A considerable amount of space in the second part of the monograph is also devoted to the locative in the Baltic languages. Material from the Baltic languages is used both to address general questions concerning the history of the Indo-European locative and as an aid in elucidating particular processes in the development of the locative in the Slavic languages. V. Toporov emphasizes that Baltic data are especially significant not only because of their proximity to Slavic-language facts but also because of their archaic character. The author gathered a large part of the material from written monuments and dialect texts. The book presents data from the Baltic languages ranging from the Old Prussian catechism, Mažvydas’s writings, and Adolfi’s grammar to collections of Latvian and Lithuanian folklore and the works of J. Endzelynas and J. Jablonskis. The abundant Baltic studies literature cited in the work could perhaps be supplemented by one or two Lithuanian or Latvian dialectological studies published in recent years. The claims made in these studies, however, will not conflict with the work’s general conclusions.

In conclusion, we shall point out just a few minor inaccuracies, which in no way detract from the work’s overall value.

On p. 295, the sentence by Mažvydas “ateidamji angelai gieda...” is not translated quite correctly.

On p. 322, the Latvian examples with the preposition ap. are translated incorrectly.

It cannot be claimed that the examples on p. 319, in which location is expressed by the accusative with the preposition apie, are foreign to literary Lithuanian.

V. Toporov correctly points out that the Old Prussian language has no locative at all, explaining in a footnote: “If we exclude one pronominal example from the Enchiridion: bhe stallēti pērdin en schisman ackewijstin Krixćianiśkan astin, p. 77, 15, which nevertheless proves nothing, since it has no (formal) counterparts in other languages” (cf. p. 283). For our part, we would add that J. Endzelynas, too, was inclined to emend the form schisman to the dative *schismau < *šismū². Moreover, J. Endzelynas hesitantly regarded not only the adverb bitai mentioned by V. Toporov as a singular locative of an o-stem, but also the first element of the compounds sallūbai busennis, salaubaigannan, sallūbaiwirins³.

Vilnius

A. Sabaliauskas

ON M. RUDNICKI’S ETYMOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF GALINDA, PRIEGLIUS, AND SŪDUVA

Mikołaj Rudnicki, Prasłowiańszczyzna Lechia-Polska, II, Wspólnota słowiańska. Wspólnota lechicka-polska, Poznań, 1961.

In this work by a Polish linguist, issues concerning the ethnogenesis, prehistoric territory, and migrations of the Slavic tribes, including the Polish people, are examined at length on the basis of linguistic and archaeological data. Questions of Slavic prehistoric dialectology, material culture, and

² Cf. J. E n d z e l ī n s, Senprūšu valoda, Rīgā, 1943, p. 80—81.

³ Cf. ibid., p. 58—59.

320

religion are also discussed, with greater attention devoted to the western Slavic tribes. The relations between the Slavs and their neighbors (the Balts, Germans, etc.) are also examined. On many questions, M. Rudnicki holds original views of his own, departing considerably from traditional concepts in Indo-European studies and Slavic studies. Without delving into matters that are purely Slavic, we will focus here on a few Baltic-related questions addressed by M. Rudnicki.

M. Rudnicki touches on questions of Baltic prehistory in several contexts: when discussing the Slavs’ neighbors, the early Slavicisms in the Baltic languages, and in many other places while examining the territories of individual Slavic tribes.

M. Rudnicki, like other Polish linguists—T. Lehr-Spławiński, J. Safarewicz, J. Kurylowicz, and, more recently, J. Otrębski—adheres to the hypothesis of a Balto-Slavic proto-language. This author’s conception is reflected in the work in highly categorical formulations: “od praczasów bałto-słowiańskich” (p. 36), “jako całość jeszcze bałto-słowiańska, ale się już rozpadająca na Bałtów i Słowian” (p. 82), and so on. Such an a priori conviction about the linguistic unity of the Balts and Slavs leads the author at times to interpret Baltic-language data rather artificially. We will not undertake to debate with the author whether a Balto-Slavic proto-language existed; we will consider only individual statements by M. Rudnicki about the Balts that are based on this Balto-Slavic thesis, especially those which, it seems to us, are contradicted by Baltic evidence.

In general, the author may be faulted for the paucity of Baltic material and the sparseness of data about the Balts. One gains the impression that the author relied on substantially outdated Baltic studies. The least convincing parts of this work are the etymological arguments concerning the Galindians, the Prieglius, and the Sudovians.

The Galindians. Ignoring the known historical data about the Galindians¹, the author is inclined to regard them as a Slavic tribe solely because he finds the Slavic interpretation of the etymology of the name Galindians more convincing than the Baltic one. Baltic place names Galinda, mentioned in historical sources,² are left unmentioned, while galindas is etymologized in isolation from the Baltic onomastic system. Yet galindas can be convincingly explained only when connected with Baltic formations of analogous semantics and structure. A semantically convincing etymology of galindas was provided by K. Būga³, who linked this ethnonym with Lithuanian gãlas and explained its meaning as synonymous with украинеи “гале гвенас”. In fact, the territory of Galinda, between the rivers Bebras (Polish Biebrza), Lukas (Polish Ełk), the Alna, and Geldapė, was the southernmost part of the territory of the western Balts. This semantics of the ethnonym is further confirmed by the identical name of an easternmost Baltic tribe in the vicinity of Mozhaysk (Russian Голядь=Baltic Galind—). M. Rudnicki’s opinion that the “primitive” Prussians could not have had an understanding of their geographical position⁴ is unfounded, since such a relative understanding of geographical position—

¹ Žr. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 124 ir tt.

² Ibid., p. 126.

³ Ibid., p. 117.

⁴ The argument based on the meaning “those at the end” is highly questionable in any case, since this designation presupposes knowledge of the geographical extent of the Old Prussians, which would be strange for a primitive people (p. 18).

21. Kalbotyros klausimai VI.

321

The exercise is not so difficult as to be impossible even for a “primitive” people. On the contrary, naming one’s neighbors by orienting oneself toward them is the simplest way of naming.

K. Būgos galindo etimologija daugiausia priekaištų susilaukė todėl, kad nebuvo įtikinamai paaiškinta šio etnonimo daryba. Prūsų galindas ir semantika, ir iš dalies daryba atitinka lie. galinis. Ši leksema plačiai atstovaujama lietuvių toponimijoje (Galinis up.⁵ 1. Biržai, 2. Dieveniškės, 3. Joniškis, 4. Kapsukas, 5. Seredžius; Galin-upė Biržai; Galiniai k. ir vs. — apie 15 įvairiose Lietuvos vietose), ir antroponimijoje (pavardė Galinis — 140 šeimų). Pavardė Galinis yra kilusi iš pravardės (Galinis „gale, krašte gyvenęs“). Ši pravardė Lietuvoje labai populiari ir dabar: daug kur kaimuose Galiniais vadinami pakraščio gyventojai. Vienos šaknies ir darybos su galindu yra prūsų vietovardžiai: Galýnde „miškas Semboje ties Kampainiu“, Galinden „vietovė Mohrungeno aps.“. Galindien „vietovė Eilavos aps.“⁶. Priesagą -ind- dar randame vietovardžiuose: pr. Karw-inden, Stab-ynden⁷; lie. Gel-ind-ėnai k. (Plungė), Ner-ind-aičiai k. (Telšiai). Priesaga -ind- turi lie. pvd. Dal-inda, Dubr-indys, Til-indis ir Gal-indžius. J. Otrębskio teigimas, kad Galindžius<Galínčius^⁸ yra nepagrįstas. Šitokio afrikatų kaitaliojimosi baltų kalbose nėra, ir jo negalima paaiškinti baltiškąja kaita media ↔ tenuis (dėmpti ↔ tem̃pti, griaúnos ↔ kriaúnos). Šią priesagą randame ir apeliatyvuose: klib-indą „išklėręs daiktas, išklypęs žmogus“, lask-indą „driskus, nuogalis“. Lietuvių kalboje šalia priesagos -inja- sutinkama ir -inta-: paskut-inis ir paskut-intas (Giedraičiai); -inta- laikytina išplėstiniu determinatyviniu -inja- variantu. Galima manyti, kad ir priesaga -ind- yra išplėstinis determinatyvinis -inja- variantas. Kad tokia kamiengalio priesaga gali eiti ir -d-, ir -t-, rodo šie pavyzdžiai: Kurõnas ež. (Smalvos) <*Kurãnas ir Kūrantas || Kūrãndas up. (Betygala); Kūrandas<*Kurān-as+ -d-; Samándis ež. (Smalvos) ir Samãnis ež. (1. Rimšė, 2. Smalvos, 3. Švenčionys); balánda „Chenopodium“<*balãnas (bal-as+ -ān-, plg. raũdas || raud-ónas) + -d; skil-án-d-is ir kt. Lietuvių pvd. Galindžius yra vedinys (derivatas) iš Galindis ar Galindas, o pastarasis — vedinys su priesaga -d- iš Galinis. Vadinasi, ir etnonimas galindas, turbūt, yra vedinys su priesaga -d- iš galinis. Ir semantiškai galindas yra, gal būt, ne kas kita, kaip galinis „kraštinis, gale gyvenantis“. Kraštovardis Galinda santykiuoja su etnonimu galindas, taip kaip Lietuva su lietuviu, Kuršas su kuršiu.

The Preglius. M. Rudnickis’s work asserts that during a certain prehistoric period the Pregel basin belonged to the Slavic area, and that the river’s name itself

^⁵The abbreviations used are the same as those found in the toponymic articles published in other volumes of “Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics.”

^⁶ Georg Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin und Leipzig, 1922, p. 35.

^⁷Ibid. p. 223.

^⁸ Žr. J. Otrębski, Zagadnienie Galindów. Studia historica w 35-lecie pracy naukowej Henryka Łowmiańskiego, p. 77.

322

is also said to be of Slavic origin.⁹ The Baltic scholar finds neither claim convincing. Neither archaeological nor toponymic evidence indicates that Slavs ever lived here. Ptolemy’s map, which locates the Venedi (Οὐενέδαι) north of the Vistula, is too weak an argument to prove this. The river’s name, too, can be explained more convincingly only within the system of Baltic hydronymy.

The oldest recorded form of this hydronym, attested in 1273, is Pregora. In Polish the hydronym has the form Pregola, and in German Pregel. Both the Polish and German forms are merely phonetically altered variants of Pregoros, adapted to the phonetics of those languages (the change of r to l is entirely possible in this case through dissimilation). Lithuanian Prieglius is adapted from German Pregel.

Pregora is, by its structure, to be regarded as a prefixed formation from the Baltic root gār-|gar- and the prefix prei- (Lith. prie-), which is represented in medieval German transcription in several variants: prei-, prey-, pre-, pri-. Thus Pregora belongs to the prefixed type of Baltic hydronyms, which has numerous parallels in all Baltic languages: Old Prussian Prei-tekynne (cf. Lith. tekėti), Pre-slūge (cf. Lith. žliūgas ‘marsh, mud, rotten tree in water’)¹⁰; Lith. Prie-būdis River (Rumšiškės). Prie-godas Lake; with pra-: Pra-mūšis River (Deltuva), Pra-galvys River (Akmenė); Latvian Ie-sala River.¹¹

The second component of Pre-goros, gār-|gar-, is found in many Baltic hydronyms: Lithuanian Ipa-ropa¹² River (Kražiai), Gor-ija River (Kazlų Rūda), Gor-inė River (Laukuva), Gor-upỹs (Subačius), Gar-iava River (Panevėžys); Prussian Gor-in Lake, Gor-ow-yten¹³.

The root gār-|gar- occurs in the Lithuanian common nouns pra-gorė, ‘abyss, bottomless pit’; prā-garas, ‘bottomless road, abyss’; pra-garmė, ‘abyss, depth, cavity’; gar-m-ėti, ‘sink, drown, gurgle, subside’; gor-uoti, ‘move slowly, scarcely stir’.

The other two names of the Pregel, Lipz¹⁴ and Skara¹⁵, also fit the Baltic hydronymic system; compare: 1) Lithuanian Lyp-artė River (Ragainė), Lip-kà River (Jonava), Lip-kus River (Rietavas), Lip-šys Lake (Debeikiai); Latvian Lipsa River, Lipst--upe River¹⁶; Prussian Lyps-aden¹⁷; 2) Lithuanian Skar-yčia River (Varniai), Skar-ókla Lake (Pušalotas), Skar-upė (Geldapė).

Sudovia. The clearest example of unfounded, tendentious, and vulgar etymologizing is the “etymology” of Sudovia (from Lithuanian šūdas, ‘excrementum’), in which the meaning of the regional name and ethnonym is derived from an accidental

⁹ If Pregola has a Slavic name, it is not impossible that this country was occupied for a time by Slavs, who were then displaced by the Goths, primarily from Sambia and the neighboring areas... p. 87.

¹⁰ Georg Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin und Leipzig, 1922, p. 134–5.

¹¹ J. Endzelīns, Place Names of the Latvian SSR, Part I, Vol. 1, Riga, 1956, p. 374.

¹² I. Ya. Sprogis, Geographical Dictionary of the Ancient Samogitian Land of the Sixteenth Century, Vilna, 1888, p. 261.

¹³ Georg Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin und Leipzig, 1922, p. 44.

¹⁴ Georg Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin und Leipzig, 1922, p. 90.

¹⁵ W. Kalwaitis, Lietuwiszkų Wardų Klėtele, Tilžėje, 1910, p. 70.

¹⁶ J. Endzelīns, Place Names of the Latvian SSR, Part I, Vol. 2, Riga, 1961, p. 311.

¹⁷ Georg Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin und Leipzig, 1922, p. 89.

323

of phonetic similarity to the appellative, without paying attention to Baltic toponyms with the same root. The semantic motivation of this etymology is also unconvincing: after examining all the available Baltic lexical material (the card index of the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, all the older Lithuanian and Latvian dictionaries, etc.), no meaning ‘boot’ was found for M. Rudnickis’s etymon.

K. Būga’s etymology of Sūduvos¹⁸ is also doubtful: it derives this regional name from Indo-European *sūdhos ‘one’s own’, since this derivation is unsupported by toponymic material and is hardly semantically possible.

R. Schmittlein’s allusion to the similarity of Sūduvos to Sudeta Silva (in the prehistoric Celtic area) can hardly serve as a premise for an etymology.¹⁹

Sūduva, Old Prussian Sūdavō (in sources: Greek Σουδ-ινοι—an ethnonym; Latin Suduvia, Sudovia, terra Sudorum; German Zudua, Sudowin, Sudowen, Sudouwin, Suderland, Sudland) cannot be separated from Baltic place names with the root Saud-/Sud-/Sūd-.

The full grade of this root is found in the following place names: Lithuanian Saudō-gala river (Saločiai), Saud-ininkai village (Šiluva); Old Prussian Saud-en and Saud-iten²⁰.

The zero grade and lengthened zero grade of this root occur in the following place names: Lithuanian Sud-eikiai town (Utena), Sud-ēnai village (Kretinga), Sūda-laukis (Linkmenys), Sud-ōkiai village (Šašuoliai), Sud-uikiai village (Molėtai), Sud-vājai village (Alytus), Sud-otā lake (Švenčionėliai), Sūd-uonā river (Kalvarija), Sūd-upis river (1. Kelmė; 2. Papilė), Sūd-piaunis meadow (Tverai, Kaupų village), Sūd-ēlis forest (Adutiškis, Močiškės village), Sūda-raistis (Viešintos, Maldeikių village), Sūd-iškē meadow (Ž. Naumiestis, Brokurių village), Sūd-laukis meadow (Akmenė, Munčelių village), Sūd-alės meadow (Kartena, Dauginčių village), Līk-sūde village (Mosėdis), Kap-sūdžiai village (Plungė); in Spruogis: Cyga meadow (Beržėnai district), Cyg-aūme meadow (Pavandenė district), thickets (Kražiai district), Cygy Сугость упись meadow (Kražiai district); Latvian Sude river, Sud-al-iņa river, Sud-urga river (urga ‘stream’)²¹; Old Prussian Sud-owe/Sud-au (settlement in the former Königsberg district), Sud-el-ow (a 14th-century place in Sambia), Zud-aynen (a place name from the 15th century), Sud-en-iten (settlement in the former Königsberg district); Sud-in/Sud-ere/Sod-ere (a forest in Sambia in the 19th century)²². Nor does the presence of toponyms with sūd- in the autochthonous Lithuanian territory, where Baltic š ≠ s, allow Sūduvą to be connected with the etymon proposed by M. Rudnickis.

Place names with Saud-/Sud-/Sūd- are connected with the appellative of the same root: sūduvā ‘a boggy patch in a marsh, a quagmire, a mire’: but how will you get across the sūduvas if you don’t raise the hem, when the frost begins to set in on the meadows (Tauragnai, Paakmenio village; card index of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, LKLI). In turn, Latvian sud-eksis is also related to sūduva.

¹⁸ K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 127.

¹⁹ Raymond Schmittlein, Études sur la nationalité der Aestii, I, Toponymie lituanienne, Bade, MCMXLVIII, p. 60.

²⁰ Georg Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin und Leipzig, 1922, p. 153.

²¹ J. Endzelin, The Latvian Hydronyms, “Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie”, Vol. XI, Leipzig, 1934, pp. 135 and 149.

²² Georg Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin und Leipzig, 1922, p. 175—9.

324

“gypsum” (cf. Lith. sūd-ōklis “gypsum plastering tool”), Lith. saud-alis “sand everlasting — Helichrysum arenarium” (Varėna), and perhaps sūdė “a kind of mushroom, similar to a honey fungus” (Šimkaičiai).

The physiographic term sūd-uva “bog” is formed in the same way as other Lithuanian terms of this kind: siet-uvà “a deep place in a river,” rag-uvà “a ditch carved by water or a deeply rutted stretch of road,” kūl-iavà “a river rapid,” kriok-uvà “a current, waterfall.”

Both Baltic toponyms and common vocabulary point to Proto-Baltic *sūd-d-, probably meaning “waterlogged, wet, boggy,” and presumably inseparable from Indo-European *sūro-s²³; cf. Lith. sūrus, OCS syrъ “damp, moist,” Old Norse súrr “sour, sharp, biting.”

Baltic sū-d- and sū-r- share a root but have different root determinatives. This is also shown by Lith. sū-d-yti, a derivative of the root sū- with the iterative determinative -d-.

Thus, Sūduva is a l a n d o f b o g s, m a r s h e s, a n d m i r e s. This meaning of the name fully accords with the physiographic character of the region between the Masurian Lakes and the Nemunas, where the center of the Sudovian ethnic area was located.

M. Rudnicki’s work contains still more interpretations that conflict with Baltic studies data, for example, issues concerning old Baltic Slavisms, the chronology of certain migrations, and the prehistoric territory of the Balts; however, these require a much longer article. Here, we wished only to clarify matters relating to Baltic onomastics and to show how unwise it is to draw general conclusions on the basis of incidental linguistic data.

Vilnius

B. Savukynas

TWO ROMANIAN LINGUISTS’ WORKS ON ISSUES IN BALTIC-SLAVIC STUDIES

1. A. V r a c i u, Problema comunității lingvistice balto-slave, „Romanoslavica“, IV, București, 1960, p. 87—106.

2. A. V r a c i u, The current state of research into linguistic relations between Baltic-Slavic and Germanic, „Romanoslavica“, VI, București, 1962, p. 41—47.

In the philological journal „Romanoslavica“ of the Romanian People’s Republic, two articles by the Romanian linguist Arion Vračiu on questions concerning the genesis of the Baltic languages draw attention. The problems examined in these articles are particularly relevant. From the very emergence of comparative-historical linguistics, questions arose about the origin of the Baltic languages, their place among other Indo-European languages, and their relations with other Indo-European languages. The great similarity between Baltic and Slavic languages has particularly interested and continues to interest linguists. These problems remain unresolved even today. Decisive efforts to solve these problems, especially those concerning the relations between Baltic and Slavic languages, are being made at present in connection with the organization of

²³ Alois Walde, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, B. II, Berlin und Leipzig, 1927, p. 513.

325