All this shows that in M. Daukša’s “Postilė,” žmogus, žmogaus is indeed žmogus, žmogaus. Thus, this would probably be the only genuine example of a u-stem noun in accentuation paradigm I not only in the “Postilė”²⁹, but in the entire Lithuanian language³⁰.

Chronology irrefutably shows that M. Daukša’s žmogus is older than the current accentuation žmogùs. The shift from fixed stem accentuation to ending accentuation (accent paradigms I–>IV)³¹ in this example corresponds to the general principal tendency in the development of accentuation of Lithuanian nominal words.

J. Klimavičius

ON A MINOR TERMINOLOGICAL POINT IN THE WRITINGS OF K. BŪGA AND E. FRENKEL

Throughout Lithuania, in rubble heaps, piles of timber, holes in stone foundations, and other crevices, a small bird nests, 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 often occur alongside highways and major roads, but also in the vicinity of towns, on military drill grounds, in stadiums, near railway stations, especially where stones and timber have been piled up… After the war, when our land was strewn with all kinds of ruins, very favorable conditions for this bird to nest were created, since those ruins take the place of mountain foothills and stony terrain for it. Indeed, after the war quite a number of wheatears appeared in Vilnius itself, where entire city blocks had turned into ruins”¹. The Lithuanian name for this little bird was taken from the Samogitian dialect word kúltupys (dictionaries and scholarly periodicals also record three other variants of this word: kúltupis, kultupis and kultupys)². The formation of this term is clear: it is composed of the Samogitian word kūlis ‘stone’ + tupėti ‘to squat’. In eastern Lithuania the words antukas || antikas and intukas³ are used for the wheatear. Other forms worth mentioning are antuka, antukys, antukytis, etc. In his article “Славяно-балтийские этимологии”⁴, K. Būga noted that “Sl. ot-oka

²⁹ M. Daukša’s “Postilė” žmogus 8₄₃, žmogaus 13₂₈, etc. P. Skardžius is also inclined to regard it as belonging to accentuation paradigm I, but this is merely an assumption, as the author himself notes, albeit a very likely one (see P. Skardžius, cited work, p. 124).

³⁰ Cf. K. Būga’s note: “I have no example for a noun” (see K. Būga, cited work, III, p. 35).

³¹ The reason for this, as A. Girdenis has correctly observed, is probably “the need to differentiate the cases” (see A. Girdenis, Why “ending-based” accentuation of nominal words is becoming established, “Programme and abstracts of papers for the conference of Lithuanian language issues for lecturers of 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 use of variants of this term without standardization is evident even in the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”: under the words 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; whereas under the headword kúltupis (VI, V., 1962), only the forms kultupys and kultupis are listed.

³ Other synonyms worth mentioning are akmenė (ornithologists use this term for Arenaria interpres, not for the wheatear), čekšla, čekšta, girnakalis, gudžvirblis and, probably, čekutis. Although the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (II, V., 1969) indicates under the latter word that it means “common snipe” (Scolopax gallinago), the illustrative sentence contradicts this: “Hey, you čekut, little čekut, why are you crawling into the rubble heap?” (Švenčionys).

⁴ K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, I, V., 1958, p. 472.

13. Iš lietuvių leksikologijos ir leksikografijos

193

“утка” = Lithuanian ant-uka “eine Schnepfe” Mielke I 6, añtukas “saxicola oenanthe” Dusetos (district of Vozgėliai), antukỹs “the same” Veliuona⁵. In the article “Die Metatonie im litauischen und lettischen,” K. Būga cites the words añtukas and iñtukas as containing the suffix -ukas and again compares them with the word añtis “Ente.” In E. Fraenkel’s etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language, under the entry for añtis “Ente,” we find the words antuka “Schnepfe,” añtukas “saxicola oenanthe, wheat ear, Weisskehlchen,” antikas (Dusetos), intukas (Tauragnai, Utena district), antukýtis (Veliuona) “Steinschmätzer, Steinschnäpper”⁶. These comparisons are hard to believe, since a coot bears no resemblance whatsoever to a duck. K. Būga was probably somewhat misled by Chr. G. Mielcke’s and other dictionaries, where the meaning of antuka is given as “eine Schnepfe,” that is, a snipe. This inaccuracy has already been corrected in the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”: the word antuka there refers to antukỹs, and the latter to antikas “Oenanthe oenanthe.” The formation of the dialect terms antukas and intukas would be more accurately explained as follows: antė + -ukas and intė + -ukas. The “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” states that the words añtė and iñtė mean “chaff-house.” In addition, the word añtė (like añtis) also means “space behind the stove.” The correlation between the meanings “space behind the threshold, vestibule” and “chaff-house” is quite evident. Associating these words with the Aukštaitian name for the coot, one can explain it more convincingly.

K. Gaivenis

A WORK ON THE SLAVICIZATION OF BALTIC PLACE NAMES

AND THE LITHUANIZATION OF SLAVIC PLACE NAMES

Jurgen Prinz, Die Slavisierung baltischer und Baltisierung slavischer Ortsnamen im Gebiet des ehemaligen Gouvernements Suwalki, Wiesbaden (Otto Harrassowitz publishing house), 1968, 320 pp. with a map.

The problem of the Slavicization of Baltic place names and personal names has been raised in linguistic literature before—indeed, several works devoted to this question have appeared in the past decade alone¹. However, J. Prinz’s book under review far surpasses other works in this field in scope.

The book consists of an introduction, ten chapters, and conclusions. At the end of the book, the author provides a thematic index.

In the introduction, J. Prinz draws attention, among other things, to the difficulties of studying Baltic toponymy found in Slavic lands. He gives examples from V. Toporov and O. Trubachev’s book “Linguistic Analysis of the Hydronyms of the Upper Dnieper Region” (Moscow, 1962), and from the works of H. Schall, which show that some of the Baltic toponymic relics interpreted by these authors may also be understood differently. In his general remarks, J. Prinz briefly describes the ethnic composition of Suwalki Governorate in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and critically surveys the sources used

⁵ K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, II, V., 1959, p. 393.

⁶ E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg—Göttingen, 1955, tt., p. 11—12.

¹ K. O. Falk, Studies on the Slavicization of Lithuanian place and personal names, “Scando-Slavica“, IX (1963), p. 87—103; On the methods of Slavicizing Lithuanian personal and place names. On the origin and spread of names in -ańce, “Spräkliga Bidrag“, vol. 4, No. 19, Lund, 1964, p.1—16; J. Otrębski, Slavicization of Lithuanian hydronyms and place names, “Z polskich studiów slawistycznych“, Series 2, Linguistics, Warszawa, 1963, p. 267—286.

194