žmūne DP 313₁₀, 314₁₆, šūne Mit II 40 (the first of these forms is also mentioned by the author himself at I 139, II 171).

On p. 295, the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” is criticized without justification for treating M. Daukša’s form nuentė́mus DP 592 as a participle; the author believes it to be misspelled and divides it into a gerund and the dative of a pronoun (nu-ėnt jemus). Here we most likely have the same kind of absolute dative participle used without a pronoun as bekalbanczėm DP 159₁₂, regintiemus DP 228₃₇, tarintiemus BB Apd 27, 13, and so forth; see LKK V 106—107.

Among the book’s positive features are the careful selection of examples and the excellent technical preparation and editing of the entire text, which allow readers to find the information they need quickly and easily.

In closing, one would like to wish that A. Zeno’s “Handbook of the Lithuanian Language” may open the gates to Lithuanian for as many of its friends and researchers around the world as possible.

V. Ambrazas

A SIGNIFICANT STEP IN LATVIAN DIALECTOLOGY

M. Rudzīte, Latviešu dialektoloģija, Rīgā, 1964, 432 p.

The past few years have been truly prolific for the dialectology of the Baltic languages. Against a backdrop of a wealth of articles and monographs on individual dialects, long-awaited works of a generalizing nature in dialectology have finally appeared: Lithuanian scholars can take pleasure in Z. Zinkevičius’s “Lithuanian Dialectology” (Vilnius, 1966), while Latvian scholars have M. Rudzīte’s “Latviešu dialektoloģija.” Although written using different methods and, in part, for different purposes, these two books are, in a sense, an encyclopedia of Baltic dialectology, without which no researcher of these languages can manage.

Marta Rudzīte has been working successfully in Latvian dialectology for more than a decade: in 1958, her substantial description of several neighboring dialects of northern Latvia was published¹ (the work had already been defended as a candidate’s dissertation in 1954²); in 1963, she published an anthology of Latvian dialect texts intended for teaching purposes³. In addition, M. Rudzīte’s great contribution to Latvian dialectology lies in the fact that, under her guidance, graduates of the University of Riga prepared a considerable number of good descriptions of their native dialects, which in their scholarly value are on a par with many published studies in Latvian dialectology. M. Rudzīte’s greatest contribution to Latvian linguistics and Baltic studies in general, however, is her book “Latviešu dialektoloģija.” The very size of this work—432 pages—sufficiently shows that the author has accomplished a truly enormous task. Following a fairly strict plan, she describes the main dialects of Latvian: Central (vidus dialekts, pp. 59—146), Livonian (lībiskais dialekts, pp. 147—255), and High Latvian (augšzemnieku dialekts, pp. 257—405). Strictly speaking, only the phonetics and morphology of the dialects are described in detail, while questions of syntax are almost untouched here (it is characteristic that this “problem” also afflicted Z. Zinkevičius’s “Lithuanian Dialectology”—apparently, brighter days have yet to dawn for the syntax of the Baltic languages!).

¹ M. Rudzīte, Ziemeļvidzemes izloksnes Braslavā, Vecatē, Baunās un Vilzēnos, „Valodas un literatūras institūta raksti“, VI, Rīgā, 1958, p. 101—256.

² M. Rudzit, Dialects of the northern part of Vidzeme (Braslavian, Vecatian, Baunian, Vilzenian), Abstract, Riga, 1954.

³ M. Rudzīte, Latviešu izloksņu teksti, Rīgā, 1963, 108 p. (išleista rotoprintu).

197

Baltic scholars may perhaps feel a little regret that M. Rudzytė wrote not a study of Latvian dialectology, but a dialectology textbook for students. Didactic aims compelled her to explain certain elementary matters of dialectological science; moreover, the textbook’s format seems to have constrained the author’s thinking and limited her independence. She appears to have deliberately avoided more complex questions in the history of dialectology, most often contenting herself with references to the work of her great teacher, Academician J. Endzelīns. In this way, not wishing to shortchange her students, the author sometimes “shortchanged” researchers of the Baltic languages a little. But everyone will surely understand that it is extremely difficult to please both groups in the same book. In any case, because of its abundant material, laid out in a highly systematic fashion (in this respect it truly goes far beyond the limits of a textbook), M. Rudzytė’s work is an important step in Latvian dialectology, and its author deserves the sincere gratitude of all Baltic scholars.

It would also be worth drawing attention to a couple of minor points that caught the eye while leafing through the pages of this work. For each question discussed, the author provided fairly detailed references to the relevant literature; yet, when addressing the Curonian question (cf. pp. 32, 64), for some reason she did not cite the most substantial work devoted to it—V. Kiparsky’s “Kurenfrage” (Helsinki, 1939). She may also, perhaps needlessly, place the Curonians alongside the Prussians (cf. p. 20), seemingly separating them from such Baltic tribes as the Selonians or Semigallians. The term krustoties in the sense in which M. Rudzytė uses it (cf. p. 34) is not entirely appropriate, since in recent times it has been used in linguistics with a somewhat different meaning⁴.

A. Sabaliauskas

A NEW DICTIONARY OF PLACE NAMES

B. A. Никонов, Краткий топонимический словарь, Москва, 1966, 510 р.

Quite a number of toponymic dictionaries have been published in our country. Some have appeared that, by virtue of their profile, may be regarded as predecessors of the work under review¹. However, most of them no longer clearly met the requirements of toponomastics in our country and worldwide, even though some were published relatively recently. Therefore, preparing a new dictionary founded on the principles of contemporary toponymy was an urgent task.

V. Nikonov’s recently published “Brief Dictionary of Place Names” covers about four thousand names of inhabited places, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, regions, peoples, and other entities from across the globe. It is easy to imagine the enormous amount of work the author undertook in selecting, and sometimes explaining, place names from dozens of the world’s languages. The literature on toponymy is extensive, but its quality varies. Moreover, the level of toponomastics differs greatly from country to country. Consequently, the difficulties of “sifting” and assessing the literature are, in practice, not easy to overcome. The reasons mentioned undoubtedly explain why V. Nikonov’s dictionary, too, is not perfect in every respect, not eve-

⁴ Plg. О. С. Ахманова, Словарь лингвистических терминов, Москва, 1966, р. 417.

¹ M. N. Melkheev, Geographical Names. A Toponymic Dictionary, Moscow, 1961; M. S. Bodnarsky, Dictionary of Geographical Names, 2nd ed., Moscow, 1958; A. A. Ivanovsky, Geographical Names, Moscow, 1914, etc.

See also J. Haliczer, Słownik geograficzny. Pochodzenie i znaczenie nazw geograficznych, Tarnopol, 1935.

198