Veikalas apie baltiškų vietovardžių slavinimą ir slaviškų lietuvinimą

‘yTKa’ = JiKT. ant-uka „eine Schnepfe“ Mielke I 6, afitukas „saxicola oenanthe“ Dūsetos (ep. Vozgéliai), ant-uka „T.c.“ Veliuona, Str. „Die Metatonie im litauischen und lettischen“ K. Būga refers to the words afitukas and ifitukas with the suffix -ukas and again compares them with the word dntis „„Duck“. In E. Frenkelio etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language, the word duck "In the article "Duck" we find the words antuka "Schnepfe", aiitukas. "saxicola oenanthe, wheat ear, Weisskehchen", antikas (Dusetos- ), intukas (Tauragnai, Bez. These comparisons are hard to believe, because the duck is not a duck at all. K. Bugas was slightly misled, probably, by Chr. G. Milkės and other dictionaries, where the meaning of the word antuka is stated,eine Schnepfe, i.e. slanka." In the academic Lithuanian language dictionary this inaccuracy has already been corrected: the word antuka is directed to antukyps, and the latter to antikas,,- Oenanthe oenanthe- ”. The construction of the dialectical terms antukas and intukas would be more accurately interpreted as follows: anté + -ukas and intė + -ukas. The Lithuanian language dictionary states that the words asité and initė have the meaning of “dust”. In addition, the word aritė (like afitis) also has the meaning of “furnace door”.,,UZnarvio, užuolandos” —>,,peledės” correlation is very obvious. By linking the name of the hill with these words, it can be explained more convincingly. K. Gaivenis WORKING ON BALTIC PLACE-NAMES Jurgen Prinz, Die Slavisierung baltischer und Baltisierung slavischer Ortsnamen im Gebiet des ehemaligen Gouvernements Suvalki, Wiesbaden (Otto Harrassowitz leidykla), 1968, su žemėlapiu. The 320 p. su problem of the glorification of Baltic place names and personal names is not the first time raised in linguistic literature — several works on this issue have appeared in the last decade alone!. However, the reviewed book by J. Princas far exceeds other works in this field in terms of volume. 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. Princas, among other things, draws attention to the difficulties of examining Baltic toponymy found in Slavic lands. He gives examples from the book of V. Toporov and O. Trubachev “Linguistic analysis of hydronyms of Upper Transnistria” (Moscow, 1962), from the works of H. Schall, which show that some of these relics of Baltic toponymy explained by the author can be interpreted in another way. In his general remarks, J. Princas briefly describes the ethnic composition of Suvalkai governorate at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, critically reviews the 5 K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, II, V., 1959, p. 393. 6 E, Fraenkel, Lithuanian etymological dictionary, Heidelberg—Gottingen, 1955, tt., p. 11—12. 1 K. O. Falk, From studies on the Slavification of Lithuanian Place and Personal Names, „„Scando-Slavica- “, IX (1963), p. 87—103; On the methods of Slavification of Lithuanian Place and Personal Names. O genezy i rozpowszechnieniu nazw na -arice, „Sprakliga Bidrag“, t. 4, Nr.19, Lund, 1964, p.1—16; J. Otrebski, Slavization of Lithuanian water and place names, „Z polskich studiéw slawistycznych“, Seria 2, Jezykoznawstwo, Warszawa, 1963, p. 267—286. 194 toponymic sources. The author says that in those cases where the genders of the place names differed in various sources, he presented them all, and when they were the same, he referred only to the book “Lietuvos apgyventos vietos” (Lithuania’s inhabited places) published on the occasion of the 1923 census (Kaunas, 1925 — hereinafter L. 23). In the section on translations („Die Ūbersetzung“) the author draws attention to the fact that the peculiarities of the interaction of Baltic and Slavic toponymy require to distinguish translation (e.g., Lithuanian Raudondvaris — Polish Czerwony Dwér) from interpretation, semantic meaning giving, i.e., essentially from semantic substitution (in mind are cases when place names of unclear semantics are “meaning giving” because of external resemblance to a generic word of another language, and are made of clear semantics, e.g., Lithuanian Raudondvaris — Polish Czerwony Dwér). "Višakio Rūda - Lenk". Wysoka Ruda). According to J. Princas, those place names or their components, whose original meaning is more general and simple, are translated more often. For example, let. "Old-fashioned glasses". Olkšniany Stare: only the term old is translated, and Alksnėnai is only adapted to the phonetic system of the Polish language. The author raises a rather interesting idea at first glance, that the form of the adjective depends on whether the qualificative toponym forms a polarizing pair or not: if the qualificative toponym is also polarizing, then its adjective is a noun (in Polish the adjective stovis after the noun), e.g.: liet. Old and New Algonquins. Olkšniany Stare and Olkšniany Nowe; if the qualificative toponym does not form a polarization pair, then its adjective is not nominative (in Polish it stands before the noun), e.g.: liet. Nais Kdimas lenk. Nowa Wies. However, this idea appears to be questionable. In particular, it should be said that the placename New Village is Known and neighboring gender New Village. In addition, there are examples where qualified pronouns form polarization pairs, but their adjectives are non-substantive, e.g. Naiijas Strūnditis and Sėnas Strūnaitis (Švenčionių r.). Conversely, the adjective of a qualified toponym that does not form a polarization pair may be noun, for example, Sendja upé (Alanta). It seems that the form of the adjective depends not so much on whether the toponym forms a polarization pair as on the popularity of the noun adjectives in the dialect. In this section the author highlights many interesting cases of translation: only the epithet is translated (Kirsna, Wielka — Kirsna Wielka), the whole word is translated (Plikakalnis — Lysa Gora, Alksninė, the author incorrectly spells Alksnynė — Olszyna), the minor suffix is translated by the minor word (Likiškėliai — Likiszki Male) and so on. The author correctly notes that this translation of the “meaning” of a placename is possible only under certain conditions of bilingualism. In the chapter on substitution (interpretation, die Deutung), Princ examines another case of interaction between place names, which, unlike the one he has just discussed, is possible without bilingualism. As already mentioned above, what is “translated” here is not the “content” or “meaning” of the place name, but its form, which is phonetically quite similar in both languages. However, in the translating language, the little changed form often (except, most importantly, for anthroponymous place names) acquires a completely different content (in addition to the above-mentioned example, Višakio Rūda —Wysoka Ruda, also cf. lietuvių Molinė: molis — 13* 195 lenkų Malina: malina „raspberry“- ). It is important to bear in mind that in this case there is no question of any phonetic laws, because substitution easily violates them. This section deals with: a) derivatives from Christian names, which are similar in Lithuanian and Polish (Belarusian, Russian) languages, e.g., liet. "Jakubowski - Lenk". Jakubance (see Jakub, Polish Jakub); b) derived from appellatives, e.g., liet. Pupazodis — lenk. Popasodzie (cf. lit. pupa, lenk. pop "belt"); c) cases of substitution of forms, e.g., lit. "Kudrzeny - Lenk". Kudrany et al. Especially detailed and extensive is the subsection on derivatives from appellatives. In it, the author noted many interesting substitution cases (e.g., Polish gora — from Lithuanian giria, Polish ostrėw — from Lithuanian aštrūs, Polish krasny — from Lithuanian krosnis, etc.). Only the attribution of the village names Drapaliai and Trumpaliai (p. 60, 83), even with reservations, to the compound forms is doubtful, the second syllable of which, in the author’s opinion, is connected with the Lithuanian appellative palios, which in Polish has become pole,laukas® due to substitution. The name of the village Drapadliai comes from the name of the lake Drapėlis, and this is probably a derivative of the suffix -alis, plg. Tab-alis hedgehog. Srj. Similar works are probably also in the village of Trumpūliai (see also the village of Trumpaliskiai in Rokiškio district). In the section,,Noun verbs of compound and composite place names“ J. Princas gives a detailed overview of how the second verbs of compound place names and the second words of composite place names are pronounced. In addition, the author presents another case of Lithuanianization. For example, the author believes that composite place names, the second word of which is būda, can be lithuanized into Slavic constructions: pl. Debowa Buda — lit. Azul Way, Lenk. Pure Buddha — lit. "Čista Būda, lenk. Lipowa Būda - lit. Liepava Būda (p. 74) and others. The author bases this statement on the fact that in Lithuanian compound oikonimai are very rare, while in Polish and Slavic languages in general they are particularly popular. The latter idea is to be agreed with in principle, but the origin of the whole model of placenames with Būda can be doubted. For example, the noble place name AZuolij Būda may also be non-Slavic. It has retained its genetic form, perhaps because its first word ąžuolas is derived, and longer derived stems in Lithuanian language are much more difficult to connect with other Zodziai. (See also Rugėnų Būda vs., Saravij Būda vs. Kėdainių raj.) Furthermore, such village names as Mažoji Būda, Sendji Būda, Naujdji Būda (cf. Cysta Būda) also show that some of the compound oikonyms with Būda may have been independently formed in the Lithuanian language soil, although the general word būda itself is a Slavism. In the case of compound oikonimies, the second syllable of which is from galas, it is not appropriate to mention the village name Raugalai (p. 76), because it is not a compound, but a personal noun place name, derived from the surname Rdugalas (see also Raduga, Rdugas, Rdugala), which in turn is probably related to the general words rdugalas, rdugti, etc. The exception is the place name Pirktavieté, Kepurienės (p. 91), which is not actually a conjugated name of the village, but two different variants of the name, which in Lithuanian are: Kepurinė or Pirktavieté. The authors were also misled by unreliable sources about the origin of the place name Asiūklės Pamūrgiai, which is written differently (Pamurgiai, Asiūklės, Asiūklenskiai, Polish Pomorgi Osiukldnskie) (p. 91). The first word of this oikonimo Asiūlklės is next to the existing 196 other village name The ancestor suggested. Therefore, according to the work, this is a simple noble place name, there is no ir reason to jo speak about the original Slavic character. Village name Makauskai (left. Makowszezyzna) as a primary source J. Prince considers reconstructable Polish or Russian praform *MaxroBcxroe. However, ši reconstruction is not necessary here, because the name of the village The name is derived from the Maasai iš language. The section “Prepositions” first shows how Lithuanian prepositional oikonimai are praised. The author discusses each adverb separately, indicating the Polish jų variants. Be Moreover, the author gives examples where instead of Lithuanian oikonimo with minor suffix in su Polish there is a qualified place name, the first word of which is the adjective male etc., cf. ar let. "Liepaja - Liepāja". Liquiki Male (p. 105). These are very interesting cases, but sometimes they may not be considered as minority ir values, especially in cases where Lithuanian compound forms are ir known, cf. let. Geistarūkai, Polish Giejsztory Male, E. Volterio — Geištarai A little bit." The point is that the author compares the records of different epochs (current ir (End of a. 19th century). It is possible that here the minority is expressed ne differently in Lithuanian Polish languages, Polish ir genders indicate in o one other case could be intermediate Lithuanian construction ir (e.g.* Small Geist). The author distinguishes very well between predicative and non-predicative derivatives. Only two inaccuracies were noted: Inpartial author time prefixes -el- || -ėlvediniu, although this is probably only a suffix of the adjective (plg. (a) plural; placename considered by the author to be derived from the same suffix The name is derived from the name of a person, iš Puskepalis. (plg. bladder, stomach). In the second part of this chapter, the author presents a peculiar reverse of the first part of the chapter, showing which Lithuanian suffixes correspond to Slavic ones. It is true that the second part is not a complete copy of the first part, because we do not find some of the prepositions discussed in the first part here, or we get acquainted with derivatives not mentioned in the first part. In the “Prepositions” section, which is one of the shortest, because there are relatively few prepositions used to form oikonymes, the author reviews how su prepositional names of places of residence are glorified (usually conjugated). ir In the section ‘Limbs’ J. The Prince first shows in detail how the endings of Lithuanian place names are glorified -a, -ė, -ia, -is, -ys, -(i)us, -ai, -ės, -iai, -ys (plural), -(i)os. Next, the author reviews cases of Lithuanianization of Slavic endings. Ši The overview, be among other things, will be necessary for drawing up rules for transliteration of Slavic real words into Lithuanian. į Especially extensive ir in detail is the section of vocalism. The author first shows which Slavic, mainly Polish vowels are used to replace Lithuanian vowels. Be of this, J. Prince tries to determine, where possible is the ir meaning, the frequency of changes. In the absence of authentic forms, the section ir presents variant names. In most cases this is useful, but sometimes the author expands the work too much, especially when he gives Lithuanian forms ‘variants’. Tie ,,Variants® are usually clear distortions (taken as usual) iš Voltaire) or dialects. For example, Lithuanian forms ‘variants’ su a or o (p. 179 — 180), corresponding in the Polish o, literary language have either a vowel or either of both next to: a, o, ne Amalviškiai, Mockūbūdžiai, 2 3. Boa bTep, Crikckn nacenennnix MecT Cysazikekoil ryGepumm, C. [lerepGypr, 1901, p. 38 197 Molinė, Pécvietis, Valiai, Mėgiškės, Noreikai, Panoreikupiai, Ropydai River. All these place names are from those western Highland dialects, which keep the vowel o (pronounced and unpronounced) unchanged.,,Variants” Amoliskés, Mackobūdzis, Malinė, etc., are only distortions, so they cannot be placed alongside the true language facts. The author does not always strictly separate dialects from the subjects of literary language. For example, when it comes to the response of lit. a in Polish, it is said that, among other things, lit. a can also respond to the Polish e: lit. "Alekseev (Alekseev- )" (in Russian). Elksnokiemie. However, this example does not show anything here, because the beginning of the word a or e in this case is not a matter of polonization, but of dialect. Two other examples (Lithuanian Agliniskiai, Polish Agliniszki and Lithuanian Eglinčiškė, Polish Eglincziški) are completely unnecessary, because the vowels at the beginning of the word are the same in both languages. Sometimes the author considers dialects to be enslaved forms of local names. For example, the genders (from Voltaire) Obromžiliai, Olakniškiai, Oleknonys, Otesnykai (except for the not quite clear case of Oiiciskiai) considered as dialects (p. 177) are only Slavicized or distorted Lithuanian place names Abromžiliai (?), Alėkniškiai, Aleknonys, Atesniūikai. There are cases where the author derives the rule from incorrect or unclear genders of place names. For example, the author claims that in Slavic languages, -e/-, -er can correspond to -il-, -ir-, and gives the following examples: lit. Aviernyčia, Daugerdiškių k., Pošervintis —slav. Asupnuua, Dowgirdyszki, TlonmiupBunTei. However, the mentioned Lithuanian genders of the place names are either clearly distorted (Pošervintis — must be Pasirvintis, cf. Širvinta), or incorrectly, probably due to the influence of the Polish language (Aviernyčia — cf. Aviris). The name of the village Daiigerdiskiai is doubtful, because in the dialect it is now pronounced with -er-. However, this pronunciation is probably recent, because the place name, without doubt, is derived from the personal name Daigirdas (the gender * Daugerdas is not known neither from the living language nor from the writings). In addition, the Polish gender Dowgirdyszki (1881) indicates that the root used to have a diphthong -irrather than -er-. Thus, the rule that -el-, -ercan correspond to -il-, -irin Slavic languages is not supported by anything, and therefore it can only mislead readers. Similarly, a section on the response to the Lithuanian e —Slavic i, y (p. 201) will also appear. All the examples given by the author, where instead of lit. e in Slavic languages are i, y, are doubtful. Antai, lit. The second version (with the same title) is the author's second novel. Dydwiže, Volterio [luasuxke: here the Slavic forms correspond to the Lithuanian Didvyžiai, and not the Lithuanian. e in Slavic languages turns to i, y. Liet. Krzysztof - Polish. Krekszhany; Voltaire presents the Lithuanian gender incorrectly —Krištėnai and accordingly, obviously, incorrectly Slavic Kpuxmiransl, So, and here there is no e transformation i i, i.e. Voltaire's Neviedys,, Lithuanian inhabited places" Niviedé —pol. Neither does Niewietka indicate that the lit. e can turn into i, y, because the gender Niwiedzie is imprecise (it must be Newiedzie- ), and the Polish gender beginner nie-(Niewietka) may have come from the Polish negation nie. Finally, regardless of the way in which the Polish nieappeared in place of Lit. mea, about the response Lit. e—polk. i, y still cannot be spoken. Other examples in this section can be interpreted in a similar way. Thus, the assertion that lit. e can turn into i, y in Slavic languages is unfounded. It is apparently due to the unreliability of the material. 198 Non-distinction of true sexes from dialects or distortions in this (and another, "Consonantism") section is quite a lot (for p. 186, c example, subsection; p. 197, c subsectip. 201, c on; subsection; p. 207, c subsection; p. 215, subheadip. 216, a ng (c); subsection, p. 244—247, 1.1.2—1.1.6 subsectip. 250—251, 1.2.3—1.2.6. ons; subsections; p. 256, 1.4.4. poskyris ir kt. ). This reduces the accuracy of the conclusions ir reliability ir makes very careful even critically ir evaluate the vocalism consonant sections. ir Apparently, the author, who did not have reliable material, had to go another way: firstly, to present unquestionable, purely linguistic, language systems-decided equivalents and changes, o po to discussed (apparently, in each case separately) sporadic, unfair parallels. Now, when the į vocalism section, which is particularly "sensitive", requiring jewellery accuracy, entered a lot of quite clear, ne doubtful even inaccurate sexes, ar unreliable comparisons, the value of the whole section decreased noticeably. However, despite the undesirable impurities, a general picture of the ir Lithuanian Slavic vowel correspondances can still be formed. In this section the author reviews ir the corresponding Slavic vowels in Lithuanian. In the chapter on consonants, the author first shows which consonants replace Lithuanian consonants in Slavic languages. Be otherwise, speaking about liet. consonant v response in Polish, Prince quite rightly J. objects J. Otrembski on place names Valkinijikai ir Varėna interpretation, according to which Slavic forms OubkeHHKH ir Opahkbi allegedly produced by decomposition (lit. in Varena->v-arena—> B Opanax). In the penultimate, tenth, chapter, the author discusses some general aspects of the phonological change of place names, the phonological change of “adaptation” issues, drawing attention to the white į (English) ir Slavic languages similarities and differencir es of the vowel consonant systems ir of (Polish) languages. The last chapter of the book consists of conclusions, where the author, among be other things, clarifies, tightens the definitions of the most important concepts used in the work: transfer (Umsetzung), substitution, interpretation (Deutung), translation (Translated) ir kt. At the end J. The Prince briefly stops at the problem of the “linguistic position” of the placename. Interesting author's idea that the placename prolytė (archetype) can be considered found only when it appears to be motivated phonologicallji y, morphologically, semantically ir in the language system that existed at the time of the placename formation. So, as you can see ir iš this review, the reviewed work is only extensive, but interesting and necessary. ne ir Jo The practical benefit will be, first of all, that it will be possible to refer to it when drawing up rules for the transliteration of Polish-Lithuanian ir Lithuanian-Polish place names and personal names. All the work is prepared, in general, carefully, methodically is well thought out, planned. The most important shortcoming of the work is the inaccuracy of the material on which the author relies. Already iš the above examples show how the authors were misled by unreliable material. There are a lot of inaccurate place names in the work —to list them all is neither necessary ti nor meaningful, because this is as much the fault of the author as of ne others, who released to the world lists of placenames, in which the distortions į of error flashed. ir One can only say that if J. The Prince would have had precise literary and dialectal genders of place names, 199 and his work would have been much more compact and precise. Individual subsections and sections would of course have taken a completely different form. Among other minor flaws and inaccuracies, we can point out the dubious etymologies that occur, especially in cases where the adverbial oikonimos is derived simply from a common word. For example, from the common words of Slavic origin pdpas, patasas (< German Pottasch), randas (< Polish rząd „government, board...“), sabalas, tūboras, važnyčia the place names Papiškės, Papiškiai (p. 55), Patūšinė (J. Princo incorrectly spelled Patašynė), Patūšiškės, Patūšiškė (p. 55), Randiškė (p. 55), Sabališkėnai, Sabališkės (p. 56), Tabarai, Tabarauskai (p. 56), Vazniškiai (Gudeliai; J. Princo incorrectly —Važniškiai), Vazniškiai (Liudvinavas; p. 57) are in fact suffixes -iškreiškiniai from personal names Papas, Patūšius, Randis, Sabalys, Tabaras, Tabarauskas, Vaznis, Vaznys, Vaznius. Some of these names may be of Slavic origin. The name of the village Demeniškiai (p. 44) is not from Russian ĮJleMban or Polish. The lake is named after Dominic. The placenames Pakuonis (Pokojnie) and Salūperaugis (Salopirogi) are clear examples of substitution (Deutung), but the author mentions them only in the section on the endings of the forms. For example, the author, speaking about the changes of suffixes and endings, states that the Polish forms of the place names Alšėnai (p. 65, 126; Garliava), Barsūkai (p. 164; Liudvinavas), Bundériai (p. 166; Alytus) Olszany, Borsuki, Bondary are the earlier ones, while their Lithuanian equivalents are allegedly processed from Polish. However, such a claim requires evidence, more precisely, the history of the placename. After all, the place name Barsūkai may have been formed later than the common word barsūkas came into the Lithuanian language. It may have been derived from the Latin word for "little" or "small". In this case, the Polish ending -i will only be the equivalent of the Lithuanian ending -ai, and not the other way around, as J. Princas claims. : At the end of the book the author added a map of the former Suvalki gubernija. This is a very necessary addition, but the Lithuanian genders could also have been given to the place names on the map, at least the names of the most Lithuanian places. There is another citation inaccuracy, for example: L. 23, p. | is Likiškėlio, and J. Princas gives Likiškėliai; Sabeliškeniai (the exact form is Sabaliskénai) is L. 23, p. 2,0 not p. 1; Jakūboniai —L. 23, p. 281, not p. 218. A. Vanagas NEW,,RUSH-LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE DICTIONARY“ Russian-Lithuanian language dictionary. Compiled using printed and manuscript material collected by J. Baronas. Prepared by V. Baronas and V. Galinis. Edited by A-H prof. B. Larinas, K-H and T-§ J. Macaitis (edited), O-C K. Musteikis. „Mintis“, Vilnius, 1967 (I d. 569 p., II d. 622 p.). The well-known pedagogue and lexicographer J. Baronas (1873—1952) published his,,Dictionary of Russian and Lithuanian” in 1924. 200