Studija apie slavų kalbų lokatyvą

STUDY ABOUT SLAVOV LANGUAGES B. H. Tonopos, Jloxarue a caasanckux sseikax, WspareanctBo AKajeMHM Hayk CCCP, Mockea, 1961, 380 p. We will not be mistaken if we say that since the end of the 19th century, when F. Fortunatov began to teach a course in Lithuanian at the Moscow University in 1886, Moscow became one of the most important centres for the study of the Lithuanian language. The scientific activities of F. Fortunatov’s well-known pupils G. Ulyanov and V. Porzhezinsky are connected with Moscow. A student of F. Fortunatov was ir J. Jablonski. For a long time A Soviet linguist, Prof. M. Peterson, a good knowledge of the Lithuanian language and author of the book “Ouepr AuToBCKOro; s35IKa” (Moscow, 1955), worked at the Moscow University. However, there have never been so many Lithuanian-speaking linguists in Moscow as there are today. A large number of such linguists work at the Institute of Slavistics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Some volumes of this institute's work are almost entirely devoted to the problems of the Baltic languages. In the very first ranks of researchers of these problems, without doubt, goes Vladimir Toporov. During the last few years he has published several excellent works on Baltic toponymy, Baltic and Slavic linguistic relations, historical comparative grammar of Baltic languages, etymology. Some of V. Toporov's works have been published in Lithuanian linguistic publications. Recently, this linguist published a large monograph on the locative of Slavic languages. The first part of this work is devoted to purely Slavic issues, but in the second part, using a lot of material, Baltic and Indo-European issues are also solved, and conclusions are drawn that are interesting for researchers of the history of both Slavic and Baltic languages. In the first part, the types of locative are reviewed in Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish, Kashubian, Polabian, Lusatian, Czech and Slovak, Old Slavic, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian languages, with the main focus on the locatives used in the old monuments of these languages, showing the processes of disappearance of individual types of locative and the formation of new types. Summarizing the results of this part of the study, it can be stated that certain traces of the locative without a prefix are found in the writing monuments of a significant part of the Slavic language. The localitive without a prefix is particularly well preserved in Russian writings of the 11th–13th centuries. However, even in this period the prepositional locus had all the meanings conveyed by the locus in the Russian language monuments, and in the late 13th and early 14th centuries the prepositional locus completely replaced the locus without a preposition. In Belarusian and Ukrainian, the prefix-free conjugated forms of the locus are preserved! There. B. H. Tonopons, O Gaarufickux cjejnax B TONOHHMHKe DYCCKHX TeppuTOpni, „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, t. 2; Vilnius, 1959, p. 55—63; B. H. Tonopos, O. H. Tpy6aues, Baatuiickas ruapounmus Bepxnero TlojnuenpoBba, „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, t. 4, Vilnius, 1961, p. 195—217; B. H. Tonopos, Ha o6nacrn GaaroCAAB5BCKHX (ODOJLK/IOpHbIX cBa3efi, „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, t. 6, Vilnius, 1963, p. t only in adverbs. 318 True, in some Ukrainian In Carpathian dialects, mostly in songs, there are also non-verbal forms of this locus, but these, in V. Toporov's opinion, are probably not relics of the old be locus prefix. There are no reliable examples of the localative preposition in the Old Polish monuments. There are no traces of this be locality in the Kashubian, Polab languages. There are many examples of local prepositions in Lusatian be monuments. However, these loci are probably a recent result of unrelated genetic links to the ir old Slavic loci of the prefix. su be In the study of the history of the Slavic locus, the data of ancient Czech language monuments are very valuable. In the Czech language there are many archaic features of the locative that have not been preserved in other Slavic languages. The Czech be language is widely spoken in the Czech Republic. There are many examples of this in the Old Slavic language. ir In South Slavic languages, there are no reliable be examples of a localative preposition. + As mentioned, the second part of the work is the most important for Lithuanian studies. In this part the author deals with a question that is still XX a. at first would have seemed quite absurd. This is an attempt to explain when the locative consonant, which has been lost in many Indo-European languages, especially in the eastern ones, appeared. It was previously thought that the locality had been inhabited by Indo-Europeans. Based on data from Avestan, Baltic, Slavic, and some Armenian iš languages, and especially under the influence of the hypnosis of Sanskrit facts, the Indo-European protolanguage was assigned a system of eight syllables, which included the locative as an independent syllable. However, deciphering the oldest texts of Indo-European languages — the Hittites' dentigraphy from the second millennium BC — revealed that in them the syllable form corresponding to the East Indo-European locative equally expresses both dative and locative santy-. Chick. It is difficult to imagine, says the author of the work; that the separate dative and locative verbs with different endings that once existed would merge into one. Rather, it is necessary to think about the original non-distinction of dative and locative (cf. p. 277). In some other Indo-European languages (e.g. Germanic, Italic) the facts also do not indicate that the dative and the locative were clearly distinguished in the earliest times. The distinct differentiation of these forms in some Indo-European languages begins relatively late. Having examined the localitive of individual Indo-European languages, V. Toporov draws the following conclusions: 1) in various Indo-European languages, the localitive is often considered to be a construct of different forms, connected with each other only by similarity of meaning; 2) in all Indo-European languages there are clear traces of a not yet formed locative (especially characteristic is that these traces are observed in words of the consonant root and sometimes of the i, u root; in the productive a, o roots such cases are very rare); 3) the adverbial assumption of the rise of the locus is confirmed by a greater number of facts than the opposite assumption (in western Indo-European languages); 4) it is hardly possible to consider the locative a common Indo-European vowel; 5) a number of circumstances indicate the initial coincidence of the locative and dative (cf. p. 285). 319 The second part of the monograph devotes considerable space to the ir localising of Baltic languages. The material of the Baltic languages is used both to solve the general questions of the history of the Indo-European locus and as an auxiliary to shed light on the individual processes of the development of the locus in the Slavic languages. V. Toporov emphasizes that the Baltic data are particularly significant ne not only because of their closeness to the facts of the Slavic languages, ir but because jų of their archaic nature. A large part of the material was iš collected by the ir author from dialect texts of written monuments. The book presents data on the Baltic languages from Prussian catechisms, Mažvydo writings, Adolfi grammar to Latvian and Lithuanian folklore collections, J. Endzelyno and J. Jablonskio works. The extensive Baltic literature mentioned in the work could be supplemented by at least one other study of Lithuanian or Latvian dialectology published in recent years. However, the statements of these studies do not contradict the general conclusions of the work. In conclusion, we will mention only a few minor inaccuracies, which in no way can diminish the overall value of the work. du P. 295 ne quite correctly translated Mažvydo sentence: "The coming angels sing..." P. 322 incorrectly translated Latvian examples with the prefix ap. It cannot be said that the examples given on p. 319, in which the place is indicated by a suffix with the prefix about, are foreign to the literary Lithuanian language. V. Toporov correctly points out that the Prussian language does not have a locative in general, explaining in a footnote: “If we do not count one noun example from Enchiridion: bhe stallėti pėrdin en schisman ackewijstin Krixtianiskan astin, p. 77, 15, which proves nothing at all, since it has no equivalents (in the formal sense) in other languages” (cf. p. 283). For our part, we will add that J. Endzelynas was inclined to correct the form schisman into the dative *schismau< *šismū?. In addition, J. Endzelynas doubted that the singular o-stame locator was not only the adverb bitai mentioned by V. Toporov, but also the first partj® of the compound words sallubai busennis, salaūbaigannan, sallūbaiwirins. Vilnius A. Mikotaj Rudnicki, Prastowiariszczyzna Lechia-Polska, II, Wspėlnota slowianska. ‘Wspélnota lechicka-polska, Poznan, 1961. This work by a Polish linguist, based on linguistic and archaeological data, extensively deals with the Slavic tribes, among them the Polish people, ethnogenesis, prehistoric territory and migration. Also discussed Slavic prehistory dialectology, material culture and 2 Pig. J. Budze!ins Senprēšų valoda, Riga, 1943, p. 80—81. 3 Pig. Ibid., pp. 58–59. 320