Svarbus latvių dialektologijos žingsnis

Zmine DP 31314, 31415, Sound Mit II 40 (the first of these forms mentionir ed by the author's I 139, II 171). Be own foundation p. 295 criticized academic "Dictionary of Lithuanian language" in už that M. A person convicted of a crime DP 592 is considered a participant; the author ji believes to be incorrectly ir spelled, breaks ją į the ir participle of the pronoun (nuefit iemus). Here we probably have the same absolute participle of the pronoun as in be kabarbancžėm reginiėmus DP 159,,, DP 2285,, taritiemus BB Apd 27, 13 ir 100 mg/ day, see paragraph 100.1. LKK V 106—107. The positive features of the book include careful selection of examples, excellent technical preparation and editing of the entire text, allowing the reader to quickly and easily find the necessary ir data. In conclusion, I would like to wish that A. Zeno’s “Lithuanian Language Guide” will open the door to Lithuanian language to as many of its friends and researchers as possible all over the world. M. Rudzite, Latviešu dialektoloģija, Riga, 1964, 432 p. Recent years have indeed been very fruitful for the dialectology of the Baltic languages. Against the background of a multitude of articles and monographs on individual dialects, the long-awaited works of dialectology of a general nature finally appeared: Lithuanianists can enjoy Z. Zinkevičius’s “Dialectology of the Lithuanian language” (Vilnius, 1966), and Latvians — M. "Latvian dialectology". These two books, written by different methods and for partly different purposes, are a kind of encyclopedia of the dialectology of the Baltic languages, without which no researcher of these languages can do without. Marta Rudzytė has been working successfully in the Latvian dialectology bars for several years: in 1958 her extensive description of several neighboring dialects of northern Latvia was published." (this work was defended as a candidate dissertation* in 1954), in 1963 she published a chrestomaty® of Latvian dialect texts for educational purposes. Furthermore, M. Rudzytė’s great contribution to Latvian dialectology is that her students at the University of Riga have prepared a number of good descriptions of native dialects, which in their value for linguistics are no less than many published Latvian dialectological studies. However, M. Rudzytė’s greatest contribution to Latvian linguistics and Baltic studies in general is her book “Latviešu dialektoloģija”. The 432-page volume of this work alone shows that the author has done a really great job. According to a fairly strict plan, it describes the main dialects of the Latvian language — the middle (vidus dialekts, 59—146 pp.), the Livonian (libiskais dialekts, 147—255 pp.), and the highland (augšzemnieku dialekts, 257—405 pp.). In fact; Only the phonetics and morphology of dialects are described in more detail, while syntax issues are almost untouched here (it is characteristic that this “trouble” has not escaped Z. Zinkevičius’s “Lithuanian dialectology” — apparently, the syntax of Baltic languages has not yet seen a brighter day!). 1 M. Rudzite, Zieme]vidzemes izloksnes Braslava, Vecatē, Baunos un Vilzēnos,,,Studies of the Language and Literature Institute“, VI, Riga, 1958, p. 101—256. * Mr. Pyasur, T'oBopki ceBepHoO¥i uacrn Buzeme Bpamissecal; Beuarckuit, bBayubckuii, Bua. 3eHckHii), Aspededepar, Pura, 3 M. Rudzite, Latvian translation texts, Riga, 1963, 108 p. (released in rotoprint). 1954. 197 Baltists may be a little sorry that M. Rudzyté wrote not a study of Latvian dialectology, but a textbook of dialectology for students. Didactical objectives forced her to teach some elementary subjects of dialectology, and in addition, the profile of the textbook as if coated the author’s thoughts, restricting her independence. She seems to have deliberately avoided more complex questions of dialectology history, mostly contenting herself with references to the works of her great teacher, academician J. Endzelynas. In this way, the author, not wanting to hurt her students, sometimes slightly “hurt” the scholars of Baltic languages. But everyone will understand that it is extremely difficult to please both in the same book. In any case, M. Rudzytė’s work is a significant step in Latvian dialectology because of its extensive, very systematically arranged material (here it really goes far beyond the boundaries of a textbook), and its author deserves the sincere thanks of all Baltists. I would also like to draw attention to a couple of details that came to my attention while scrolling through the pages of this work. The author has given a fairly detailed description of the literature available on each of the questions, but when speaking about the Curonian problem (cf. pp. 32, 64), she has for some reason not mentioned the most extensive work devoted to this problem — V. "Kiparski's "Kurenfrage" (Helsinki, 1939)". It also, perhaps unnecessarily, puts the Kurians in the same rank as the Prussians (cf. p. 20), as if separating them from such white tribes as the Seeli or the Zimgali. The term crossroads in the sense used by M. Rudzytė (cf. p. 34) is not quite appropriate, because it has been used in linguistics with a slightly different meaning*. A. Sabaliauskas NEW DICTIONARY OF TOPONIMS B. A. Huxouos, Kparkni Tononamuueckui caosapb, Mocksa, 1966, 510 p. There have also been those who, according to their profile, can be considered precursors of the reviewed work.' However, most of them clearly no longer meet the requirements of our country and the world toponymy, although some of them came out relatively recently. Therefore, the preparation of a new dictionary, which is the foundation of today's toponymy science, was very relevant. The recently published “Brief dictionary of toponyms” by V. Nikonov includes about four thousand names of inhabited places, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, countries, nationalities and other names of the whole globe. It is easy to imagine the enormous work the author has done in selecting, and sometimes interpreting, place names in dozens of languages. The literature on toponymics is very abundant, but its quality is not uniform. Therefore, the difficulties of “disassociation” and evaluation of literature are practically difficult to overcome. These reasons undoubtedly led to the fact that not everything in V. Nikonov's dictionary is perfect, not all is correct. O. C. Axmanosa, CjioBnapb JiKHTBHCTHUEeCKHX TepMHHOB, Mocksa, 1966, p. 417. and M. H. Measxees, T'eorpagduueckue umena. TonokumMuueckuiėt cJioBapb, Mocksa, 1961; M. C. Boanapckuii, Crosaps reorpaduuecknx Haspauuii, Haj. 2-oe, Mocksa, 1958; A. A. UsanoBckHu it, leorpaduueckne umena, Mocksa, 1914 and others. Also pg. J. Haliczer, Geographical Dictionary. Origin and Meaning of Geographical Names, Tarnopol, 1935. 198