Slavų kalbų lyginamosios gramatikos apybraiža

A DESCRIPTION OF COMPARATIVE GRAMMATICS OF SLAVIC LANGUAGES C. B. Bepnuurreiau, Ouepk cpasHurervHoll 2pPAMMATUKY CAGBAHCKUX A3bIKOSB, Hanareavcrso Axkanemun nayk CCCP, Mocksa, Sweden 1961, 352 p. Bernstein's "Outline of Comparative Grammar of Slavic Languages" is part of the comparative grammar of Slavic languages, including introductory questions and a section on phonetics. It is the latest word in linguistics on comparative-historical phonetics of Slavic languages and general problems of Slavistics. This work, in our opinion, far exceeds its modest task of a “textbook for students” and stands next to the classic works of historical Slavic linguistics by A. Meja, N. van Weik, A. Selishchev, A. Vajan. Both from a methodological point of view and with the abundant material on Baltic studies, and finally with the direct solution of the problem of Baltic-Slavic linguistic relations, S. Bernstein’s work is important for the researchers of the history of the Baltic languages. I am pleased to note that the issues of Baltic studies are given much more space in this work than in previous works of this kind. The most interesting chapter of S. Bernstein's book "Linguistic relations between the Balts and the Slavs" (pp. 27-37) will probably be of interest to our readers. Unlike previous works, such as those of V. Vondrakas and J. Mikolas, whose authors did not specifically investigate the Balto-Slavic linguistic relations, but were satisfied with a statement of the current situation, the author of the new work not only sets out old theories, but also presents clearly formulated peculiar views. S. Bernstein does not hesitate to oppose the theory of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage, which, in his words, has done much damage to comparative grammar of Slavic languages: this theory encouraged researchers to mix phenomena of different epochs, to make artificial constructions, hypotheses, which hindered the study of the history of the Slavic language (see p. 36). This is why, in Bernstein’s opinion, the theory of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage cannot be accepted: a) Many of the oldest processes in the Baltic and Slavic languages took place differently. The history of the vowels 4, d, a, é is particularly characteristic in this respect. b) Many of the most important processes of the Slavic language, which took place in the oldest period of its existence, were not manifested in the Proto-Baltic language at all or were only weakly reflected in its individual dialects. This is particula313 rly true of the s in Baltic and Slavic languages. c) In the past, the whole system of evidence of the supporters of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage was based on the comparison of the facts of the Praslavic and Lithuanian languages. Very often the facts of the Lithuanian language were presented as proto-Baltic. In the meantime, the proto-Baltic language split into two main proto-dialects in ancient times, one of which belongs to Lithuanian and Latvian, and the other to Prussian. The comparison with Lithuanian is particularly contradictory because the Praslavic tribes mainly communicated with the Prussian and Jotvingian tribes. There is no doubt that the Baltic-Slavic community (cooGuHocTs) primarily included the Praslavic, Prussian and Jotvingian languages. The history of the Praslavic language shows that during the period of close contact between the Baltic and Slavic tribes, a unified proto-Baltic language did not exist. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the most important innovations of this period unequally link the Slavic language with the individual Baltic languages. d) The proponents of the theory of the Balto-Slavic proto-language, despite various attempts, cannot solve the problem of the Balto-Slavic reconstructions. This problem is further complicated by the fact that reconstruction of the proto-Baltic language is largely impossible: many of the Baltic languages have disappeared without a trace, and those that have survived do not allow reconstruction of many of the proto-Baltic language phenomena. e) The theory of the Balto-Slavic proto-language is not confirmed by archaeological data. Bernstein concludes that the similarity of the Baltic and Slavic languages is explained by the long-lasting contact between the Baltic and Slavic tribes, which was the reason for the formation of the Baltic-Slavic community. This association is confirmed by common isoglosses. The task of the researchers is to determine the nature, territory and time of formation of these Balto-Slavic isoglosses (cf. p. 36). While denying the theory of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage, S. Bernstein also emphasizes that the data of the Baltic languages are extremely important for the study of the history of the Slavic language. In examining individual questions of Slavistics, the author of the work expresses a number of interesting thoughts, which in one way or another touch on the history of the Baltic languages. Of course, the question of periodization of the history of the Slavic language is of interest to us. Bernstein divides the history of the Slavic language into two major epochs: the epoch before the loss of closed syllables and the epoch of the loss of closed syllables. He divides the first epoch into three periods: the period immediately after the split of the Indo-European proto-language, the period of the Baltic-Slavic union, and the period from the breakup of this union to the era of the loss of closed syllables. The second epoch is divided into two periods: the first — the period of loss of closed syllables, the second — the period of splitting of the Slavic language, the formation of the languages of the Slavic nationalities. S. Bernstein dates the latter period to the second half of the first millennium AD, indicating that it is not possible to determine a more precise date, albeit within the framework of two centuries, as most of the previous researchers have done (cf. pp. 51—52). According to S. Bernstein, contacts between the Baltic and Slavic tribes began in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC and could have lasted until the middle of the 1st millennium BC. Thus, in the middle of the 1st millennium BC, the Baltic-Slavic community collapsed (cf. pp. 60—1). Bernstein agrees that these claims are very hypothetical so far. But there are materials that allow them to be refined. First of all, these are those elements of the Baltic and Slavic vocabulary that were formed during the common life of the Baltic and Slavic tribes. 314 The most important thing here is to distinguish the common Indo-European vocabulary from the innovations of the Balto-Silavian community. The author of the work rightly raises the idea that earlier researchers of Baltic interlingual relations paid too little attention to the South Slavic languages. ir vų į It turns out that we often find analogy to the phenomena of the Baltic languages in the South Slavic languages or only in Bulgarian. Here are some examples. In the ir East-West Slavic languages used wood ir jo fruit name pear (Russian). Tpywa, ukr. rpywa, left. Pear, polab. grčūusėoi, check. pear). However, in Polish dialects, as well as o in the Kashubian Lusatian ir languages, a variant of this name is found su k- (left. kruša, kaš. watercress, jam. Puddle. hail, thunderstorm, high Puddle. krušva). Su kThe name is also used in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian. ir (bulg. kpywa, serb. -Chorv. Kkpyuwka). Therefore, here is a common southern, some western Slavic Baltic ir languages (plg. let. shower, pr. crausy, crausios) phonetic isoglosse. There ir are several variants of the word. Liet. throat, pharynx, pr. gurcle corresponds to bulg. rptkAsn, serb.-chor. rpKAban, which Slavic languages are united. pe Liet. uvinas, lat. auns, pr. awins form a common isogloss su s. sl. ovens, bulg. oBeautiful, serb.-chorv. 6 Ban, sloven. 6van. The blade is flat, corresponding to s. the blade. milszq, bulg. mBa3d, serb.-chorv. mysem, slovėn. Maotzem. There are many variants of the word: lit. burna — bulg. 65pxa “lip”, serb. -Chorv. 6pHbuga ‘snout’; let. mouth — bulg. Oxyna ‘lip’; let. tarpas bulg. — rpan “pit”, serb.-chorv. rpdn; let. draskyti — bulg. dpackam; let. desin — s. sl. desbnb, bulg. Ojecen, serb.-chorv. deca: lit. salna, lat. salna — bulg. caana „šerkšnas“, serb. -Chorv. cAdxa, in sloven. Salty. Some ir semantic variants are detected. For example, lit. shake shake) (: corresponds to bulg. rpenerAtika, serb.-chorv. rpenėrAbukxa, sloven. a flickering light. Based on these facts, it is concluded that in the distant past there were close contacts between ir the Baltic and the present-day South Slavic languages, especially Bulgarian, for a long time. Since the territory of the Baltic tribes in the south did not extend further Pripets, it can be said that Slavic tribes speaking South Slavic languages lived in the north of the ir Praslavic territory (plg. p. 75). | True, here it must be said that the last V. Toporovo ir O. Trubačiovo Hydronymy of the Upper Dnieper! shows that the traditional white ir Slavic wall The Pripet River must probably be revised, because traces of Baltic hydronymy can be found ir į south of Pripets. Therefore, šį Mr. Bernstein's statement should be slightly clarified. Finally, he himself, in another place (cf. p. 60) when speaking about the Baltic and Slavic borders, indicates that small Baltic groups could have penetrated south of the Pripyat. ' Plg, B. H. Tonopos, O. H. Tpy6aues, Baaruiickas rnaponnmus Bepxuero [lonuenposBsa, „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, t. 4, Vilnius, 1961, p. 198; JlunrsucruveCKif anaams TruApoHHMOB Bepxnero TlonuenposBsa, Mocksa, 1962, p. 232—233. 315 Speaking of lexical borrowings, S. Bernstein points out that the oldest borrowings that entered the Slavic language from related languages are Baltic. Many common elements of the Baltic and Slavic languages are not inherited from the Indo-European protolanguage, but borrowed from each other during the period of communion. However, there are no strict criteria for distinguishing these borrowings from inherited words. The author of the work believes that such Baltic borrowings could include the Slavic name of the hand (Russian: pyka, etc.), which cannot be etymologically determined in the soil of Slavic languages, but has a reliable etymology in the Baltic languages. (hand: rifixti). | The work also deals with some interesting issues of phonetic substitution. It is true that they mainly concern the chronology of Germanisms. But phonetic substitution, of course, also touched the old Slavic borrowings from the Balts. The phenomena of phonetic substitution show that the chronology of borrowed words cannot always be relied on the data of phonetic changes. For example, until recently scholars were stuck with the first palatalization marks in Germanic borrowings (see šelm<xelm, ksnęže< kuning-). The otherwise Germanic words in the Praslavic language have traces of second and third palatalization (cf. cbrky<kirk, ceta<kintus), and during the contact of the Slavic and Germanic tribes the phonetic process k'>č', g'>4', x'>š' must have been long over. Therefore, the appearance of Slavic šelm-, ksnyže is now explained in this way. The result of the first palatalization here is not a living phonetic process, but a phenomenon of substitution. Since the syllables ke, ge, xe were no longer present in the Slavic language at the time of borrowing due to the first palatalization, the borrowed words ke, ge, xe were regularly translated as č'e,.j'e, š'e. These, rather than other, correspondences were chosen because the consonants k, g, x in the Slavic language could alternate with č', š', š' in the same morpheme. Thus, in this case, the response of the Germanic ge in Slavic borrowed words to j'e is not a credible argument with regard to the chronology of the borrowed words. The question of the chronology of the first Germanisms in the Slavic language indirectly concerns the question of the age of the Germanisms that entered the Baltic languages through the Slavs. K. Būga, as we know, claimed that the earliest Slavic words of Germanic origin do not go deeper than the 3rd century BC. "2. S. Bernstein dates the beginning of Slavic and Germanic contacts to the 2nd century AD (cf. pp. 97, 169). The main part of Germanic borrowings entered the Slavic language in the 2nd–5th centuries AD. At this time, the Slavs also received the words kotsls, šelm, osbls from the Germans, from which later came our cauldron, helmet, beak. S. Bernstein’s statements on the relations between Slavic and Germanic languages contradict the hypothesis about the Slavic homeland at the Vistula-Oder®, which has been raised again recently. However, the arguments of the proponents of this hypothesis are so far very hypothetical. S. Bernstein points out that we do not have any evidence that Slavs lived by the Baltic Sea in the 1st millennium BC. The argument of earlier researchers who proclaimed such ideas was that in Slavic languages the * Plg, K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, t. 2, Vilnius, 1959, p. 84. —* Plg, B. B. Maprunos, K auursucTuyeckoMy 0GOCHOBAHHIO runoTe3hi O BHCJIO- -oaepckoft npapojiuHe caasax, <Bonpochi s3bikO3Hannus», Mocksa, 1961, Ne 3, p. 51—59. 316 the right word is mor'e. This word is known in many Indo-European languages, e.g., Latin mare, ancient air. muir, got. marei, lit. mūrės, mdrios, lat. mare, pr. mary kt. ir However, S. Bernstein, be other based ko K. Boogs ir A. Isachenko claims, indicates that the Slavic word mor'e the meaning of ‘sea’ is newer. Previously this word meant "mud, standing water". Thus, in the Slavic language it appeared earlier than the Slavs became acquaintsu ed with the open sea (plg. p. 63—64). Therefore, it is not an argument that the Slavic-speaking people lived by the sea. The author of the work quite extensively touches on individual issues of Baltistics, giving a characteristic of the changes in the Praslavic language during the period of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic union. su It is believed that during the period of Slavic-Baltic interaction, the proto-Baltic language split into į several dialects. Therefore, ir many Balto-Slavic isoglosses relate the Praslavic su language to the individual Baltic languages in different ways. The oldest Balto-Slavic isoglosses include the loss of syllabicity of vowel sonants and their transformation into diphthongs i, ur, il; ul, im, um, in, un. It is true that many other Indo-European languages did ir not preserve syllable sonatas, but in them this process took place differently, and in the Slavic proto-Baltic 0 languages it ir coincided wonderfully. : During the Balto-Slavic union, intonation began to play an important ir role in the phonetic and grammatical structure of the Praslavic language. It becomes an independent factor of the linguistic system. There are many common processes between the Proto-Baltic and the Slavic languages in this area. The differences are also explained by the dialectal division of the Proto-Baltic language. It is believed that in terms of intonation, the closest to the Praslavic language were the ancient Prussian and Jotvingian dialects (plg. p. 159—60). The period of Baltic-Slavic unity probably also includes the transformation of the consonant sonant m of the end of a syllable into n in the Slavic language (cf. p. 165). This period also includes changes in the consonants before j. Besides the common features of the Baltic and Slavic languages, there are also some fundamental differences. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this process, which took a very long time in the Praslavic language, began already during the existence of the Baltic-Slavic community. In terms of the fate of the prefixes before j, the closest to the Praslavic language are the Latvian and partly the ancient Prussian dialects (cf. pp. 166—167). In conclusion, one cannot fail to note that the examples of Baltic languages in S. Bernstein’s work are very well selected and carefully checked. Perhaps instead of the forms žvaigždė (cf. p. 153), dėdė (cf. p. 148) given by F. Kuršaitis, the literary forms of the Lithuanian language žvaigždė, dėdė should have been given, and instead of the communicative form rint (cf. p. Having read with pleasure one part of S. Bernstein’s “Outline of Comparative Grammar of Slavic Languages”, we are waiting for the publication of the next part of this work, in which we also hope to find a number of significant facts for the study of Baltic languages. Vilnius A. Sabaliauskas