“gypsum” (cf. Lithuanian sūd-ūkļis “gypsum blower”), Lithuanian saud-alis “sandy everlasting — Helichrysum arenarium” (Varėna), and perhaps sūdė “a kind of mushroom, resembling a saffron milk cap” (Šimkaičiai).

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

Both Baltic toponyms and the common vocabulary would point to Proto-Baltic *sū-d-, probably meaning “waterlogged, wet, boggy,” and presumably inseparable from Indo-European *sūro-s²³; cf. Lithuanian sūrùs, Old Church Slavonic syrъ “wet, damp,” Old Norse súrr “sour, sharp, biting.”

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

Thus, Sūduva is a land of quagmires, wooded marshes, and swamps. This meaning of the name fits perfectly the physiographic character of the land 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 contradicted by Baltic studies, for example, questions concerning ancient Baltic Slavicisms, 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 WORKS BY A ROMANIAN LINGUIST ON BALTOSLAVIC QUESTIONS

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 Balto-Slavic and Germanic, „Romanoslavica“, VI, București, 1962, p. 41—47.

Two articles by the Romanian linguist Arton Vračiu on questions concerning the genesis of the Baltic languages attract attention in the philological journal „Romanoslavica“ of the Romanian People’s Republic. The problems examined in these articles are highly relevant. From the very emergence of comparative-historical linguistics, questions have arisen concerning the origin of the Baltic languages, their place among the other Indo-European languages, and their relations with other Indo-European languages. The great similarity between the Baltic and Slavic languages has particularly interested—and continues to interest—linguists. These problems remain with us today. Determined efforts to solve these problems, especially those concerning the relations between the 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

international congresses of Slavists. The articles under discussion also demonstrate the relevance of these problems.¹

In the first article, A. Vračiu addresses the question of the earliest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. The author first sets out and discusses the various views held by linguists on this question. A. Vračiu points out that most linguists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries supported a Balto-Slavic proto-language: A. Schleicher, A. Potebnia, F. Fortunatov, V. Poržežinskis, A. Shakhmatov, A. Pogodin, A. Uljanov, V. Bogoroditsky, J. Karlowicz, J. Rozwadowski, O. Hujer, T. Lehr-Splawiński, J. Otrębski, J. Safarewicz, O. Semereni, Vl. Georgiev, J. Kurylowicz, A. Vaillant, P. Arumaa, M. Loiman, V. Kiparsky, and others.

A. Vračiu next discusses A. Meillet’s conception, according to which the Baltic and Slavic languages, having inherited certain common developmental tendencies from the Indo-European proto-language, developed in parallel. This explains the great similarity between these languages. A. Vračiu associates the views of A. Zeno, V. Matthews, V. Mažiulis, and others with this theory. The author of the article considers J. Endzelīns, S. Bernstein, B. Gornung, T. Lehr-Splawiński, and the archaeologists and anthropologists V. Hensel, J. Czekanowski, and K. Moszyński to be proponents of the convergence theory. According to this theory, the Baltic and Slavic languages arose from different Indo-European dialects and only converged later.

The Romanian linguist considers the correct conception to be that according to which the Baltic and Slavic languages belong to a single Indo-European dialectal area. According to A. Vračiu, this view is held by the linguists J. Otrębski, Vl. Georgiev, V. Ivanov, and V. Toporov, as well as the archaeologist P. Tretyakov.

A. Vračiu’s grouping of individual linguists’ conceptions concerning the relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages gives rise to certain doubts. It seems that, in his practical research, V. Mažiulis tends to follow the principles of linguistic differentiation and integration put forward by J. Endzelīns.²

It would be appropriate to distinguish the views of V. Ivanov and V. Toporov, on the one hand, from those of J. Otrębski and Vl. Georgiev, on the other. For J. Otrębski, having changed his earlier views³, and Vl. Georgiev do not consider it sufficient to derive the Baltic and Slavic languages from a single Indo-European dialect; rather, they consider the Baltic and Slavic languages to have arisen from a linguistic unity that had itself split off from the Indo-European proto-language.⁴ To assign the views of J. Otrębski and Vl. Georgiev to the conception asserting that the Baltic and Slavic languages originated in a unified Indo-European dialectal area means

¹ It should be said that these are not A. Vračiu’s only works of this kind. He has been interested in the Baltic languages for quite some time, as his following articles show: Problema vechilor relaţii lingvistice balto-slave în discuţia celui de — al IV-lea congres internaţional al slaviştilor. „Studii şi cercetări ştiinţifice“, IX, 1-2, 1958, p. 151-164; De la indo — europeană la balto-slavă — inovaţii morfologice, „Analele ştiinţifice ale Universităţii „Al. J. Cuza“ din Iaşi“, V, 1959, p. 115-123; Caractere generale ale limbilor baltice, „Studii şi cercetări ştiinţifice“ X, 1-2, 1959, p. 109-138.

² See the Lithuanian version of his paper delivered at the IVth Congress of Slavists, „Pastabos baltų ir slavų kalbų seniausių santykių klausimu“, „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, vol. 2, 1959, p. 15.

³ See „Slavia Occidentalis“, vol. 16, 1939—1947, p. 448.

⁴ Я. С. Отрембский, Славяно-балтийское языковое единство, «Вопросы языкознания», 1954, № 6, р. 43. В. Георгиев, Исследования по сравнительно-историческому языкознанию, Москва, 1958, р. 220.

326

to identify with the views of A. Meillet, who repeatedly maintained the identity of the Indo-European dialects from which the Baltic and Slavic languages arose,⁵.

V. Ivanov and V. Toporov concluded that the separate phonological and morphological patterns of the Baltic and Slavic languages coincide, and that the Slavic pattern is the result of a change from the Baltic one, i.e. the Slavic languages are relatively younger.⁶

To support the conception that the Baltic and Slavic languages belong to a single Indo-European dialect area, A. Vračiu points to innovations in Baltic and Slavic phonetics, grammar, and lexicon. The treatment of some phenomena here is also open to doubt.

1. Discussing the reflexes of Indo-European ă, ŏ in the Slavic languages, A. Vračiu repeats, rejecting the traditional explanation, J. Otrembski’s claim that in the Slavic languages, as in Baltic, Indo-European ă, ŏ became a and only afterwards o⁷. This claim by J. Otrembski was justifiably criticized⁸. It would have been simpler and clearer if A. Vračiu, wishing to find a new argument for a Balto-Slavic proto-language, had argued that Indo-European ă, ŏ in the Baltic proto-language, as in Slavic, yielded o and only afterwards a. In recent years, E. Nieminen and J. Kazlauskas have put forward substantial arguments for the existence of ŏ in the Baltic proto-language⁹.

2. Besides the Baltic and Slavic languages, Pelasgian (ur [ru], ul [lu], un, um [on, om] or ir, il, in, im)¹⁰ and Thracian (ur, ul, un, um)¹¹ apparently also have a reflex similar to that of the Indo-European sonants ṛ, ḷ, ṃ, ṇ.

3. The suffix -r- used to form multiplicative numerals is found not only in Baltic (ketveri) and Slavic (Old Slavic četvoro), but also in Tocharian (śwerār “fourfold”)¹².

4. The infinitive ending -ti (nešti and нести) is considered an innovation shared by the Baltic and Slavic languages. This fact loses its evidentiary force, since Tocharian languages have the same ending (cf. Tocharian A kärs-nā-tsi, Tocharian B karsa-tsi “to know,” where — tsi is from an earlier — ti¹³.

⁵ A. Meillet, Les dialectes indo-européens, Paris, 1922, p. 40—48.

⁶ В. В. Иванов и В. Н. Топоров, К постановке вопроса о древнейших отношениях балтийских и славянских языков, Москва, 1958, p. 39.

⁷ Я. С. Отрембский, Славяно-балтийское языковое единство, ВЯ, 1954, № 5, p. 28.

⁸ J. Otrembskio kritiką dėl ide. ă, ŏ žr. С. Б. Бернштейн, Балто-славянская языковая общность, «Славянская филология», I, 1958, p. 51—52; С. Б. Бернштейн, Очерк сравнительной грамматики славянских языков, Москва, 1961, p. 145—146.

⁹ E. Nieminen, On Certain Characteristics of the Baltic Language Reflected in the Oldest Baltic Loanwords in the East Baltic-Finnic Languages (separate reprint from the Proceedings of the Finnish Academy of Sciences, 1956, Helsinki, 1957), p. 199—200; И. Казлаускас, On the Development of the Common Baltic Vowel System, ВЯ, 1962, № 4, p. 23—24.

¹⁰ В. Георгиев, Исследования по сравнительно-историческому языкознанию, Москва, 1958, p. 92.

¹¹ В. Георгиев, Op. cit., p. 136.

¹² E. Fraenkel, Tocharian Grammar and the Baltic Languages, “Archivum Philologicum,” vol. 3, 1932, p. 12—13.

¹³ B. Краузе, Тохарский язык, «Тохарские языки (сборник статей)», Москва, 1959, p. 69, 77.

327

5. The use of the genitive in Baltic and Slavic languages after negative verbs (cf. Dvarininkas nedavė kaimiečiams ganyklos nė žingsnio (Žemaitė) and Я не знал другой жизни (M. Gorkis), and the predicative instrumental (cf. Jis buvo mano gelbėtoju ir Он был писателем) are most likely not innovations of those languages, but elements of the Finno-Ugric substratum.

6. The list of common Baltic and Slavic vocabulary presented by A. Vračius also included loanwords in those languages: a) Slavic rąka is most likely to be regarded as a loanword from the Baltic languages¹⁴, as are the following words of Baltic origin that entered the Slavic languages, cited by the author: Russian героть, ковш, кресло, пакля, янтарь (from Lithuanian degutas, Latvian deguts; Lithuanian kaušas, Latvian kauss; Lithuanian kėslas, Latvian krēsls, Old Prussian creslan; Lithuanian pąkulos, Latvian pakulas; Lithuanian gintaras, Old Prussian gentars)¹⁵. Moreover, in the Slavic languages the word rąnka is isolated, whereas in the Baltic languages it is readily etymologized; cf. Lithuanian ranką, Latvian rūoka, Old Prussian ranco, rancko and the verb rinki, rēnka; for the vowel alternation rēnka: rañką, cf. kélti: kálnas, pagelbėti: pagalba, sémti: sámtis. b) Latvian nazis, Lithuanian norãgas (which A. Vračius wrongly regards as an ancient Lithuanian term), Latvian nãrags, Latvian klanīt are generally regarded as words of Slavic origin¹⁶.

7. The phonetic discrepancy precludes connecting Lithuanian krūtis and Russian тру́бы (cf. Old Polish grędzi). Russian трубы is related to Greek βρέφος, “Stolz,” Latin grandis “large, elevated, significant,” whereas Lithuanian krūtis cannot be separated from krauti, krauja, krõvė.

The Romanian linguist has drawn on several works by Soviet Lithuanian linguists (V. Mažiulis, Z. Zinkevičius, A. Valeckienė) and makes use of quite extensive material from the Baltic languages, especially Lithuanian. However, instead of káusas (89), kaimiečiams (102), jìs (102), mãno (102), krūtinė (103), one should write and accent káũšas, kaimiečiams, jis, mãno, krūtinė.

Having a priori acknowledged the genetic unity of the Baltic and Slavic languages, in his second article A. Vračius discusses the place of the “Baltic-Slavic” languages among the other Indo-European languages. Following Vl. Georgijev, A. Vračius claims that Germanic is the closest of the other Indo-European languages to Baltic and Slavic. To this end, seven Baltic-Slavic-Germanic isoglosses are presented (the dative plural in -m; declension of feminine active participles, formation of “1000,” etc.). These isoglosses may perhaps justify treating Baltic, Slavic, Germanic (and Tocharian) as a group of Indo-European dialects, but there is no less basis for speaking of a Germanic-Italic dialect group. However, the neuter nominative-accusative plural ending -ā should not be included among these isoglosses, since it is also found in Indo-Iranian languages (cf. Sanskrit yugá).

On the other hand, however, one must not forget that Baltic and Germanic are linked by isoglosses that seem to be absent from Slavic. Among these, the following may be mentioned:

¹⁴ Plg. C. Б. Бернштейн, Очерк сравнительной грамматики славянских языков, Москва, 1961, p. 92.

¹⁵ A. Sabaliauskas cites other words of Baltic origin in Slavic: Naujas etimologinis rusų kalbos žodynas, „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, vol. 4, 1961, pp. 319 ff.

¹⁶ K. Mūlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Edited, supplemented, and continued by J. Endzelīns, Rīga, I–IV, 1923–1932.

328

1) ide. ą, ō in Baltic and Germanic languages became a, cf. Gothic ahtáu “eight,” Lithuanian aštuoni: Latin octo; Old High German ahsa, Lithuanian ašis: Latin axis, Sanskrit akṣa-h¹⁷;

2) formation of numerals: Gothic ainlif: Lithuanian vienuolika, Gothic baiōþs “both”: Lithuanian dvėjetas, Gothic fruma, Old English forma, Old Saxon formo:¹⁸ Lithuanian pirmas (Slavic languages have a different suffix here, cf. Old Church Slavonic prъvъ);

3) first-person dual pronouns: Gothic wit (<*we-dwō): Lithuanian vėdu (<*ve-duo), second-person Old Norse it: Lithuanian judu¹⁹;

4) frequent correspondences in word formation, cf. Old Icelandic brún “edge, rim, brow”: Lithuanian briaunà (Old Church Slavonic brъ-v-ъ), Gothic fairns “from last year”: Lithuanian pérnai (with the suffix -n-) and so on;²⁰

5) numerous lexical correspondences denoting natural phenomena (the construction Lithuanian sniegas drimba, Latvian sniegs drēbj=Old Icelandic drif snær), body parts (Lithuanian blauzdà: Old Icelandic blaudr “soft, delicate, timid,” Middle High German blōt “bare, naked, poor”; Lithuanian kenklė, kinka: Old English hōh (<*hank) “heel, hollow of the knee,” Old Icelandic háell “heel”), kinship relations (Lithuanian sváinis: Old High German swein “servant, shepherd”) and so on.²¹

Researchers should not overlook these Baltic-Germanic isoglosses. They show that it is possible to speak even of an era of community between the Baltic and Germanic languages²² within the northern dialect group, existing as early as before the palatalization and assibilation of the guttural consonants. The few Slavic-Germanic parallels are apparently much later. On the other hand, there is reason to speak of the affinity of the Slavic languages with the Indo-Iranian languages.²³ The change of the clusters us, is, ks, rs into uš, iš, kš, rš (š > Slavic ch) is a phenomenon common to the Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, and clearly attests to the close ties that existed between those languages. The partial reflection of this phenomenon in the Baltic languages (š after k, r) indicates the autonomy of the Baltic languages while this law was in effect. Of course, parallels between the Baltic and Indo-Iranian languages cannot be ruled out either, but they are apparently the result of later contacts.

The appearance of A. Vračius’s articles in a Romanian philological journal demonstrates how important the Baltic languages are to the study of language and how important it is to solve the problems associated with them. One such problem is that of the genesis of the Baltic and Slavic languages. To solve this problem correctly

¹⁷ Э. Прокош, Сравнительная грамматика германских языков, Москва, 1954, p. 98.

¹⁸ Э. Прокош, Op. cit., p. 315, 319.

¹⁹ Э. Прокош, Op. cit., p. 311.

²⁰ E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955 tt.

²¹ E. Fraenkel, op. cit. Plg. H. C. Чемоданов, К вопросу о германо-балтийских языковых связях, «Вопросы германского языкознания» (Материалы второй научной сессии по вопросам германского языкознания), Москва—Ленинград, 1961, p. 75 tt.

²² H. C. Чемоданов, Op. cit., p. 74.

²³ Slavų-indų-iranėnų izogloses žr. T. Burrow, The Sanskrit Language, London, 1955, p. 18—23.

22. Kalbotyros klausimai VI.

329

This is possible only after a deeper and comprehensive study of the Baltic languages, an examination of the differences between the Baltic and Slavic languages, and keeping the Baltic-Germanic parallels in mind. A. Vračius’s articles undoubtedly contribute to the resolution of these important problems.

Vilnius

S. Karaliūnas

ON THE ETYMOLOGIES OF CERTAIN LITHUANIAN TOWN NAMES

Raymond Schmittlein, Quatre toponymes germaniques en Lituanie, “Revue International d'Onomastique,” Paris, 1949, pp. 15–20.

This article is one of many works by R. Schmittlein on Lithuanian place names. In its method, the tendencies of its analysis, and the character of its linguistic analysis, it is broadly representative of most of R. Schmittlein’s studies of Lithuanian toponymy and patronymy.

In the article, R. Schmittlein asserts, without providing substantial evidence or explanation, that four Lithuanian settlement names—Alsėdžiai, Kėdainiai, Raseiniai and Šiauliai—are supposedly of Germanic origin.

1. R. Schmittlein connects the name of the town Alsėdžiai with the Germanic personal name ¹ Elisaidis. At first glance, this parallel seems at least possible, since the town’s name, Alsėdžiai, whose dialect form is alsėdė, is written in historical documents as Aliseiden, Alizeyde, Alizeyde² in 1253. However, this superficial similarity tells us nothing about the origin of Alsėdžiai. First, the diphthong ei after s(z) in the old documents appears not to reflect a feature of the spoken language, but rather to be an artifact of writing, which could, among other things, have arisen through folk etymology based on the personal name Elisaidis mentioned by R. Schmittlein. Second, that there was no ei here is shown by a Polonized variant of the name from the same period, Olsiady³; compare the Olsedy⁴ of a Latin text from 1421, and Ольсягъ⁵ in a Russian text of the 16th century. Third, the modern dialect form alsėdė also shows the same: in Samogitian (Dounininkai), ie, corresponding to standard-language ė, can only derive from Baltic ē (Alsėdžiai, dialect alsėdė < *alsēd’jai). Thus, deriving Alsėdžiai from Elisaidis is already doubtful because of -sed- and -said-.

That the town’s name actually has nothing to do with the Germanic personal name Elisaidis is shown by the entire body of Lithuanian settlement names, in terms of their structur-

¹ The abbreviations used are the same as in the toponymic articles published in other volumes of “Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai.”

² The boundaries of the Latvian people and the Latvian language at the present time and in the 13th century... by Dr. A. Bielenstein. St. Petersburg, 1892, p. 241.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Codex diplomaticus ecclesiae cathedralis necnon dioeceseos Vilnensis, Kraków, 1948, p. 741.

⁵ I. Ya. Sprogis, Geographical Dictionary of the Ancient Samogitian Land of the 16th Century, Vilna, 1888, p. 212.

330