Priebalsių minkštėjimo ryšys su galūnių trumpėjimu Stegvilių tarmėje

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, IV LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSONANT PALATALIZATION AND ENDING SHORTENING IN THE STEGVILIAI DIALECT1 E. GRINAVECKIENĖ In the dialect of the Stegviliai area, word-final consonants are observed to undergo palatalization, a phenomenon that is entirely uncharacteristic of standard Lithuanian and many Lithuanian dialects. This article analyzes this consonant palatalization, attempting to group and summarize its individual manifestations and explain its causes. In this dialect, first of all, in certain cases consonants that have long been word-final have become palatalized. The consonants at the end of the stem are also pronounced softly 1 The dialect under study is a speech variety of the Eastern Aukštaitian pontininkai dialect, belonging to the zone of generalized stress retraction. It occupies the northernmost part of Pakruojis District and falls within the Bardiškiai local administrative area. Local people call the village under investigation Stegviliai (Stegvilei~Stegviliai), although official documents (Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR, 938, Vilnius, 1959) spell it Steigviliai. Since the e in the root of this name could not have arisen phonetically from ei (cf. keikūns ‘a person who swears’, peilūks~peilūkas), the official name should therefore also be Stegviliai. This article follows that usage. Most of the dialect examples were collected from the speech of speakers from the village of Stegviliai and its surrounding area. The village of Stegviliai lies along the Linkuva–Žeimelis highway (local people call the latter only Želmis, Žeimio), about 11 km north of Linkuva and about the same distance south of Žeimelis. The nearest railway station and post office are in Lauksodis, about 7 km to the north. The village is old and is situated on the left bank of the Beržtalė stream; only one or two peasants from the village had moved to individual farmsteads. The village has a primary school, established during the years of Soviet rule. Its inhabitants were formerly royal peasants, and therefore lived more prosperously and could send their children to school. Quite a number of distinguished, educated people came from there. On the other hand, the proletariat was more numerous in this area and class differentiation more pronounced; as revolutionary-minded intellectuals emerged, vigorous revolutionary movements against tsarist rule took place here in 1904–1905, red flags were hidden, and proclamations distributed. In those years, well-known revolutionaries V. Mickevičius-Kapsukas and Z. Aleksa-Angarietis visited the area for revolutionary agitation and were hidden there for long periods. Even today, many people in the area are found who had close ties with the above-mentioned leaders of the revolution and with revolutionary activity. Soviet rule was established here in 1919. Today the village belongs to the collective farm named after Karolis Požėla, a native of the area who was killed by the fascists. Dialect material was recorded in July 1960. All the examples presented were checked several times during the dialect research. In addition, the recorded examples were compared with corresponding features of neighboring dialects, with the dialect of the nearby village of Grikpedžiai || Gripėdžiai, and with dialect notes from this region: Žeimelis (researched by D. Gargasaite, 1960), Nairiai (researched by J. Šukys, 1960), diploma theses: The Pašvitinys Dialect (J. Bilevičius, 1956), The Vaškai Dialect (V. Matuzaite, 1950), and others. 167 consonants that have come to stand at the end of a word as a result of the particularly strong shortening of endings in this area (this will become clear to some extent from the examples presented). It has been observed that in both cases the consonants are palatalized through the influence of front vowels or fronted vowels (a fronted vowel does not itself palatalize the consonant, but only preserves its palatalization, which arose through the loss of j). As we shall see later, this influence is usually regressive, but in many cases it can also be progressive. In addition, the dialect has numerous examples in which a word-final consonant may be palatalized through the influence of both types of assimilation (progressive and regressive). In such cases, when attempting to determine the direction of palatalization, all examples in the same group are taken into account. All soft consonants that occur at the end of a word or have come to occur there have been palatalized by a front vowel or fronted vowel that has been lost, elided, or stands before them. In the dialect, at the end of a word, when a front vowel or fronted vowel has been lost or elided, both a single consonant and an entire consonant cluster are always pronounced softly (including g, k, when they occur in a cluster with other consonants: bėkė ~ bėgti, juõrė̃s ~ juõštis). By ear, the last consonant and the l in a consonant cluster seem to be pronounced most softly, e.g.: nakšė ~ naktis, Paliñkėlis beržėlis ~ Paliãkėlis beržėlis (a place in the Stegviliai forest), while all the others are less soft. Degrees of consonant softness are not marked. Because of ending shortening, root consonants often also occur at the end of a word (gaĩd — ‘roosters’, gũl ~ guli, nãm ~ namė, nẽš ~ neši). Throughout the article, they are discussed as final consonants, since they do not differ in any way from other soft consonants occurring at the end of a word. In the dialect, every consonant in a word-final cluster of soft (as well as hard) consonants is pronounced clearly and separately; it is fully articulated and contains no admixture of an adjacent consonant. This creates the impression that it is longer than consonants in a similar position in other Lithuanian dialects that shorten endings (Western Aukštaitian, Samogitian, Dzūkian), and in some cases in standard Lithuanian, or that some remnants of a vowel remain among the consonants. Several such consonants occurring at the end of a word have not assimilated to one another. For example, if two consonants with the same voicing but different places of articulation meet at the end of a word, e.g. š and s or ž and š, they are both pronounced quite separately (vẽršis ~ veršis, ož̃s ~ ožys); when two consonants with different voicing and different places of articulation occur next to each other, e.g. d and s, t and s, they do not form an affricate but are pronounced separately, each with its characteristic voicelessness or voicing (gaĩds ‘rooster, roosters’, doñts ‘tooth, teeth’); when two identical consonants meet, e.g. s, they likewise do not merge into one but are pronounced separately (aũs ~ ausis, aũsys, debẽss ~ debesis). When a vowel occurs next to the consonant l, m, n, r, v, no secondary diphthong is formed; instead, each sound is pronounced separately and is independent. In addition, the consonant is pronounced long in this case, creating the impression that it is syllabic. This syllabicity is marked with a small circle below the sound symbol; cf. also the case of e loss b on p. 171. The same applies to hard consonants. All this shows that in these cases the loss of word-final vowels in the dialect of the Stegviliai area is a relatively recent phenomenon, as a result of which consonants occurring next to one another, or sequences of a vowel and l, m, n, r, have not yet had time to merge into a closer unit. 168 Since the softness of individual consonants depends on front vowels or fronted vowels, which soften all consonants alike in the dialect, the author believes that individual cases of consonant softening can best be brought to light by examining the cases in which front vowels or fronted vowels are lost. This is precisely the approach taken in the article. I. Consonant softening following vowel loss When a front or fronted vowel is lost at the end of an open word (it has been observed that in the dialect the front vowels e, i and the fronted vowels a, u can be lost at word end), the soft consonant that preceded it comes to stand at the end of the word and usually remains unchanged. Such cases are very numerous in the dialect under study. They are all analyzed here². 1. Loss of fronted a Fronted a is lost in the dialect in the following cases: a) In the singular nominative, e.g.: apač⁳ ~ apačia, bažnč⁳ ~ bažnyčia, grįč⁳ ~ gryčia, nedel⁳ ~ nedelia ‘a week’, sekmadienis⁳, Vyš⁴ ~ Vyšnia (a cow’s name); pėšč ~ pėsčia, šlap ~ šlapia; geriaus ~ geriausia, gražaus ~ gražiausia; šituk ~ šitokia. In this case, the final consonant was softened by the disappearance of j, which also fronted the back vowel that followed the consonant. With the loss of j, a unified sequence was formed at the end of the word stem from the softened consonant and the fronted vowel; in practice, it differed almost not at all from a sequence composed of a soft consonant and a front vowel (cf. šlaṕa ~ šlapia and šakė ~ šakė). By then, the softness of the consonant depended directly on the regressive influence of the fronted vowel. When the fronted vowel at the end of the word disappeared, the consonant remained soft; the hardening influence of the preceding back vowel had not had time to affect it (e.g., šlaṕ ~ šlapia), although in the dialect there are cases in which a preceding back vowel hardens a soft final consonant; cf. the case of e loss (p. 172). b) In the singular accusative, e.g.: medž⁴ ~ medžią⁴, kėl ~ kelią, kvieč ~ kviečia, sveč ~ svečią, vėln ~ vėnią; pėšč ~ pėsčią, stač ~ stačią, trėč ~ trečią, Dulevič ~ Dulevičia (nom. Dulevičia) ‘Dulevičius’, Mačevič ~ Mačevičią ‘Macevičius’. 2 In all cases, final vowels are presented in the article from the standpoint of the phonetics of contemporary Lithuanian, not historical phonetics. 3 Dialect examples in the article are presented in the phonetic transcription established in the “Program for the Collection of Materials for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language,” 2nd ed., Vilnius, 1956. To the author’s ear, the dialect distinguishes the pitch accent of long monophthongs and the diphthongs ie, uo, and it is therefore marked. The sign for the middle pitch accent is placed over stressed historical short i, u, lengthened in the dialect to half-long vowels. Their half-length is not marked separately in this case. 4 In the dialect, ia-stem nouns whose stem-final consonant is *t or *d) may have two types of singular nominative endings: -ias and -is(-ys), e.g.: medžs~medžias and medž~medis, kviečs~kviečias and kvietš (kvietys). Hence the singular accusative, alongside the ending -į, may also be pronounced with the ending -ią, e.g.: kvieč~kviečią. However, the singular nominative and accusative forms medžs~medžias, medž~medžią are much less frequent. 169 c) In the singular instrumental case, e.g.: sõ pàč ~ pačià, sõ vãl ~ valià, sõ valdž̃ ~ valdžià; šàl ~ šalìa (adverb), slàpč ~ slapčià; graž̃ ~ gražià, žàl ~ žalìa; jaunìaus ~ jauniausia, virìaus ~ vyrìausia: ãk ~ akià⁵ ‘with the eye’, aũs ~ ausià, dùkter ~ dukterià, kãrt || kãrt ‘with a distaff’, mòtėr ~ móteria, nãkč ~ nakčià, nõs ~ nósia, pìrt ‘with a bathhouse’, sėsėr ~ sēseria, šìrd ‘with the heart’, tõs ~ tóšia, ǧ̃g ~ ugnìa, ǧ̃n ~ usnià. Feminine i-stem nouns whose stem ends in the consonant t or d have two possible endings in the singular instrumental: kãrtė || kãrt ‘with a distaff’, pìrtė || pìrt ‘with a bathhouse’, šìrdė || šìrd ‘with the heart’, and so on. It has been observed that forms without an affricate are more usual in the dialect. The origin of the form without an affricate is difficult to explain. Perhaps it could have arisen by analogy with the singular instrumental of ē-stem nouns; its origin may also have been entirely different. Moreover, in the dialect the singular instrumental form is identical to the accusative and dative forms, e.g.: šìrd ~ širdĩ⁶ ‘to the heart, the heart, with the heart’. It has also been observed in the dialect that all nominal words and participles whose stem ends in *tj or *dj more often use forms without affricates alongside forms with affricates in the singular nominative, dative, and instrumental, and in the plural accusative, e.g.: svẽts ‘guest’, stàts ‘upright’, lesvìnīs ‘forest guard, forester’, provinčī̄s ‘litigant, one who sues’; briẽd ‘to/with a deer’, gaid ‘to/with a rooster’, jáut ‘to/with an ox’, mẽd ‘to a tree’, mẽd ‘with a tree’, svẽč ‘to a guest’, svẽč ‘with a guest’, stàt ‘upright’, trẽč ‘third’, tūkstuntē ‘to a thousand’; briẽds ‘deer’ (acc. pl.), gaid̃s ‘roosters’, kviẽts ‘wheat’, lesvìnīs ‘forest guards’, žvirblū̃īs ‘sparrows, little birds’. See also pp. 175–176. d) In the third person of the present tense, e.g.: áudž ~ audžia, gãl ~ galia⁸ ‘can’, gaĩl ~ gailia, kenč ~ kenčia, lãidž ~ leidžia, lãk ~ lekia, kãrš ~ karšia, pẽr ~ peria ‘broods’, pìl ~ pilia ‘pours’, rẽk ~ rėkia ‘shouts’, srẽb ~ srebia, užtẽs ~ užtęsia, vãg ~ vagia, žīdž ~ žydžia, žõps ~ žiopsia. e) In the first person singular of the conditional mood, e.g.: aič⁹ ~ eičia, dirpč ~ dirpčia, darč ~ darčia, gauč ~ gaučia, lãukč ~ laukčia, paiñč ~ painčia, šáuč ~ šaučia. f) In permissive mood forms, e.g.: lei pasisìls ~ lei pasisilsia ‘let [him/her] rest’, lei sėdž ~ lei sėdžia, lei ver̃p ~ lei verpia. g) In the endings of certain adverbs, e.g.: šìč ~ šičia. ⁵ Feminine i-stem and consonant-stem nouns have an io-stem ending in the singular instrumental, cf. J. Endzelynas, Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos (hereafter GF), § 230, Vilnius, 1957. ⁶ The i-stem nouns of the dialect under study have preserved an older form with the ending -i in the singular dative: širdi, aki, miši, cf. J. Endzelynas, GF, § 260, as well as p. 173 of this volume. ⁷ Alongside the singular dative forms bried, gaid, jaut, med, etc., older speakers of the dialect also less frequently use the fuller forms briedi, gaidi, jauti, medi. It is doubtful whether these forms can be considered identical to the i-stem forms širdi, aki, miši. ⁸ All i-stem verbs in the dialect under study have shifted to the ia-stem. ⁹ At first glance, in this case one might wonder whether a fronted vowel a has been lost, or whether it was the diphthong au, which is characteristic of the first-person singular ending of the conditional mood in many dialects. Reflexive forms here also do not help clarify what has been lost at the end of the word, e.g.: gùčos ‘I would get drunk’, šukùošs ‘I would comb myself’, cf. trõšos~ tręšios and varčòs~varčiausi. Alongside the shortened conditional forms, older speakers of the dialect 170 2. Loss of e The vowel e is lost at the end of an open word in the following cases: a) In the singular instrumental case (nouns of the ė-stem), e.g.: dineltū ~ dienelīte, gūlū ~ gunia, kątę ~ karvę, kač ~ katę, rōp ~ ropę. b) In the singular locative case (a-stem nouns, masculine adjectives, numerals, pronouns, participles), e.g.: darž ~ daržē, dugn ~ dugne, dvār ~ dvare, kiem ~ kieme, kluijm ~ kluojme, kubūl || kubūl ‘in the tub’, laik ~ laike, lāng ~ lange, mišk ~ miške, nam ~ name, ōr ~ ore, piod ~ pūode; baltam ~ baltame, baltājām ~ baltājame, didelēm ~ dideliame, didžūjem ~ didžiajam, kietam ~ kietame, platām ‘in the wide one’, sugrūvusēm ~ sugrūvusiame, tam ~ tame, sauriūčēm ~ siauriūčiame, žalēm ~ žaliame; vakar ~ vakare (adverb). In the dialect under study, locative forms are generally not very common. Instead, probably following the example of the neighboring Latvians, the construction with the preposition tarp ‘between’ and the genitive is used much more often, e.g.: terp platās maišā ‘in the wide bag’ and so on. The examples given show that final e was lost here relatively recently, since after its loss the softened consonant at the end of the word stem (m, n, r, l, v), when it came to stand in the same syllable as a vowel, did not form a unified secondary diphthong, as happened in many other Lithuanian dialects (e.g.: didelām, mažām, kietām ~ dideliame, mažame, kitame), but each component of the newly formed diphthong is pronounced separately. If the first component of such a sequence is stressed (it is inaccurate to call these diphthongs, since they do not form a compact unit), its pitch accent always remains the same as it had before it came to stand in one syllable with the consonant. c) In the singular vocative case, e.g.: Adeltī ~ Adelīte, Agatī ~ Agotīte, Alūt ‘Eliute’, Cicilī ~ Cicilīte, Daratī ~ Daratīte, diēv ~ diēve Magdūt ~ Magdīte, Marī ~ Maryte, Untī ~ Onyte, Pilcūt ‘Felicyte’, Palūt ‘Apolīte’, Tarasūt ‘Teresyte’, Varūt ‘Verute’. d) In the plural locative case, e.g.: mēdžēs ~ mēdžiuose, laukūōs ~ laukuose, namūōs ~ namuose, piršlūōs ~ piršliuose, slānūōs ~ slėniuose, svečūōs ~ svečiuose; liepōs ~ liepose, pievōs ~ pievose, ranīkōs ~ raṅkose, šakōs ~ šakose; akīš ~ akyse, ausīš ~ ausyse, pušnīš ~ pusnyse, raumenīš ~ raumenyse, vandенīš ~ vandenyse; gražūōs ~ gražiuose, naujūōs ~ naujuose, savūōs ~ savuose, tuōs ~ tuose; medīnēs ~ medinėse, šaunīnēs ~ šiaudinėse; (numeral adverbs) dvēs ~ dviese, keturēs ~ keturiese, pītikēs ~ penkiese, šešēs ~ šešiese, trīs ~ triese. The dialect sometimes also uses fuller forms of the first-person singular: kalbėcā ~ kalbėčia, valgīcā ~ valgyčia. The dialect also shows no evidence of open-word-final au being lost; here it has become a monophthong and is pronounced like a labialized o, e.g.: mācō ~ mačiau, lōpō ~ lōpiau, pėcō ~ pūčiau; Baltramējō ~ Baltramiejau, Jūrgō ~ Jūrgiau ‘Jurgi’, Moldarō~Muldariau ‘Muldari’, tivēlō ~ tēvēliau ‘dear father’ (cf. p. 174). Thus, only the fronted a could have been lost from the first-person singular ending of the subjunctive. A first-person singular subjunctive form with the ending ia is characteristic of other dialects as well: the Kapsas dialect, the eastern and central Highlander dialects, etc. 171 In cases a, b, c, and d, the word-final consonant is palatalized after a front vowel that followed it and was subsequently lost. This is confirmed by the examples in which the final consonant follows a back vowel (laukuõs, rãnkõs, šakõs) and is pronounced softly. If the consonant in this case is affected regressively, there is no doubt that, as a result of regressive vowel influence, the consonant is palatalized also in those cases when, having ended up at the end of a word, it follows a front or fronted vowel. e) In the first and second person plural of all verb tenses and moods, e.g.: gùlėmi ∼ guliame, mė́lžėmi ∼ mė́lžiame, lýdžėmi ∼ lýdžiame, nórėni ∼ nór iame, stóvėni ∼ stóviame, suvulójėmi ∼ suvoliojame, žiūrėmi ∼ žiūriame, but: ainam ∼ einame, dír bam ∼ dirbame, girdõm ∼ girdome, žnáibom ∼ žnaibome; mìlė̃t ∼ myliate, luõbet ∼ liūobiate, šėrė̃t ∼ šeriate, tìlėt ∼ tyl iate, verpė̃t ∼ verp iate, but: ainat ∼ einate, dãrot ∼ darote, dė́dat ∼ dėdate, dúodat ∼ dúodate, gãnot ∼ ganote, nešat ∼ nešate, prãšot ∼ prašote, skaitot ∼ skaitote, sùkat ∼ sukate, vãrot ∼ varote; dãvėm ∼ dãvėme, ė́jėm ∼ ėjome, gulėjėm ∼ gulėjome, milėjėm ∼ mylėjome, nenurėjėm ∼ nenorėjome, nešėm ∼ nešėme, šlavėm ∼ šlavėme, tilėjėm ∼ tylėjome; audė̃t ∼ audėte, gãnet ∼ ganėte, kišėt ∼ kišėte, sukėt ∼ sukėte, vãrėt ∼ varėte, but: dirbat ∼ dirbote, gùlat ∼ gulote, mãlat ∼ malote; aisìm ∼ eisime, ausìm ∼ ausime, dirpsìm ∼ dirpsime, drósim ∼ drósime, kalbėsim ∼ kalbėsime, kiršim ∼ kiršime, mėgsim ∼ mėgsime, nešim ∼ nešime, tilėsim ∼ tylėsime; aisit ∼ eisite, ausit ∼ ausite, duosit ∼ duosite, gulėsit ∼ gulėsite, imšit ∼ imsite, mėksit ∼ mėgsite, nešit ∼ nešite, stuvėsit ∼ stovėsite, valgisit ∼ valgysite, verpsit ∼ verpsite; gautumim ‘we would get’, neštumim ‘we would carry’, skūbitumim ‘we would hurry’, verptumim ‘we would spin’, aitumė ‘you would go’, austumė ‘you would weave’; gantumė ‘you would herd’, verptumė ‘you would spin’; bėkim ∼ bėkime, neškim ∼ neškime, sprėskim ∼ spręskime, stovėkim ∼ stovėkime, tylėkim ∼ tylėkime, žiūrėkim ∼ žiūrėkime; aikit ∼ eikite, auskit ∼ auskite, gulkit ∼ gulkite, mėgs kit ∼ megzkite, rėkit ∼ rėkite, sukit ∼ sukite, stovėkit ∼ stovėkite, tylėkit ∼ tylėkite. In these examples (subsection e), the consonant that ended up at the word’s end was palatalized both by the lost vowel and by the vowel preceding it. This is shown by examples in which the final consonant, after e is lost, is pronounced hard, or perhaps only semi-hard (this is difficult to determine by ear), when it follows a back vowel (in this case consonant softness is not marked at all), e.g.: girdom ∼ girdome, nešat ∼ nešate, mãlat ∼ malote, as well as all examples of the past frequentative tense, e.g.: būdavom ∼ būdavome, riñkdavom ∼ riñkdavome, siūdavom ∼ siūdavome, verp davom ∼ verp davome; eidavot ∼ eidavote, kėpdavot ∼ kėpdavote, nešdavot ∼ nešdavote, valgydavot ∼ valgydavote. The palatalization of the final consonant in many verb forms is probably secondary. First, because of the shortening of endings in this dialect, word-final e was lost. Under its influence, the final consonant was soft in all cases. But this loss seems to have occurred relatively long ago, perhaps as in many other dialects, and over time in some cases the consonant in question will have had time to harden, while in others it remained soft. The final consonant could harden, and almost completely did harden, when following a back vowel which, even if it did not (though it probably did) contribute to its hardening, at least did not create conditions for 172 it to remain soft. Conversely, the final consonant did not harden in cases where it followed a front or fronted vowel, which must have preserved the softness of this consonant. Thus, in this case we are dealing not with regressive vowel influence, but with progressive influence, which is undoubtedly more recent and, in our view, should be considered a secondary phenomenon. f) The vowel e (and its diphthongal combinations, monophthongized in the dialect) is sometimes lost at the end of various adverbs, adverbial and other little words, and onomatopoeic words, leaving the final consonant soft, e.g.: až̇ ~ alė, bił ~ bile, būr būr būr ~ būre ‘call to a sheep’, dėł ~ dėl, delkė ~ delkõ, deltā ~ deltõ, kādeł ‘why’, kõł, tõł, veł, namieł || namiełė ‘at home’, pił pił pił < pile ‘call to a duck’, pūł pūł pūł ‘call to a hen’, ši toł || ši tole ‘this far’, ził, ził, ził < zile ‘call to a goose’. 3. Loss of i At the end of an open word, the vowel i is lost in the following cases: a) In the singular nominative, e.g.: mar̃t ~ marti, paž ~ pati, aišk ~ aiški, alkan ~ alkani ‘hungry (fem.)’, baš ~ baisi, brañg ~ brangi, gab ~ gabi, lyg ~ lygi, sot ~ soti, srauñ ~ srauni, tañk ~ tanki; kentiñ ~ kenčianti, nevažiuosiũ ~ nevažiuosianti, sergaũ ~ serganti. b) In the singular dative, e.g.: ãki¹⁰ ~ ãki ‘to the eye’, aũs ~ ausi ‘to the ear’, ãnt ~ anti ‘to the duck’, duktėr ~ dukteri ‘to the daughter’, nõs ~ nõsi ‘to the nose’, piemeñ ~ piemeni ‘to the shepherd’, rudeñ ~ rudeni ‘to autumn’, šir̃d ~ širdi ‘to the heart’, žõs ~ žąsi ‘to the goose’; at the ending of converbs derived from the dative, e.g.: gėrũ ~ gėriant, stãtũ ~ stãtant, vėrdũ ~ vėrdant, ver̃kũ ~ verkiant. The final consonant of personal and reflexive pronouns is also pronounced softly in the singular dative, accusative, and instrumental, e.g.: mãi || mãi (rare) < mani¹²; mãn <mane or mani¹³, tãv < tave or tavi, sãv < save or savi; sõ mãi¹⁴, tãv, sãv ‘with myself, yourself, himself/herself’. c) In the singular accusative, e.g.: árkł ~ árkli, gaĩd ~ gaĩdi, gė̃n ~ gėni, gõmur ~ gõmuri, jáũt ~ jáuti, kulũk ~ kolũki, mẽd ~ mẽdi, mõkĩn ~ mõkini, peł ~ peĩli, Vẽmbł ~ Vẽmbri (surname); ãk ~ ãki, aũs ~ ausi, duktėr ~ dukteri, nãkt ~ nãkti, pĩr̃t ~ pĩrti, šir̃d ~ širdi, šũn ~ šuni; didel ~ didelį, mediñ ~ medinį, muriñ ~ murinį. Here final i was lost relatively recently, because the soft consonant l, m, n, r, or v, when in the same syllable as a vowel, as in cases a and b of e-loss, is— 10 Usually, final i has been lost in the dialect in this case, but it may have been retained in individual cases, e.g. lig mirtį, lig širdį, and the like. Compare also footnote 7 of this article. 11 See J. Endzelynas, GF, § 414. 12 For the origin, compare J. Endzelynas, GF, § 301; J. Otrembskis, Gramatyka języka litewskiego (hereafter — GrJL), 3, § 308, Warszawa, 1956. In the singular dative, these pronouns bear stress in two ways: mãn, tãv, sãv, but in the dialect the falling accent is more characteristic in this case, while the rising accent is beginning to gain ground, probably under the influence of standard Lithuanian. 13For the origin, cf. J. Endzelynas, GF, 302 §; J. Otrembskis, GrJL, 3, 309 §. 14It is difficult to say from which older forms the singular instrumental forms derive; however, the softness of their final consonant shows that, at the ends of these forms, as in the dative or accusative, a front vowel has been lost, since there is nothing else left to soften it. 173 they (cf. p. 171) do not form a single close unit—a diphthong, but each is pronounced separately; cf. p. 168 of this volume. d) In the singular locative (in adverbs of this case), e.g.: ãnkšti ~ ankšti, arti ~ arti, tõli ~ toli. e) In the singular vocative, e.g.: Jūrg ~ Jurgi, Kãral ~ Kãroli¹⁵. f) In the dual nominative and accusative, e.g.: dvi diẽn ~ dvi dieni, dvi kãti ~ dvi kati, dvi nedẽl ~ dvi nedeli. g) In the plural nominative, e.g.: bãlti ~ balti, geltõ ~ geltõni, gẽr ~ geri, juõd ~ juodi, kanapẽt ~ kanapėti, kirmėliuõt ~ kirmeliuoti, mãž ~ maži, prãšti ~ prasti, raudõn ~ raudõni; ketur̃ ~ keturi, penkẽ ~ penki, septỹn ~ septyni, šeš̃ ~ šeši; ketver̃ ~ ketveri, šešer̃ ~ šešeri, vieñ ~ vieni; kẽl ~ keli, kõk ~ kõki, vẽs ~ visi; išdaužỹt ~ išdaužyti, iškirst̃ ~ iškirsti, išnẽšt ~ išnešti, neparmãtom ~ neparmãtomi, parsmaikšt̃ ~ parsmaukti, pjaũnam ~ pjaunami, prikalt̃ ~ prik alti, raunam̃ ~ raunamai, sukraũt ~ sukrauti. i) In the second-person singular of the present and future tenses, e.g.: ãin ~ eini, bẽg ~ bėgi, dir̃b ~ dirbi, kẽl ~ keli, klãus ~ klausi, peñk ~ penki, nẽš ~ neši, šõk ~ šoki, tur̃ ~ turi, vẽd ~ vedi; aĩs ~ eisi, bū̃s ~ būsi, dir̃bs ~ dirbsi, kẽls ~ kelsi, mir̃s ~ mirsi, nẽš ~ neši, padarỹs ~ padarysi, pamãtys ~ pamatysi, šõks ~ šoksi, vẽs ~ vesi. j) In the infinitive ending, e.g.: aušyt̃ ~ aušyti, būt̃ ~ būti, daigyt̃ ~ daigyti, dalyt̃ ~ dalyti, lodyt̃ ~ lodyti, mẽšt ~ mėsti, nẽšt ~ nešti, žõdīt ~ žiodyti, treškėlet̃ ~ treškėlėti. In all the cases of i-loss listed so far, the final consonant softened as a result of the vowel’s regressive influence. This is also shown by cases in which a back vowel precedes a soft final consonant. k) In the particle -si of reflexive verbs, e.g.: (in the infinitive) juõktis, kẽltis, mūš̃tis (see also case d of i-deletion, p. 178); (in the first-person singular of all tenses and moods) juõkõs ~ juokiuosi¹⁶, juokiausi, praũšõs ~ prausiuosi, prausiausi; nẽšõs ~ nešiausi, vẽžõs ~ vežiausi; juõkšõs ~ juokšiuosi, nẽšõs ~ nešiuosi, vẽžõs ~ vežiuosi; juõkčõs ~ juokčiausi, praũščõs ~ prausčiausi, but: dir̃bs ~ dirbuosi, dirbausi, mūš̃s ~ mušiuosi; juõgdavõs ~ juokdavausi, praũždavõs ~ prausdavausi; (in the second-person singular of all tenses and moods) juõkẽs ~ juokiesi, juokeisi, mūšẽs ~ mušiesi, mušeisi, praũšẽs ~ prausiesi, prauseisi, prausiesi, sõkẽs ~ sukiesi, sukeisi, vẽžẽs ~ vežiesi, vežeisi; juõkšẽs ~ juokšiesi, sūkšẽs ~ sūkiesi; juõktumẽs ~ juoktumėsi, praũštumẽs ~ praustumėsi; skūbykẽs ~ skūbykis, saugukẽs ~ saugokis, but: dir̃bes ~ dirbaisi; juõgdavẽs ~ juokdavaisi, mãugdidavẽs ~ máukdavaisi ‘maudydavaisi’; (in the first-person plural of all tenses and moods) juõkenẽs ~ juokiamės, mãtamẽs ~ matomės, juõkimẽs ~ juokėmės, juokimės, praũšimẽs ¹⁵ Most ja-stem nouns have, in the singular vocative, the ending -iau characteristic of the u-stem, e.g.: Mėrkel̃~Merkeliau ‘Merkeli’, Mãrtinaičiõ~Martinaičiau ‘Martinaiti’; the proper ia-stem ending is less common in this case. ¹⁶ In the dialect under study, unlike the standard language and other dialects, the stressed ending of the first- and second-person singular present forms of reflexive verbs must have had a circumflex rather than an acute accent. This alone can explain the retraction of stress to the initial syllable of the word. The circumflex may also have arisen in place of the acute through metatony. 174 ~ we washed ourselves, we will wash ourselves, we used to wash ourselves ~ we used to wash ourselves, we used to carry ourselves ~ we used to carry ourselves; we will laugh ~ we will laugh, we will carry ourselves ~ we will carry ourselves; we would laugh at ourselves ‘we would laugh’, we would wash ourselves ‘we would wash’; let us love one another ~ let us love one another; let us protect ourselves ~ let us protect ourselves; (in the second person plural of all tenses and moods) you laugh ~ you laugh, you laughed ~ you laugh, laugh, you carry yourselves ~ you carry yourselves, you will carry yourselves ~ you would carry yourselves, you will carry yourselves ~ you will carry yourselves, you will ride ~ you will ride; you used to wash yourselves ~ you used to wash yourselves, you used to carry yourselves ~ you used to carry yourselves; you would laugh at yourselves ‘you would laugh at yourselves’, you would carry yourselves ‘you would carry yourselves’; love one another ~ love one another, protect yourselves ~ protect yourselves; (in the third person of all tenses and moods) they rejoice ~ they rejoice, they hear ~ they are heard ‘it is heard’, they laugh ~ they laugh, they hobble ~ they hobble, they get up ~ they get up, they descend ~ they descend, they wash ~ they wash themselves, they spread ~ they spread ‘they unfold’, they smell ~ they smell, they shimmer ~ they shimmer ‘they glow’; they squirm ~ they squirmed ‘they twisted’, they were seen ~ they were seen, they carried ~ they carried, they led ~ they led; the one who is finishing ~ the one who is finishing ‘is dying’, he carries himself ~ he carries himself, he rides ~ he rides, but: they are getting along¹⁷ ~ they are getting along, he limps ~ he limps, he sees ~ he sees, he tickles ~ he tickles himself, he kicks ~ he kicks himself; they used to wash ~ they used to wash themselves, they used to carry ~ they used to carry themselves; they would wash ~ they would wash themselves, they would spin ~ they would spin themselves, they would carry ~ they would carry themselves. In this case, the final consonant is soft not so much because final i has been lost as because of the front vowel preceding the consonant. After the ending i was lost, this vowel came to occupy the same syllable as the softened consonant and, by acting progressively upon it, has preserved its softness to this day. As we have seen from the examples, in cases where there is nothing to preserve the softness of the consonant (a back vowel precedes it), the consonant has gradually hardened and today is pronounced almost completely hard. That the front vowel preceding a final consonant has indeed exerted a softening influence on the consonant in question is shown by cases in which a hard final consonant, after which nothing has been lost, has also softened somewhat under the progressive influence of a preceding front or fronted vowel, e.g.: perės¹⁸, sidės ~ sėdės, tupės, daris < daris ~ darys, matės ~ matys, varis ~ varys, but: gulės ~ gulės, kalbės ~ kalbės, išsigaruos ~ išsigaruos, which is often pronounced fully soft as well. 4. Loss of fronted u In the dialect, fronted u is lost in the following cases: a) In the singular dative, e.g.: árlė ~ árkliu ‘to the horse’¹⁹, briédžio²⁰ ‘to the elk’, gaid ‘to the rooster’, jáuč || jáuč ‘to the ox’, med ‘to the tree’, šun ‘to the dog’, vag ‘to the thief’, vélni ‘to the devil’; Šarmait ‘to Šarmaitis’. 17 Alongside the hard final consonant in these forms, forms with a word-final consonant that had not yet fully hardened were also heard in the dialect, in roughly equal numbers, perhaps somewhat less often. This is not reflected in the phonetic transcription. 18 The softness in this case is relatively slight, as in the case discussed in footnote 17, and is therefore not marked; however, the final s in the examples tupės, ikrės on the one hand and gulės on the other is pronounced differently: in the former case s is already softer, whereas in the latter it is completely hard. 19 Cf. Z. Zinkevičius, The singular dative of a(o)-stem nouns. — “Vilnius State V. Kapsukas University Research Papers”, 5, 191, Vilnius, 1955. 20 For the singular dative forms briéd, gaid, jáut... cf. also p. 170 and footnotes 6–7 of this article. 175 b) In the singular accusative case, e.g.: ámž ∼ ámžių, lesviñčė ∼ lesviñčių ‘forester’, skaĩt ∼ skaičių, sõdž ∼ sõdžių ‘village’, Vílñ ∼ Vilnių. c) In the singular instrumental case, e.g.: ákmenę ∼ akmeniu, áŕkl ∼ árkliu, doñč ∼ dančių, gaĩd || gaĩdž ‘with a rooster’, jáuč || jáuč ‘with an ox’, karaliẽj ∼ kavaleriu²¹, kõšn ∼ kąsniu, lesviñčė ∼ lesvinčiu ‘with a forester’, ližãd ∼ liežuviu, pė̃j ∼ peiliu, svė̃t || svė̃č ‘with a guest’, šūn ∼ šunų; bráng ∼ brangiu, grãž ∼ gražiu, líg ∼ lygiu, vėrdančė ∼ verdančiu. d) In the dual nominative and accusative, e.g.: dõ gaĩd || gaĩdž ‘with a rooster’, dõ kiaušiñ ∼ du kiaušiniu, dõ mėnes ∼ du mėnesiu, dõ šūn ∼ du šuniu, dõ tū́kstant || tū́kstanč ‘two thousand’. e) In the first person singular of the present and future tenses, e.g.: gõl ∼ guliu, kláus ∼ klausiu, praũs ∼ prausiu, prausiu, stõv ∼ stoviu; áis ∼ eisiu, dir̃bš ∼ dirbsiu, mãtš ∼ matysiu, mĩṙs ∼ mirsiu, nẽš ∼ nešiu, šõkš ∼ šoksiu. In all cases, the final consonant is pronounced soft because of the regressive influence of the dropped fronted u. II. Softening of consonants after vowel loss When a word-final front vowel or fronted vowel is lost (it has been observed that at the end of dialect words the front vowels e, i, and, rarely, ė may be lost, as may o (fronted), as well as fronted a and u), a soft consonant or consonant cluster at the end of the word stem comes to stand immediately before the final consonant, and the entire newly formed consonant cluster becomes soft²². 1. Loss of fronted a In the dialect, fronted a is lost in the following cases: a) In the singular nominative, e.g.: artójš²³ ∼ artójas, élñs ∼ elnias, ginė̃jš ∼ gynėjas, kė̃ls ∼ kelias, kulė̃jš ∼ kulėjas, laidė̃jš ∼ leidėjas, mukl̃tujš ∼ mokytojas, pjuvė̃jš ∼ piovėjas, svė̃čs ∼ svečias (cf. footnote 4 of this article), vėj̃s ∼ vėjas, vėlñs ∼ velnias; baisiaũsš ∼ baisiausias, gul̃ščs ∼ gulščias, pė̃ščs ∼ pėsčias, stáčs ∼ stačias, žál̃s ∼ žalias. b) In the plural accusative, e.g.: pãts ‘themselves’ (cf. footnotes 6 and 7 and p. 170), peñks ∼ penkias, stáčs ‘straight’, vald̃s ‘powers’, žál̃s ∼ žalias, ža-rė̃jŝ ∼ žarijas. Examples of both cases show that the dropped fronted a softened the entire consonant cluster that came to stand at the end. ²¹ In the dialect, nouns with iu-stems have an ia-stem ending in the singular instrumental. ²² Before the loss of a front vowel or a fronted vowel, the final consonant itself was probably pronounced soft; cf. cases a, b, and d of soft final consonants on pp. 179–180. ²³ The vowel lost in the words presented could also be i; cf. the singular accusative forms artóji ∼ artóją, vėlnì ∼ velnią. Words with the suffixes -ėjas, -ojas in the singular genitive, alongside their stem ending (artóje ∼ artójo, mukltuje ∼ mokytojo), are less often found with the ending characteristic of iu-stems (artójõs ∼ artójaus, mukltujõs ∼ mokytojaus). 176 2. Loss of e Word-final e is lost in a closed word-final syllable in the dialect, e.g.: apùss ~ ėpùses, kárvės ~ kárves, kàtės ~ katès, pélks ~ pélkes, pìrštins ~ pìrštines, rógės ~ rogès, but: pèls < pelas ~ pelės. Thus, the final consonant cluster is pronounced softly here because of the loss of e. The example pèls shows that l hardened in this dialect before word-final e was lost. 3. Loss of i In a closed word-final syllable, i(y) is lost in the following cases: a) In the singular nominative case, e.g.: (ia-stem nouns) brólis ~ brólis, brìeds ~ brìedis, dágės ~ dagýs, ágastìs ~ eigastis ‘gait’, éšerìs ~ ešerys, ėžìs ~ ežys, gaidìs ‘rooster’²⁴, gailastìs ~ gailestis, gẽnìs ‘woodpecker, shepherds’ game stick’, gẽnìs ~ genys, glėbìs ‘armful’, jáutìs ~ jautis, kìškìs ~ kiškis, kvìetìs ‘wheat’ (cf. footnote 4 of this article), lìzdėlìs ~ lizdelis, lópsìs ~ lopsys, mėdàs ~ medis, miẽžìs ‘barley’, naujìskaulìs ~ naujiskaulis ‘navicular bone’, pūzgegutuìtìs ~ pūzgegutuìtis ‘young cuckoo’, pasùolìs ~ pasuolis, paklùonìs ~ pakluonis, pakruojėtìs ~ pakruojėtis, pempùtìs ~ pempūtis ‘young lapwing’, pìršlìs ‘matchmaker’, rãtlunkìs ~ rãtlankis, raguólìs ~ raguolis ‘loaf of cake’, sprìndìs ~ sprindis, šunìtìs ~ šunytis, úosìs ~ úosis, užúovìs ~ užuovis ‘shelter’, žvirblùtìs ~ žvirblùtis ‘little sparrow’; (ia-stem proper nouns—place names and personal names) Aukštàsė beržìnėlìs ~ Aukštàsai beržynėlis (a small wood near Lauksodis), Béržtals ~ Béržtalis (a stream), Cárkels ~ Cárkelis (a road from Gelčiai to Lauksodis), Dagìlu kalnėlìs ~ Dagilių kalnelis (a hill near Lauksodis), Degìmu gróos ~ Degimų griovís (a tributary of Beržtalis), Gataučėlìs ~ Gataučėlis (a road from the highway to Gataučių village), Gùmbakalnìs ~ Gùmbakalnis (a deep pool in Beržtalis near the village of Stegviliai), Jóna Póželės kalnėlìs ~ Jono Póželės kalnelis (a hill in the Stegviliai forest, in Jono Póželė’s strip of land), Kalnìnis Póžel ~ Kalninis Póželė (Póželė, who lived in the village of Stegviliai on a hill), Kemšrìnės gróos ~ Kemšrinės griovís (standing water in a field in Stegviliai), Keršìns ~ Keršnis (a stream near the village and forest of Stegviliai), Kùk-miškìs ~ Kùkmiškis (a 250-ha forest between the villages of Kùkai and Diržiai), Kùkelìs ~ Kùkkelìs (a road from Lauksodis to Pašvitinys), Márgs ~ Márgis (a dog’s name), Naujì-kelìs ~ Naujikelis (a road laid out in the late 19th century from Gataučiai through Stegviliai), Padėgelė óžals ~ Padėgelis ąžuolas (a place in the Stegviliai forest), Pakelìùns pakumpnóss ~ Pakeliūnas Pakumpnósis (Pakeliūnas with a crooked nose), Palìepkalnìs ~ Palìepkalnis (a place in the Stegviliai forest), Pūdels ~ Pūdelis (a dog’s name), Ragánkelìs ~ Ragánkelis (a road from Gataučiai to Diržiai), Rainìùtìs ~ Rainiūtis (a cat’s name), Sárgs ~ Sárgis (a dog’s name), Sarìs ~ Sàrtis (a horse’s name), Strìukìs ~ Striukšis (a 30-ha forest between the village of Gelčiai and Lauksodis), Spìaudiklìs Rūdìs ~ Spiaudiklis Rūdis (Rūdis, who used to spit while speaking), Tiẽskelìs ~ Tiẽskelis (a road from the village of Gelčiai to Lauksodis manor), Trikùkalnìs ~ Trikùkalnis (a place in the Stegviliai forest), Vergìkelìs ~ Vergikelis (a road along the edge of the village of Stegviliai), Vìlkelìs ~ Vilkelis (a road through the village of Stegviliai); (i-stem nouns) añtìs ~ antis, ãkìs ~ ²⁴ In the dialect it is sometimes difficult to determine whether the stress in the singular nominative form of disyllabic ia-stem nouns fell on the stem or on the ending. In such cases, the dialectal form is not reconstructed to the standard language, and only its meaning is explained. 12. Kalbotyros klausimai, IV 177 ausis, biẽs ~ bitis, debẽs ~ debesís, donẽs ~ dantis, klẽs ~ klėtis, krósas ~ krósnis, mùs ~ musis ‘fly’, nãkẽs ~ naktis, nõs ~ nosis, pažastẽs ~ pažastis ‘armpit’, smilẽs ~ smiltis, širdẽs ~ širdis, tõs ~ tošis, vagẽs ~ vagis, žõs ~ žąsis, (adjectives) brangẽsẽs ~ brangesnis, didẽls ~ didelis, gerẽsẽs ~ geresnis, gražẽsẽs ~ gražesnis, priekšutẽs ~ priekštutinis ‘front’, (participles) galẽnẽs ~ galįantis (cf. footnote 8 of this article), mirštunẽs ~ mirštantis, norẽnẽs ~ norįantis, spaudžunẽs ~ spaudžiantis ‘low-pressure’ (of the weather). b) In the plural nominative case, e.g.: ãks ~ ãkys, ãnẽs ~ ántys, aiẽs ~ ausys, dẽbẽs ~ debesys, donẽs²⁵ ~ dančtys, dùrs ~ durys, klẽs ~ klėtys, piemẽs ~ piemenys, šunẽs ~ šunys, vilnẽs ~ vilnys. c) In the plural accusative case, e.g.: ãks ~ akis, ausẽs ~ ausis, nãkẽs ~ naktis, vagẽs ~ vagis, vagiùs (cf. case b of loss of u); devynẽs ~ devynis, penẽks ~ penkis, šeẽs ~ šešis. In all these cases, the consonant cluster at the end of the word will have been softened by the lost i. d) In the infinitive of reflexive verbs, e.g.: juókės ~ juóktis, klausẽs ~ klausytis, maũgdẽs ~ maudytis ‘to bathe’, šukúoẽs ~ šukúotis. In this case, the loss of the vowel i is a secondary and somewhat later development. In these examples, the final i first disappeared from the end of the word (cf. case k of i-loss, p. 174), e.g., juókti-s > juóktis, and only afterward was the word-final syllable further shortened: i was also lost, e.g., juóktis > juókės. Alongside the forms shortened through this secondary process, forms retaining this i are more frequent in the dialect. 4. Loss of fronted u Fronted u is lost in the dialect in the following cases: a) In the singular nominative, e.g.: ãmžẽs ~ ãmžius, Dẽrẽs ~ Dẽrėsius (the name of a grey horse), lẽsvunẽs || lẽsvunẽs (cf. p. 170 of this volume and footnote 6–7) ‘calves’, linaraũtẽs ~ linaraũčius ‘the time for pulling flax’, merẽs ~ mergius ‘a girl-keeper’, pavõjẽs ~ pavõjus²⁶, pẽčẽs ~ pẽčius, skaičẽs ~ skaičius, sõdẽs ~ sõdžius, vasarõjẽs ~ vasarõjus; nusirašẽs ~ nusiraškiusi, pasãkẽs ~ pasakiusi. In the last two examples, the word-final fronted u, as in the case of the loss of i and d, was lost through a secondary process: first, i in the ending was lost, and only later—when the word ending shortened further—was u also lost. Thus, u was lost here relatively recently. b) In the plural accusative, e.g.: brẽdẽs ‘elk’ (cf. p. 170 and footnote 7), donẽs ~ dančius, ežẽs ~ ežius, gaidẽs ‘roosters’, glẽbẽs ~ glėbius, jaũtẽs ‘bulls’, kiškẽs ~ kiškius, medẽs ‘trees’, padaikšlẽs ~ padaikšlius ‘soles’, peilẽs ~ peilius, sprindẽs ‘spans’, sirautẽs ‘orphaned children’, stačẽs || stačẽs ‘upright ones’, švẽtẽs || švẽčẽs ‘guests’, tūkstuntẽs ‘thousands’, varnuẽs ‘young ravens’, žirguẽs ‘young horses, foals’; aiškẽs ~ aiškius, brangẽs ~ brangius, gražẽs ~ gražius, sūrẽs ~ sūrius; gerẽusẽs ~ geriausius, mažẽsẽs ~ mažesnius, savũosẽs ~ savuosiuos; aštuonẽs ~ aštuonerius, septynẽs ~ septynėrius. 25 Masculine i-stem nouns in the plural nominative are found not only with their own stem ending but also with the ending characteristic of ia-stems, e.g.: dončẽ~dančiai, vagẽ~vagiai. 26 Derivatives in -o/jus, alongside their own stem ending in the singular genitive, are also less commonly found with the ia-stem ending: pavõje~pavõjo, vasarõje~vasarõjo; cf. also footnote 23. 178 5. Loss of ė ė is lost in the dialect under study only rarely, in the singular genitive and plural nominative, e.g.: Aikštės ~ Aikštės (the southeastern part of the Stegviliai forest, where sheep were grazed), kárvės ~ kárvės, kàtės ~ kàtės, šãrės ~ šãkės (cf. case b below). 6. Loss of fronted o Fronted o also disappears in the dialect in the singular genitive and plural nominative only very rarely, e.g.: kójės ~ kójos, trõšės ~ trãšios, but alongside these, the full forms are used much more frequently: kójos, trõšės (cf. case b below). III. Softening of the final consonant at an unshortened word ending The dialect also has a third type of word-final consonant softening, arising solely as a result of a preceding front vowel or fronted vowel. Such instances are not numerous in the dialect, but they do occur: a) In the singular nominative of participles, e.g.: bùvęs ~ bùvęs, girdėjęs ~ girdėjęs, išėmęs ~ išėmęs, išplėręs ~ išklėręs ‘spread out’, màtęs ~ màtęs, nuklúkės ~ nuklúkės ‘gone mad’, prilinìkės ~ prilinkęs ‘sympathetic’, sakydavęs ~ sakydavęs, šildydavęs ~ šildydavęs, žadėsas ~ žadėsias, but: pražėlęs ~ pražėlęs, kàlės ~ kàlės. b) In the singular genitive and plural nominative, e.g.: akėčõs ~ akėčios, akẽs ~ akìes, apačiõs ~ apačios, báimės ~ báimės, dalgės ~ dalgės, darbadienės ~ darbadienės ‘working day, working days’, dilgìnės ‘nettles’, draũgės ‘friendship’, drėvės ~ drėvės, dùlkės ~ dulkės, Gaigalinės ~ Gaigalienės, gaspadorõs ~ gaspadoriaus, gelàžės ~ geležies, gyvatiènės ~ gyvatiėnės ‘snake infusion’, grįčõs ~ grỹčios, grindės ~ grindės ‘little clasps’, kàtės ~ katės, kàugės ~ káugės ‘haystack, haystacks’, klẽtės ~ klėties, kójõs ~ kójos, krẽgždės ~ krėgždės, krẽšnės ‘sweet cherries’, kuntrìbės ~ kantrybės, kūtės ‘barn, barns’, lãikės ~ laikės ‘sled runners’, pėčõs ~ pėčiaus, pėmpės, pūravietės ~ pūravietės ‘12.5 ares’, raudunìkės ~ raudonikės ‘orange-cap boletus, orange-cap boletes’, silkùtės ‘little herring’, šáltmetės ~ šaltmetės, šùnes ‘dog’s’, valdžõs ~ valdžios, valdžios, virbės ‘gathering, meeting’, žarijõs, žẽmugės ~ žemuogės, žievės ~ žievės, žievės; dvėjõs, gaižõs ~ gaižios, gaižios, gražõs ~ gražios, kẽturiõs ~ keturios, mažẽsnės, mažùtės ~ mažìutės, naũjõs ~ naũjos, naujos, pàčiõs ~ pačios, penkiõs ~ penkios, parvažiavùsõs ~ parvažiavusios, spìrės ~ spùrės ‘fluffed-up, ragged’ (said of one breed of geese), šùrkščõs ~ šiurkščios, šiurkščios, tiẽsõs ~ tiesios, tiesios, tókõs ~ tokios, trãpniõs ~ trapnios ‘brittle’, trõšõs ~ trąšios, trąšios, but: bárzdos ~ barzdos, barzdõs, gėrõs, krùopos, pìktos, rìpkos, spalvõs ~ spalvos, spalvós, šákos, vìštos, ùogos. The final consonant is also pronounced softly in the singular genitive of personal and reflexive pronouns, e.g.: mãnės ~ manęs, tavẽs ~ tavęs, savẽs ~ savęs. 179 c) In the singular dative²⁷, e.g.: sótajem, stórājēm, but brángam²⁸ ‘brangiam’, pìgam²⁹ ‘pìgiam’, sótam ‘sočiam’. d) In the plural instrumental, e.g.: ančakėlės ‘with the little eyebrows’, brie- džės ~ briedžiais, gaidžės ~ gaidžiais, jaučės ~ jaučiais, kiaušinės ~ kiaušiniais, kraujės ~ kraujais, medžės ~ medžiais, molės ~ moliais, pelės ~ pėliais, spaiglės ~ spaiglais ‘with sprouts’, švėčės ~ svečiais, tačkėlės ‘with little spots, splashes’, tankės ~ tankiais, but: baltės ~ baltais, juodės ~ juodais, plaukės ~ plaukais, žilės ~ žilais. e) In the dative and instrumental of dual forms, used in the dialect in place of the plural, e.g.: afklėm ~ arkliam, aušim ~ ausim, briedžėm ~ briedžiam, gaidžėm ~ gaidžiam, jaučėm ~ jaučiam, karvėm ~ karvėm, katėm ~ katėm, klūmpėm ~ klūmpėm, marčėm ~ marčiom, lapėm ~ lapėm, pačėm ~ pačiom, pėmpėm ~ pėmpėm, rogėm ~ rogėm, naktėm ~ naktim, svečėm ~ svečiam, but: avėlėm ~ avėlėm ‘with sheep’, galvom ~ galvôm, gyvôm ~ gyvôm, jurginėm ~ jurginam, nôtom ‘with roosters’, ožkom ~ ožkom, vaikėm ‘with boys’, vyram ‘with men’, žiedėm ‘with rings’. In all the cases listed here, the final consonant has been progressively affected by a preceding front vowel or fronted vowel. If a back vowel or backed vowel precedes the final consonant, as the examples given show, the final consonant is always hard. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSONANT PALATALIZATION AND WORD-FINAL SHORTENING IN THE STEGVILIAI DIALECT Е. И. ГРИНАВЕЦКЕНЕ Summary The Stegviliai dialect is located in the northern part of the Lithuanian SSR (near the Latvian border, in Pakruojis District) and belongs to the Pontininkai subdialect of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect, with full retraction of stress 27The dative singular and the dative and instrumental dual (plural) are included in the subsection “Palatalization of a final consonant in an unshortened word ending” because their former final vowels or diphthongs have no effect on the final consonant. Sometimes (in the case of the dative and instrumental dual) it is also difficult to determine what vowel was formerly at the end of the word. Without final vowels, these cases are also used in lk (cf. footnote 2). 28In the dialect, u-stem adjectives have mostly shifted to the a-stem: bránga ‘of the dear one’, brángam ‘dear’, brángo ‘dear (accusative)’, bráng ‘dear (plural)’, although in the singular genitive and plural nominative they are sometimes also used with a u-stem ending: saldąs ~ saldaus, saldūs ~ saldūs. 29When adjectives, numerals, and pronouns in the singular dative, and nouns in the plural (dual) dative, are stressed on the ending in the dialect under study, they have a circumflex accent, unlike lk, rather than an acute accent. The stress of such forms is most often retracted from the final syllable to the root; however, alongside them, forms with unretracted stress also occur, e.g.: pigam || pigàm ‘cheap’, pirmam || pirmàm, katram || katràm ‘which’. 180 stress. In this dialect, the word ending is strongly shortened, and the final consonants undergo associated palatalization, unlike in the standard language and many other Lithuanian dialects. This article analyzes such consonant palatalization, identifies, groups, and summarizes its individual manifestations, and investigates its causes. In the dialect under study, consonants long established at the end of a word are palatalized in certain cases. The many examples given show that the cause of such consonant palatalization is a front vowel or a vowel advanced in articulation, standing before it. The following cases of final-consonant palatalization occur in the dialect: 1. in the singular nominative (in participles), e.g.: bùvęs (standard language buvęs) ‘having been’, mātęs (standard language mātės) ‘having led out’, sākęs (standard language sākęs) ‘having said’; 2. in the singular genitive and plural nominative, e.g.: krėgždės (standard language krėgždės) ‘swallows’, gràžos (standard language gražios) ‘beautiful, good (feminine singular genitive)’, gràžos (standard language gražios) ‘beautiful, good (plural)’; 3. in the plural instrumental, e.g.: arkļes (standard language arkliais) ‘with horses’, peilēs (standard language peiliais) ‘with knives’, žvirblēs (standard language žvirbliais) ‘with sparrows’. When a back vowel or a vowel retracted in articulation stands before such a consonant, the consonant is pronounced hard, e.g. pražīles (standard language pražiles) ‘having turned grey’, mergos (standard language mergos) ‘girls, singular genitive’, vaikēs (standard language vaikais) ‘with children’, etc. Thus, the cases of final-consonant palatalization identified in the dialect are explained in the article by the progressive influence of front vowels or vowels advanced in articulation that precede them. Consonants of the word stem that have become part of the ending as a result of word-final shortening are also pronounced softly in the dialect. In the dialect under study, stem consonants come to occur at the end of a word as a result of the loss or deletion of final vowels. Consonants that have come to stand at the end of a word are soft only when a front vowel or a vowel advanced in articulation is lost or deleted. In all other cases, the consonants are pronounced hard. It has been established that palatalized consonants occur at the end of a word in the following cases: 1. When the vowel a, advanced in articulation, is lost or deleted, e.g.: žal (standard language žalia) ‘green (feminine), with a green one’; sveč (standard language svečia) ‘guest (accusative singular)’; audž (standard language audžia) ‘he/she weaves, they weave’; vėlnis (standard language vėlnas) ‘devil’; žāls (standard language žalias) ‘green (accusative plural)’; 2. When the vowel e is lost or deleted, e.g.: kārve (standard language karvė, karve) ‘cow (accusative, instrumental, nominative, vocative singular)’, Aliū (standard language Eliūtė) ‘dear little Elena (vocative singular)’, šaukēm (standard language šaukiame) ‘we call, shout’, šaukē (standard language šaukiate) ‘you call, shout’, ėjēm (standard language ėjome) ‘we went’, eisi (standard language eisite) ‘you will go’, aitumēm (standard language eitume) 181 ‘we would walk’, aikī (literary language eīkite) ‘go!’, but: dirbam (literary language dirbame) ‘we work’, mālat < mālote (literary language mālėte) ‘you were threshing’, aidavọm (literary language eīdavome) ‘we often walked’; kā̃vės (literary language kārves) ‘cows, accusative plural’ 3. When the vowel i (u) is lost or dropped, e.g.: mārti (literary language marti) ‘daughter-in-law’, šird < širdi (an older ending than in the literary language: šir̃džiai) ‘to the heart’, Jūrg̃ (literary language Jūrgī) ‘Jurgis, vocative singular’, džiauges (literary language džiaugiasi) ‘he/she rejoices, they rejoice’, juokės (literary language juokiosi, juokiausi) ‘I laugh, laughed’, praūščēs (literary language praūščiausi) ‘I would wash myself’; arklīs (literary language arklys) ‘horse’, aūšs (literary language aušys, ausis) ‘ears, ear’. 4. When the fronted vowel u is lost or dropped, e.g. svēč < svēčiu (literary language svečiu) ‘to the guest’, svēč (literary language svečiu) ‘with the guest’, sū́kčės (literary language sū́kčius) ‘deceiver’. 5. In rare cases, when the front vowel e and the fronted vowel o are dropped, e.g.: kātės (literary language kātės) ‘cats’, šākės (literary language šākės) ‘pitchforks’, kōjōs (literary language kōjos) ‘legs’, grāžs (literary language grāžios) ‘beautiful, good’, but these vowels are usually retained: kātēs ‘cats’, kōjōs ‘legs’. When all the vowels mentioned above are lost, as the examples given show, the softened consonants of the word stem that come to stand at the end of a word are not always pronounced alike: sometimes they are soft, and sometimes hard. Their quality is determined above all by the vowel preceding them. If this vowel is a back vowel or one retracted toward the back, the consonant is pronounced hard; if the vowel is a front vowel or one advanced forward, the consonant is pronounced soft. From what has been said, it follows that the softening of final consonants depends not only on the vowel that was lost, but also on the vowel preceding it. Thus, in the case described, consonant softness is not only regressive but also progressive. In the author’s view, this softening of consonants is secondary. After the final vowel was lost, the final consonant was initially soft in all cases. Consequently, it was equally soft in words such as aīnam, nėšat ‘we go, you carry’, and in words such as šērem, šēret ‘we feed, you feed’. In cases where a back vowel stood before the soft final consonant and there were no conditions to preserve its softness, it gradually became hard and eventually hardened completely. But where a front vowel stood before it and preserved its softness, the softness of the final consonant has survived in the dialect under study to this day. When all the vowels mentioned above are dropped, the softened consonant (or consonant group) that comes to stand at the end of a word is not alone: a final consonant joins it (the article suggests that this consonant, too, was pronounced soft before the vowel was dropped), having stood after the dropped front vowel or fronted vowel; and the entire consonant group is pronounced softly (including the consonants g and k). 182 Every soft (as well as hard) consonant at the end of a word is pronounced distinctly, entirely separately, and without any trace of the other consonant standing next to it—that is, the consonants do not affect one another. Therefore, one gets the impression that such a consonant is pronounced longer than in another position or in other dialects that shorten word endings. At times it seems that some remnants of the lost vowel have survived between such consonants (especially between l, m, n, r). If consonants at the end of a word have the same voicing but differ in place of articulation (e.g., š and s or ž and z), both are pronounced entirely separately, e.g.: veřšs (literary language veřšis) ‘calf’, ōžs (literary language ožūs) ‘he-goat’. When consonants differing in voicing and place of articulation occur together (e.g., t and s or d and s), no affricate is formed, as might be expected; rather, each consonant is pronounced with its characteristic voicing or voicelessness, e.g.: gaidžs (literary language gaidžys) ‘rooster’, donžs (literary language dantis) ‘tooth’; compare examples from other dialects: læc < lēds (literary language lėdas) ‘ice’, kóc < kōts (literary language kótas) ‘handle’. When two entirely identical soft consonants occur together, each is likewise pronounced separately, e.g.: auššs (literary language ausis, aušys) ‘ear, ears’. If, in a single syllable at the end of a word, a vowel occurs with a consonant l, m, n, or r, they do not form a secondary diphthongal combination, as might be expected; instead, each component is pronounced separately and independently: stress usually falls only on the first component, while the second component (the consonant) often functions as syllabic, e.g.: nam (literary language name) ‘in the house’, vakar (literary language vakare) ‘in the evening’, and so on. From all that has been set out above, it follows that the loss of vowels at the ends of words in the dialect under study, and the associated softening of final consonants, are relatively recent phenomena. As a result, separate adjacent soft consonants, or a vowel and a final consonant, have not had time to form a closer union by the present day.