumed, depends first of all on the study of structural lexicon. Synchronous Languages (e.g. Lithuanian) dictionary description (such a description would be ideally perfect) should provide at least two kinds of information: the structural ir models of the inventories of simple composite ir lexical units, the creations į in which those units are included. The inventory should include: morphs existing 1) in the speech (of course, absolute completeness cannot be achieved), all words 2) (conventional combinations of morphs) all ir 3) phrases (constant groups of specific words that differ from the simple sum of words). Each item of the inventory should be identified in one way or another, indicating the function of the morphe or word, giving the synonym equivalent statement. The second type of information, as mentioned, would consist of the indication of structural models, paradigms, into which lexical units are included. Structural ar paradigms can be identified by presenting the lexicon in the form of a "network". What this means can be seen from the fragment of the inventory given here, which consists of vocabulary elements (phonological and real) with the first syllable of the structure CV going before the sequence of phonemes (ras). Vowels 6 bhp Bitches [aE 1.0 3 Ur) ao 07 jet. Prefats a | | k | karas keras kiras kuras karas keras kyras kiras kéras koras g | garas geras giras guras garas geras gyras glras géras goras t | taras teras tiras turas taras teras tyras tūras téras toras d daras jų diras duras daras jų dyras daras déras doras p | paras peras piras puras paras peras pyras pūras pēras poras b | baras beras biras buras baras beras byras biliras béras boras etc. Such a presentation of the lexical "network" would show: 1) an eye for every mathematically possible combination of phonemes, 2) a sphere of eyes not filled due to phonotactic restrictions (e.g. kdras, kėras, gdras, gėras etc. automatically fall out, since a short pronounced vowel at the beginning of a word in nouns is not possible in Lithuanian, but cf. péras "such a title") and 3) eyes that are actually filled with morphs and Zodziai and which are not". Such a simple mathematical list of phoneme combinations would almost become infinitely long and uncomfortable. * F. P. Dineen, The Structure of Semantic Elements, Actes du xe congrės international des linguistes, II, Bucarest, 1970, p. 589 —593. 5 Jerry A. Fodor, Jerrold J. Katz, The Structure of a Semantic Theory, Language, 39, 1963, p. 170-210. 6 S. Abraham, |. Evseev and V. Serban, The Bases of a Structural Semantics, Actes du x“ congrés.- .., II, p. 609—611. | 7 F. G. Cassidy, A Descriptive Approach to the Lexicon, in: Approaches in Linguistic Methodology ed. by I. Rauch and Ch. T. Scott, Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1967, p. 9-15. o Significantly reduced by eliminating all unfilled eyes. But this ir reduced it would still remain quite large, but such a method of studying the lexicon can be useful, because it would give a full description of the morphs of the language ir jų Inventory of combinations revealing structural relationships of vocabulary ir would help to determine trends in vocabulary ir development. Computers would greatly facilitate the processing work. According to F. Cassidy, the author of this method of studying lexicon, the ideal description of lexicon and its structural study is now ,,within the realm possibility“*. of Structural description of the vocabulary, it must be assumed, ir would serve semantics; Then it would be possible to try to raise the question, segments of the expression ar plan belonging to one structural paradigm or phonologically close paradigms do not sometimes manifest content segments of one or adjacent areas of sensory experience and thinking. Structural description of the dictionary might allow to study more precisely such confusing semantic phenomena as polysemy and its relationship with homonymy, which, as is known, along with synonymy, word motivation and word character, is the main object of descriptive semantics. Polysemy, although it is regarded by logic as an obstacle to communication and thinking, is a powerful tool of language economy, because it greatly facilitates our memory. The ambiguity of words occurs for several reasons. The contextual variation of semantics stems from the simple fact that in different statements a word never has absolutely the same meaning. to For example, the word book has a specific meaning, and it seems that there can be a change of meaning here. jo But a book is one thing for the author, another for the publishe- — r, ar another ir for the collector — and another for the bookseller. One means ji something for a book collector, another for an — antique dealer, another for a bibliographer, — another for a librarian ar ir ką —to the reader. Depending on the context of the ir situation where the word is used, it may have usually have different nuances of ir meaning. Some of the tų nuances are ephemeral, others can expand to permanent shades of meaning, which over time, as the distance between them increases, can turn jų into different meanings of the word. Metonymy and metaphors also play a major role ir here. For example, the eye, its basic be meaning, “the organ of vision”, has a meaning that has arisen from the 21 transfer of the name based on various associations: crocheted web hole; knitting loop; wrist loop, ,,1. hole; loop for hares, foxes others 2. 3. 4. ir For catching 5. wild boar; a small hole in the ice or an area that is not frozen at all; aketé: a broken hole in the 6. ground; a small area of water in wetlands, ar lakes, etc.’ Since the functional load of a word's meaning cannot be measured, it is not possible to say how much the ir meanings of one word differ from each other or how much they differ from the meanings of another word. In other words, it is impossible to know where polysemy ends and homonymy begins. The ir lexicographer here must be guided purely by his instinct. True, the criteria for distinguishing polysemy from homonymy were proposed ir here, but they areonly auxiliary problems can not ir solve. For example, it is believed that if du words of identical form are used in one sentence ir without perceiving repetition, the speaker jų does not feel any meaningful connection between jų them. For example, fr. not Step 2 ir “no” used in a single sentence: Cell ne se finds step in step of a le horse “You don’t find it every day.” In modern French, these are different words, although du they both originate from Latin. ir iš passus 8 F. G. Cassidy, op. cit., p. 14. ‘step’. It is also claimed that no ir self-respecting poet would worry about two words that he feels are unimportant?. In this su connection, it can be “to propose another criterion to distinguish polysemy from homonymy. If one allomorph manifests the same close content segments as another allomorph, the ar manifested content segments can be considered to belong to the ir same word jų (but for two ne words homonyms). — For example, cupping has the following meanings: ‘l. to clean, to cleanse; 2. supervise; harvest, harvest; 3. take honey, climb; 4. clean the linen from dust, rust; accumula5. te, dig, hang; buried; 6. hide; care; 7. robbery, 8. seizing, 9. stealing; thieves; 10. su appetite, eating a lot, scratching, eating, 11. hanging; to run, to go, to rush” (See section 4.4.) LKŽ VI 916). A group of very similar meanings is found with the verbs kopti, ir kopti|kopti, koptilképti 1 2 3 (see section 4.4). LKZ VI 351 —4). If so, the verbs kopti|kopti kudpti are apparently ir allomorphs, because, to, be uo : 0 change in the Lithuanian language is quite regular. Thus, instead of three homonyms, we will probably have one plural verb kopti kopti: valyti, kuopti; to clean, to | cleanse „1. 2. (cereals from the field); 3. take honey (from the hive, wood); hanging, 4. picking up, loading manure su with į forklifts, 5. manure; excavated (potatoes, vegetables.- ..); to dig a į pile, to make a pile, to accumulate; jokes; buried; hide; 6. imti, grobti, griebti, 7. gobti; 8. greedy eating, hanging; Go. 9. 10. go’ (next to the homonymous copti ‘lipti (up, down, through what...)”, since the jo Sys with the su verb climb|climb “to clean, to groom; to clean, to cleanse (crops from the field) etc.“ in the synchronous plan is not shown). Be Moreover, here can be useful a phenomenon observed in Lithuanian ir semantics: semomas „(greedy) eat, eat, swallow, cut”, „go, go, run”, „hit, cut, strike”, „steal” often go alongside other various semomas. In other words, a common Lithuanian verb is used metaphorically to denote the above actions, e.g., drožti „with a knife or ar other sharp tool to cut, sharpen, smooth; beat, cross, feed, give; eating, crossing, drinking; walk, run, drive, go, swipe, etc.” LKŽ II? 747. Matyt, ir lat. I žaūt “dry, to Drying out aushéngen® ir II Zaut ,,hit, a strong Blow off, etc.” ME IV 792-3, ne only diachroniSkai, but ir synchronously viewed, is one the same word ir (plg. let. Djibouti „hang, put to dry; thieves; kisti, löögti etc.’ LKŽ II? 1016), See for this, below. Similarly, for ir example, lit. kduti "to go, to proceed" LKŽ V 450 hardly ar different from kduti “to strike, to throw; fighting; guilty (in the forge)“ verb (plg. value relationships that must be drawn). It is true that we should think about how to deal with similar cases in the practice of dictionaries in synchronous ir semantics: perhaps ir iš really more targeted allocation du ar several words, considering them homonyms, because in most cases the meanings are so distant that only a careful etymological analysis jų helps to trace the ir primary link in this way to establish polysemy (Zr. (see below). While investigating the issues of descriptive (synchronous) semantics, we have come to the issues of diachronic semantics. Semantic analysis, as is known, along with phonological derivative ir analysis, is one of the main aspects of etymology. When examining polysemy homonymy phenomena in ir diachronic, explaining the relationships of the origin of lexems, a great importance has B. Jäger's formulated principle: „.treffen mehrere weit auseinanderstehende Meanings (A, B, C ...) in one * S. Ullmann, Semantics. An Introduction to the Science of Meaning, Oxford, 1962, p. 175. sounding together, so mul} this fact can be established. If this sequence of meanings A, B, C... appears elsewhere, there is hardly any doubt that there exists a meaning-relatedness between the meanings A, B and C, even if it is not at all recognizable.”1® The validity of this principle was proved by B. Jéger in his Cia-cited work, the best diachronic study of the semantics of Baltic languages. This principle assumes that one meaning in the content plan of the word is organically derived from the other, that they represent a regular semantic development. The vast majority of cases, of course, demonstrate this. However, the coexistence of two content segments in a single word content plan may not indicate a regular development of the segments. In other words, a word may borrow a segment of its content from another word. This is usually the case when words have a similar phonetic shell. Here we are faced with cases of so-called pseudo-semantic development. In particular, the French essuyer means: 1. “wipe” and 2. “to raise”, does not indicate that these two segments of its manifested content have arisen one from the other, because the segment “to raise” this verb received from essayer, “to try, to try”; strive“, which in the 16th century also meant,,to survive, to lift, to endure“. The Latin word vuobit means both, "diej Lippen zum Lachen zusammenziehen", and "schūlen, bolstern (e.g., riekstus, peanus)" ME IV 677. These segments of content are too far apart from each other for us to find parallels from other languages and thus confirm their diachronic relationship. There is no doubt that the content segment ",schūlen, bolstern" vuobit derived from the rhyme Iuébit, "schilen, klauben, bolstern". Complex semantic infiltration is seen in lit. fibre and fibre case: fibre,,1. textile raw material, fine and strong fibers; 2. float, raft” will have its first meaning (compare with the allomorph pldust, which has no such meaning) from fibers “textile raw material, fine and strong fibers; (hay, straw, hair, etc.) bunch, handful, clump; a bouquet, a bouquet; tape, strip; keltas, raft", and the word fiber, which is etymologically related to the verb plėšti, apparently borrowed the meaning of "keltas, raft" from pliostas. Their very similar plan of expression (differing only in the phonemes § —s), apparently, was the reason why the plan of content began to converge. Thus, before stating that the relationship between any two segments of a single content plan is a regular consequence of semantic development, it is necessary — as far as possible — to clarify whether this is not a case of “pseudo-- semantic development”. 2. Liet. dZiaugtis etymology LKŽ II2 1014 in Latvian corresponds to džaugt „ergotzen“, -tiés „sich ergdtzen®, gaugtiés „,sich freuen, jubeln; hope, expect, expect; promise, be about to; complain; 694, "glausties" EH I 425. Although these Lithuanian and Latvian equivalents have been established a long time ago, but did Lithuanian dZiadigti- (s) and its Latvian relatives, apart from one other failed attempt? ?, has no reliable etymology yet. 10 B. Jėgers, Verkannte Bedeutungsverwandtschaften baltischer Worter, K Z, 80, 1966, p. 10—11. 11 J. Orr, Words and Sounds in Englisch and French, Oxford, 1953, p. 157 tt. 12 E. Fraenkel, Lithuanian etymological dictionary, Heidelberg-Gottingen, 1962, p. 116-7. H. Hirtas®® connected lit. džiaugiūosi with Latin gauded, Greek yn9éw "I am delighted" and, saying here a consonant metathesis, derived it from *gaudžiuosi. The older form of the Latin and Greek words looked like *gau-edh-éio (or *gau-adh-éio)**. Thus, considering the conservative character of Lithuanian, we would expect *goved-(or *govad-), but not *gaud-. In addition to the fact that there was no metathesis here, it is easy to say based on other common root words in Lithuanian and Latvian (see below). He was also a member of the 1999-2000 NHL Entry Draft selection team, but he failed to qualify for the NHL Draft. height. Goukolon, gouggolėn "to fool, to make jokes", and Latin gaiibr® —with Middle German. height. gief "fool". First of all, as you can see, the meanings of the related words are significantly different, and —most importantly—the etymological consonant at the beginning of the root of Latvian words is *d-(not *g-; see below). Before entering into the explanation of the etymology, it should be noted that the genetic identification of lit. džiaugti(s) and lat. džaugt(ies), the plural, which seems quite obvious, encounters phonetic difficulties. Lithuanian dZiaiigti(s) continues the older root *deug-: the diphthong eu has become already, and the compound *dja has changed to dž'a (see Lithuanian biaurūs, Latin bjaiirs from *beur-). The reflexes of the compounds *dj, *tj before the posterior vowels in Latvian are ž, š**. We have such sounds in the words of the root in question, cf. lat. ap-žuugtiės,,wachsend (einen andern Baum) umwinden“, apžaugties kam aplink kaklą „sich jemandem um den Hals winden“ EH I 128, žaudzitiės (praes. -guds, praet. -dzijuos) „sich aufdrangen; being around you with love, caressing, hugging, kissing (mainly said by small children); 790, Zauguétiés "t. p.“ ibid., the killer „die Liebkosung; jausmas, valiodas“ ibid., Zaugule „das Liebchen, die Matresse“ ibid., žaugzmas „Jausmas, valiodas“ ibid. (see lit. džiaiigsmas „a feeling of great satisfaction or pleasure, joy, happiness“ LKŽ II2 1013). These Latvian lexems are considered regular roots *deugkontinuantais. Because instead of žrandame dž-, Latin džaugt(iės), džauga J. Endzelynas (EH I 563) was inclined to suspect Lithuanianisms. In fact, these forms are not used in the living Latvian language, they are known only from older Latvian dictionaries (Lange,,Lettisch-deutsches Lexikon“, 1773, Stender,,Lettisches Lexikon“, 1789, Ulmanis,,Lettisch-deutsches Worterbuch®, 1872). However, neither the presence of the lawfulness in the world nor the fact that these forms are not used in the living language seems to be sufficient grounds to consider them Lithuanian borrowings. There are more such cases, where instead of the Lithuanian dž, č, we also have dž, č in Latvian, e.g., lat. džaut, čČuodpt?, capt, Čupt, Čupinėt, čuožaūtiės, čužinat and lit. džiauti, čiuopti, čiopti, čiūpti, čiupinėti, čiudžti, čiužinėti. It would be too bold to declare all of them Lithuanian borrowings. The phrases "in the name of God" and "in the name of Jesus" are also used in the Hebrew language. From these dialects forms with dž, ¢ and could have entered the old Latvian dictionaries or irradiated into other dialects. 13 H. Hirt, BB, 24, 1899, p. 280:,,From the lit. it turns out to yn9%éw and gaudeo džiaugiuos *sighs*. '* A. Walde-J. B. Hofmann, Latin etymological dictionary, I, Heidelberg, 1936, p. 584. 15 P. Persson, Contributions to Indo-European Word Research, Uppsala, 1912, p. 59 tt. 16 J. Endzelins, Grammar of the Latvian language, Riga, 1951, p. 177 et seq. 17 M. Rudzite, Latviešu dialektoloģija, Riga, 1964, p. 91. 10 Phonetic development *deug-> lat. The post-terminal stage *d'aug is probably reflected in the form gaugtiés. There is evidence that the Curonian language can be reconstructed as d’, t’,<*dj. *tj“, gaugtiés can be considered to have come into Latvian from the Curonian language! ?, because in Latvian palatal d", t* in borrowed words reflects g', k'. The verb g'augtiés is recorded from the western part of Latvia (Dunika). Thus, the root *deug-, meaning “to enjoy” or something similar, is also found in the third Baltic language — Curonian, where, as one can guess, the diphthong *eu also became already. Root diphyllobothriasis < *the tenth-degree variant in Lithuanian must rejoice "take to enjoy" LKŽ II? 1031, Jug ‘joy’ ib. 1029, joy, joyfulness ,.who quickly enjoys what““ ib. 1029, Joyful ,,who rather rejoices, rejoices, is joyful“ ib. 1031, rejoice "to rejoice greatly" ib. 1029 and others. The presence of the afrikaat dz before the posterior vowel indicates that these forms probably originated from the normal-degree root variant džiaugapamatu according to the pattern skaūkti: šūkti =džiaugti: x. This is confirmed by the fact that they have no equivalents in Latvian. For further explanation of the connections between džiaugti(s), ap-žaugtiės, džaugt(iės), g'augtiės, see lat. Squirrels* ,,without thought smoke, go; the Leaving the herd (in grain) run, (over Dig) jump (of Kiihen gesagt)", žduga? ,,eine Cow that repeats the Herd leaving into the Grain goes, over Grūben jumps w.; u. s. who goes where it is forbidden“ ir su root tip -kžauka ,,ein Exuberant; who climbs back and forth; a whore etc.” ME IV 790. That the basis of these latter Latvian words lies in lat. Zautiés, žaunuos, žūvuds ,, climbing; rise high; great, to be exuberant; running; regardless of all Obstacles go fast; not knowing what to run on or even; unniitz where to go; falls, crashes* ME IV 793, ,,pargalviti where to go, grities; secretly go somewhere; climbing; hurry, run; through something crawl® gana akivaizdu, EH II 817, plg. lat. the goat will graze the first day Suction jacket... , jump each other on the Riicken® ME IV 790 s. v. Zaugatiés®, where the content connection of the verb Zaugadtiés® is clearly visible su Zauties. Lat. Zautiés in Lithuanian translates as dZiduti, dZiduna, džiovė ,,run, go quickly; to do it hard” ką LKZ II? 1016. Lat. The segment “fallen, stürzen” stands out somewhat in Zautié’s content plan. However, that this is a contextual variant, probably due to the use of a metaphorical verb, lit. That dry (fall) highland, even the legs were stuck Žiežmariai (see section 4.4). LKZ. II2 1016 s. v. 100 mg/ day). Lat. žautiės, liet. dZiduti relatives in other ide. in languags. es are ind. dhavate "runs, flows", gr. 9ch0 ‘running- ’, 906c ‘fast’ (ide. *dheu-, run, run“??). From the point of view of derivation, it is important to note that the Baltic root *dēu-> *djau-“run, go quickly; flow etc.“ was extended by the formant -g-. Therefore, it should be noted that in the Latvian language this format is also present in the lexical elements meaning “dry” or similar content segments, cf. lat. žūgt, žūgstu, žūgu=žūt “trocknen” ME IV 835, žugIs “mager” ib. 829 (because of the connection of the content segments cf. lit. džiūti "to become dry, to dry up; falls, decreases, etc.” LKŽ II2 1035). Thus, the fact that in the leksemos Zaugatiés- ®,,without apduoma kapt, goes; die Herde verlassend (ins Getreide) laufen, (iiber Griiben), 18 J. Endzelin, Uber die Nationalitit und Sprache der Kuren, FUF, 12, 1912, p. 59-72; K. Biiga, RR, III, 1961, p. 172—4; V. Kiparsky, Die Kurenfrage, Helsinki, 1939, p. 253, etc. 1% This has already been done by K. Būga, RR III 174 and J. Endzelins, ME I 694 (the latter does not rule out the possibility of borrowing Lithuanian dialects). *0 J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wėrterbuch, Bern, 1959, p. 259. iš 11 springen“ ir žūgt „trocknen“ has a form connection (common format -g-! ), allows you to search ir jų content connection, in other words, makes them suspected of being etymologically identical. Liet. to hang, , to put to dry; dried; thieves; a coffin; smogti’ LKŽ 112 1016 (for jo relationships between content segments, see above), dry ,,to become dry, to dry up; grow, grow up, grow old, grow old (about plants); lysti, menkėti’ ib. 1035, lat. Zaut “dry, to Hanging out drying“, Zaut ,hit, a strong putting a blow; pouring; watering, heavy rain ME IV 792-3 (on the fact that here we have one lexem polysemy, see. su above), die “drying” ib. 838, as known, has several etymology hypotheses- ®.. E. Bernecker** compared them to each other. ind. dunoti ‘dega’, davah ‘forest’ (< “combustion”). J. Endzelynas®, admitting the original meaning „austrocknen, verdorren, erstarren“, has linked these Baltic words su s. vok. height. rawalon "to disappeas. r, die", skand. dé “stopped (about the joints)“, s. vok. height. fouwen, s. angl. ddian „die“, got. daups ‘dead’. Such association su confronts ir semantic phonological (Germanic words have au in the root) difficulties. Recently, Germanic words have been etymologized differently? *. Based on the fact that sememos ,,to shine, to glow, to light“, „to heat, to burn“ ir "dry" are related (plg., e.g., lot. sūdum ‘giedra; clear sky", shit ‘Dry; be "Spider-- Man: Far F. From 2 Home" is a remake of the original. sky name dichus "a radiant, shining sky" (s. ind. dyduh ",sky, day" ir ‘god’, gr. Zevc, lot. diés „,diena“) still hidden liet. jiduti, lat. lose. Unfortunately, due to the following facts of the Baltic languages, to which modern methods of linguistic analysis give preference, we are forced to abandon this interesting hypothesis®, Ziigt ,,drying (: Sit ,,trocknen®) ir lightening* ,,without consciousness capt, go; the Leaving the herd (in Grain) run, (liber Dig) jump® (:Zautiés ,to be great, cheerful; running; regardless of all Obstacles go fast etc.) derivative relationship (both have a formant -g-), as already mentioned, allows you to search ir ju content plan connection. When seeds are planted „dry, be dry“, where oppositiontransitivity transitivity the second member is — "hang, put, make, dry", semema ir „run, flow, touch“ may be historically related, first seen in liet. iš sökkti “to shrink, to dry up, to fade (about water); "Steady, steady, steady, steady, steady, steady". sight (present. I'm in love = with you. senkū) ,,seize, fall (from Water), dry out” lot. ir sicare ‘dried, dried; drained; drink; milžti, ižlupti’. This assumption can be further supported by the fact that the one-rooted white su säkti, sikt is only gr. ne (aorist) Ž-ox-ero "exhausted, worn out, dried s. up", ind. d-sakrah,.inexhaustible, inexhaustible“, but also, most importantly, av. — — A house... ‘dry’ (from the reduplicative| derivative sisk-us), vid. water. sesc, kimr. Hysb, Bret. hesp ‘dry’ (from *complains-)? ". Lot. siccus ,,or2 See E. Fraenkel, LEW, p. 117. 22 E. Berneker, IF, 10, 1899, p. 158. 28 K. Miihlenbach's Latvian-- German Dictionary, IV, p. 793. ?4 J. Pokorny, IEW, p. 260. 25 Fr. Woodpecker, The Indo-European Heavenly God im Baltic Slavic, KZ, 69, 1/2, 1948, p. 115—123, 26 Plg, dar, ką sako M. Mayrhoferis:,,Specht’s approach of a diéu*- “to shine, to shine”..., which is supposed to have resulted from ūber,,brennen* lit. dZidu-ti,,- to hang to dry”, džiova,,Diirre”, remains uncertain, on the other hand,”— M. Mayrhofer, KurzgefaBtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen, II, Heidelberg, 1963, p. 71. * 27 J. Pokorny, IEW, p. 894; M. Mayrhofer, op. cit., I, p. 64. 12 sas’ (from *sikkos su expressyvine geminata)ir av. hiku- ‘dry’ means of single origin su s. ind. sécate, sificdti, av. hichaiti, hichaiti „„išlieja, išpila“, s. vok. height. sihan ,,košti’ (Voice. siehen), s. vok. high, s. saxon, s. engl. sigan ,,drip, drop, flow”** (ide. *seik“- “flow, run, pour, drip” Pokorny IEW 893)*". It. dry ,,dry“ continues in lat. exsūctus, which is lot. exsūgo "suck, suck" (: suck ,, Ciulpiu; I suck; absorbed“) passive participant of the past tense. Based on these obvious facts, sememus "dry, turn dry" ir the historical connection of “run, flow, touch” can be considered as proven®. O Whereas: „bėgti, tekėti“ are used when ir talking about ir water, about a person, e.g., e.g., vaikas bėga ir vanduo bėga the ir relation between tekėti : tūkas, thus it becomes clear that liet. ir Djibouti „hang, put to dry; thieves; "Stop, Stop, Stop". žaūt (Sighs) “dry, to Drying out aushéigen; strike, a strong Strike,” he sang. jiiiti, lat. dry “trocknen” ir allowed. Djibouti ,,run, go quickly; "Streamline", lat. ką Yellowfin tuna “,climbing; rise high; great, to be exuberant; running; regardless of all Obstacles go fast; not knowing what to run on or even; little. wohin gehen etc.“ belong to the same ir root, except that the content segments „run, touch“ we find manifested in the root itself, cf. ir lat. yellow ',giessen, stark regnen' of ME IV 793. Be the herein iš specified semem "dry, turn dry" ir The historical connection of,,bégti, tekėti, lietis“ ir shows that the latter semema resp. if alosema "run, hurry, go fast" is primary. Having stated this, we can return to the etymology of dZiaiigti(s), apžaugtiés, džaugt(iės), gaugtiés. Here, the content plan of the verbs under consideration distinguishes the following main groups of content segments: 1) “to have joy, to have fun; (to) rejoice, to rejoice, to rejoice” (džiaūgti(s), džaugt(iės), gaugtiés), “,to hope, to expect; promise, be a term: complain” 2) im (g'augtiés); 3) ,,milinaties, caressing; glausties“ (g'augties),,- ,kissing each other; lovingly being um around, kissing, hugging, pushing on” (Zaudzites, Zauguotes); 4) ,,growing (einen anderen Tree) wrap" (ap-Zauigtiés). Segments ,,invade* at ,,growing (einen anderen Baum) umwinden® are quite close. Sememos "enjoy" the genetic connection su of content segments that have lat. Starfish? ,,the Leaving the herd (in grain) run, (iiber Dig) jump (of Kiihen said) etc.” ir Zautiés “,climbing; rise high; great, to be exuberant; laufen etc.“, it is also relatively easy to show, cf. s. vok. height. frao, fra, frawērr, happy, rejoicing“ (Voice. froh) : s. Shame. July "fast, urgent, sudden, acute", vid. English. frow "fast, urgent" (German). frawa-), s. in. prdvate "dance, jumping"; English. exult "to rejoice, to rejoice", which used to mean ir „to leap upward, especially for joy“ („to jump upward, especially for joy“). This English verb continues the lot. ex(s)ulto "dancer, dancer; bubbling, raging, waving; I admire, Plg, 28 Walde—J. A. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches etymologisches Worterbuch, II, Heidelberg, 1954, p. 533. 29 Plg. still, says ką J. Pokorny: ‘in addition to a Wz. seik* — “dry”, which probably over ,,abrinnen, versiegen =austrocknen“ with seik“-,,ausgieBen“ to be united, —J. Pokorny, IEW, p. 894. 30 pp. : A few (i. e. leksemos, žyminčios,,sausas*) are from the notion of „extract the juice“, — C. D. Buck, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages, Chicago, Illinois, 1949, p. 1076. 13