Dėl kai kurių žodžių literatūrinės formos ir kirčio

IŠ LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOLOGIJOS IR LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA Notes, reviews ON THE LITERARY FORM AND ACCENTUATION OF CERTAIN WORDS Determining the literary form of dialectal words and words found in old writings is a problem that those writing the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” constantly have to address. Here are a few such minor issues drawn from lexicographic practice. 1. Amelėti or omelėti? The word āmėlėti is first recorded in K. Būga’s “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” where it is glossed as “to speak affectionately, to address kindly” in Užpaliai, “to accustom, to get used to” in Vyžuonos, and illustrated with the sentences: Āmelėdama prisiprātino į savę mergiōtę. Paāmėlėk (припаскай, приголубь) ir priprāsk! Užpaliai¹. Elsewhere in his dictionary, K. Būga attempts to link āmėlėti with āmalioti “to babble nonsense”², and associates the latter with the word āmas “речь, сознание, Bewusstsein, žādas”³. Perhaps this well-founded connection suggested to K. Būga that he restore the form āmėlėti4, although, for example, the slip from Vyžuonos (D. Tuskenis) that he used as evidence for this form clearly indicates a different form—omelėti5. Apparently, not everything was clear to K. Būga here, since in his appeal to the public, “Men and women, lend a hand!”, published just before the proofs of his dictionary appeared, he asks for information about the word amelėti6. Today the form ōmelėti7 is confirmed—and not only in Vyžuonos: it is attested in other places as well—Dusetos, Sudeikiai, Leliūnai, Utena, and even Užpaliai. For example: Omelēja vaika ant kelių Dusetos. Gal ir tave reikēs omelėti kaip mažą! Dūsetos. Turi vieną dukterį, tai ir omelēja Leliūnai. 1 Žr. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 436. Beje, čia pat nurodomas tarminis tarimas – āmalāt veikiausiai yra korektūros klaida (po m turėtų būti ne a o e), nes ir paties K. Būgos iš Užpalių užrašytame lapelyje randame formą āmėlėti. 2 See K. Būga, cited work, III, p. 432. 3 See ibid., p. 433. 4 This connection remains well-founded even if we restore the form omelėti: compare also omuo “memory; understanding, discernment,” omenis “mind, intellect, consciousness; memory”; aumuo “understanding, discernment,” āumenys “memory” (thus, here we have an alternation of root vowels). 5 It is noteworthy that a later edition of the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” does not use this slip (cf. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, I, Vilnius, 1941, p. 98; 2nd ed., Vilnius, 1968, pp. 119–120) and, although it leaves it in the same place in the card file, makes a duplicate of it and moves that duplicate under the letter o. 6 See K. Būga, cited work, III, p. 488. 7 The circumflex accent is restored here provisionally, since vowel accents are not distinguished in the area where the word is used. The circumflex quality could be motivated to some extent by the durative nature of the action expressed by this word. 189 It would be hard to believe that this is a different word from the one given by K. Būga from Užpaliai and in volume I of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (and its second edition) from Užpaliai and Jūžintai, namely āmėlėti. Most likely it is one and the same word, reconstructed in different ways. So which of these forms is the true literary form? To answer this question, we must look at the literary-language a· and o· correspondences within the area where these forms are used. The form omėlėti might be suspected of being rotininkiškas. However, first, in the form omelėti, o· is long (o·), which means it cannot be a reflex of literary-language a, since the latter is usually shorter in the rotininkų area (ɔ or ă·); only in the southeast, nearer Ukmergė, where the word under discussion is no longer used, is it long (ɔ·)⁸. Second, of all the places where the word is reported to occur, only Leliūnai comes somewhat close to the rotininkų area, but does not merge into it (according to K. Morkūnas, Leliūnai, on the right-hand side of the Anykščiai—Rokiškis highway, do not have rotininkų speech). Thus, the possibility that omelėti is a rotininkiška form is ruled out. The dialectal form āmėlėti—from Užpaliai and Jūžintai—can confidently be regarded as žadininkiška (the stressed o· in the literary language corresponds to a· (ă·)⁹), especially considering the older attestations (K. Būga’s record from Užpaliai was made at least half a century ago), since, as Z. Zinkevičius notes, “apparently, until quite recently, at least in the Utena dialect area, ă· or a· was pronounced consistently”¹⁰. The form omelėti, recorded (less frequently) in Dusetos, Sudėikiai, Vyžuonos, Leliūnai, and Utena, is easy to explain and understand, since žadininkian speech is a disappearing dialectal feature there. In many cases, informants’ omelėti (more often recorded in recent years) may reflect the actual dialectal o· or at least ɔ·, less often ă·, which is “not always easy to distinguish from ɔ·, that is, o with an a coloring”¹¹. Finally, it should also be recalled that non-specialist transcribers tend to normalize forms to literary usage. Thus, dialect phonetics indicate that there is sufficient reason to regard the form āmėlėti as žadininkian. In the literary language it should be reconstructed as ōmėlėti. 2. The Samogitian oršas—the son of (v)ašas, the friend of aržuolas Ethnographic literature, in discussing the arrangement of the chimney in a Samogitian farmhouse, mentions the word oršas. V. Milius writes: “A vašas (oršas) with a hook at the bottom is fitted for hanging the pot. It is wooden or made of a thick iron chain, attached to a beam stretched across the room at ceiling height”¹². Among other dialectal variants, oršas is also mentioned by K. Čerbulėnas: “In dialect, vašas is called ašas, onšas, vonšas, oršas, anšas”¹³. In addition to those cited here, the forms vanšas, ošas, vošas and oušas are also known. The development of all these variants is clear: an > on > o > ou (Samogitian) or an > ą (Aukštaitian). The presence or absence of the sound v at the beginning of the word is also understandable. Only the form oršas (ōršas) stands apart. According to the files of the Academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (M. Untulis’s records), the files of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, and data from V. Milius¹⁴, it Žr. Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966, p. 50. See Z. Zinkevičius, cited work, p. 69 and map no. 28. See ibid., p. 69. See ibid. See V. Milius, “Residential Houses in the Platelių Area,” in “From the History of Lithuanian Culture,” II, Vilnius, 1959, p. 218. See K. Čerbulėnas, “The House (‘numas’)—the Original Type of Lithuanian Dwelling,” ibid., I, Vilnius, 1958, p. 129. See V. Milius, cited work, p. 214. 190 used in a small area—in Vindeikiai, Notėnai, Gintališkė, Platel, and elsewhere? M. Daukša’s *Postilė* dėgus, dėgaus can much more convincingly be interpreted as dángus, dángaus. This is supported by evidence from present-day language: 1. As a reflection of dángus, dángaus, fixed initial-stress accentuation of the root has been preserved in dialects in derived adjectives: dángiškas in Pagramantis²², Daukšiai, Baitininkai, and Pilviškiai; dánginis in Keturvalakiai and Kazlų Rūda. 2. Alongside present-day dángus, dángaus, M. Daukša’s *Postilė* dėgus, dėgaus can exist in just the same way that dialects have an analogous pair of accentual patterns for danga, a word with the same root and derivation but a different stem: dángą, dangõs and dánga, dángos in Šakiai, Keturvalakiai, Kapsukas, Kalvarija, Daukšiai, and Marcinkonys, for example: Dánga dengia duonkubilį ‘The cover covers the dough trough’ in Daukšiai. Gerai prispausk avilio dángą, kad lytus neilytų ‘Press the beehive cover down firmly so that rain does not get in’ in Šakiai. Su dánga užvėriau drevę, kad meškos neišplėštų ‘I closed the tree hollow with a cover so that the bears wouldn’t tear it open’ in Marcinkonys²³. The Dusetos and Rokiškis dialect forms dángos ‘diaphragm’ belong here as well: Neprapjauk dángų, viduriai susikraujuos ‘Don’t cut the diaphragm, or the innards will bleed’ in Rokiškis, alongside the Kupiškis form dángų²⁴. The fact that the distribution area of both dángos (eastern Lithuania) and dánga, and especially of the adjectives dángiškas, dánginis (southwestern Lithuania), lies quite far from the native region of M. Daukša, author of the *Postilė*, need not contradict our interpretation: in the sixteenth century, the distribution areas of these linguistic phenomena may have been quite different. Historical data also strongly support this reconstruction: dángus, dángaus is an old deverbal noun with metatonic accentuation (cf. dengti ‘to cover’). In his work *Die Metatonie im Litauischen und Lettischen*, K. Būga, discussing this case of metatony (deverbal noun /: verb ~), also gives the examples already mentioned by us: dánga ‘Deckel der Bachtroges’ [cover of a dough trough], Keturvalakiai; dángos, gen. dángų, Dusetos, ‘Zwerchfell, Diaphragma’ [diaphragm]: dángo, third-person present frequentative of deńgti ‘decken’ [to cover]²⁵. In the same place K. Būga notes: “Hierher gehört auch le. (kurisch) dánga BGr. ‘Ecke’²⁶. [Also belonging here is Latvian (Curonian) dándzis ‘Kranz, aus einem Stück bestehende Radfelge’ [wreath, wheel rim made from a single piece]²⁷.” The Prussian-language data—acc. sing. dangon 151₁₉, 155₄, 159₆, 161₈, 163₅–₆, 167₃, 169₁₂,₁₆, 219₂, 239₄,₁₃, dangan 169₆, and deńgijĸas gen. sing. f. 231₃, deńgijĸanſ acc. pl. f. 229₇,₂₈—would likewise indicate that Lithuanian once had dángus (and dángiškas). ²² See *Lietuvių kalbos žodynas*, II, p. 174. It is regrettable that examples of this accentuation are not highlighted in the dictionary in other cases. For instance, dánginis, recorded by a reliable collector in Kazlų Rūda, was not included, whereas danginis, undoubtedly a more recent form, was given (see ibid., p. 173). ²³ In volume II of *Lietuvių kalbos žodynas* we find only dangà (p. 171). For some reason, the material from the entire, extensive area attesting to the accentuation dánga has been regarded with suspicion. ²⁴ See *Lietuvių kalbos žodynas*, II, p. 174. ²⁵ See K. Būga, cited work, II, Vilnius, 1959, p. 397. ²⁶ See ibid. ²⁷ Žr. E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg–Göttingen, 1955–1965, p. 88. ²⁸ Žr. Prūsų kalbos paminklai, parengė V. Mažiulis, Vilnius, 1966. Skaičiai rodo puslapius ir eilutes. 192 All this shows that M. Daukša’s “Postil” dāgus, dāgaus is in fact dāngus, dāngaus. Thus, this would be perhaps the only genuine example of a u-stem noun belonging to accentuation paradigm I, not only in the “Postil”29, but in the entire Lithuanian language30. The chronology irrefutably shows that M. Daukša’s dāngus is older than the present-day accentuation dāngùs. The shift from fixed root accentuation to ending accentuation (I > IV accentuation)31 in this example accords with the general, fundamental trend in the development of accentuation in Lithuanian nominal words. J. Klimavičius ON A MINOR TERMINOLOGICAL MATTER IN THE WRITINGS OF K. BŪGA AND E. FRENKEL Throughout Lithuania, in piles of rubble, stacks of timber, holes in stone foundations, and other sheltered nooks, a small bird breeds, known to ornithologists by the Latin name Oenanthe oenanthe L. Prof. T. Ivanauskas writes of it: “In Lithuania you will find them in open fields, especially in infertile places. They are often found beside highways and major roads, but also in the immediate vicinity of towns, on military drill grounds, in stadiums, near railway stations, especially where stones and rubble have been piled up… After the war, when our land was strewn with all kinds of ruins, very favorable conditions arose for this bird to breed, since those ruins serve it as mountain foothills and a stony landscape. For example, quite a few stonechats appeared after the war in Vilnius itself, where entire city blocks had been reduced to ruins”1. The Lithuanian name for this little bird was taken from the Samogitian dialect word kūltupys (dictionaries and scholarly periodicals also contain three other variants of this word: kūltupis, kultupis and kultupys2). The formation of this term is clear: it is made up of the Samogitian word kūlis ‘stone’ + tupėti ‘to squat’. In eastern Lithuania, the words antukas || antikas and intukas3 are used to name the stonechat. Other forms worth noting are antuka, antukys, antukytis, etc. In his article “Славяно-балтийские этимологии”4, K. Būga observed that “Sl. ot-oka 29 M. Daukša’s “Postil” has žmogus 843, žmogaus 1328, etc. P. Skardžius is likewise inclined to regard it as belonging to accentuation paradigm I, but this is only a hypothesis, as the author himself notes, albeit a very plausible one (see P. Skardžius, cited work, p. 124). 30 Cf. K. Būga’s remark: “I have no example for a noun” (see K. Būga, cited work, III, p. 35). 31 The reason for this, as A. Girdenis has rightly observed, is perhaps “the need to differentiate the cases” (see A. Girdenis, Why ‘ending-based’ accentuation of nominal words is becoming established, “Proceedings and abstracts of the conference of Lithuanian-language issues for lecturers at higher education institutions, dedicated to the 50th anniversary of October,” Vilnius, 1967, p. 6). 1 Žr. T. Ivanauskas, Lietuvos paukščiai, III, V., 1955, p. 309–310. 2 The unstandardized use of variants of this term is evident even in the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”: under akmenė and antikas (I, V., 1968), it gives kultupys; under girnakalis (III, V., 1956), kultupis; under gudžvirblis (III, V., 1956) and intukas (IV, V., 1957), kultupys; while under the main entry kūltupis (VI, V., 1962), it lists only the forms kultupys and kultupis. 3 The following synonyms should also be mentioned: akmenė (ornithologists use this term for a bird other than the stonechat, namely Arenaria interpres), čėkšla, čėkšta, girnakalis, gudžvirblis and, probably, čekutis. Although the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (II, V., 1969) indicates under the last word that it means ‘common snipe’ (Scolopax gallinago), the illustrative sentence contradicts this: “Oh, little čekut, čekutėli, why are you going into the pile of rubble?” (Švenčionys). 4 K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, I, V., 1958, p. 472. 13. Iš lietuvių leksikologijos ir leksikografijos 193