Albina AUKSORIŪTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

INDIVIDUAL PLANT NAMES IN L. IVINSKIS’S POLISH–SAMOGITIAN DICTIONARY AND PRIGIMTŪMENĖ

Laurynas Ivinskis (1810–1881), greta Jurgio Ambraziejaus Pabrėžos, laikytinas vienu iš pirmųjų lietuviškų gamtos mokslų, ypač botanikos, terminų kūrėjų. Dauguma darbų, kuriuose jis pateikė lietuviškų botanikos terminų, taip ir liko neišspausdinti, tarp jų minėtini Lenkų–žemaičių kalbų žodyno ir Prigimtūmenės rankraščiai.

The manuscript of the Polish–Samogitian Dictionary (Słownik polsko-żmudzki) is the largest of Ivinskis’s surviving dictionaries: two bilingual and one four-language dictionary manuscripts. It covers the letters A–R and comprises 2,060 pages. The dictionary manuscript is held at the Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków. The exact date when this dictionary was completed is unknown, but Ivinskis’s letters suggest that the author wrote it around the end of 1862 or in 1863 (see Ivinskis 1995: 465–467). Ivinskis included numerous botanical, zoological, and mineralogical nomenclatural names in the dictionary under discussion, often providing Latin equivalents as well. The dictionary contains over 350 plant names, mostly names of genera (for more detail, see Auksoriūtė 1999: 22–33).

Ivinskis’s Prigimtūmenė is a scholarly work in two parts, written later than the dictionary, around 1870. The manuscript of Prigimtūmenė, like the aforementioned dictionary, is held in Kraków, while a draft of the first part and its indexes of Lithuanian, Latin, Polish, and German equivalents are kept in the manuscript collection of the Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. In the first part of this manuscript, Žemėmina, Ivinskis describes mineralogical subjects, providing a Latin, Polish, and sometimes German equivalent alongside each Lithuanian term. The second part, Žolėmina, is a systematic nomenclature of fungi and plants, giving Lithuanian names for 218 families and more than 2,520 genera, together with their Latin, Polish, and German equivalents. The author also compiled alphabetical indexes of equivalents in all the languages (for more detail, see Jankevičius, Jankevičienė 1962: 151–163; Auksoriūtė 1998: 102–110).

135

Although the Polish–Samogitian Dictionary and Prigimtūmenė are works of different kinds—the first is a translation dictionary and the second a scholarly work—the plant names included in them can be compared, since the Latin equivalents given in the dictionary make it possible to identify the Lithuanian names. The article examines and compares only plant names of L. Ivinskis’s individual coinage found in both works, since folk plant names that have become terms generally do not differ.

The names of about 80 plants included in both of Ivinskis’s manuscripts were compared. They can all be divided into two groups: 1) the same names are given for the same plants in the Dictionary and Prigimtūmenė; and 2) plant names that differ, that is, the same plant is named one way in the Dictionary and another way in Prigimtūmenė.

Names in the first group account for about 54 percent of the names compared. In terms of word formation, these names are quite varied, with suffixal derivatives predominating, for example:

-ainis: Latin Arrhenatherum, Polish Wysypka, awižainis ~ avižainis (: aviža) Ž VIII 1619, P 125, cf. avižuolė BVŽ 1998: 41; Latin Commelina, Polish Przewdziękła, žiedra[j]nis ~ žiedrainis (: žiedras “blue”) LKŽ 2002) Ž VII 1373, P 130; Latin Mesembryanthemum, Polish Przypołudnik, spūgāinis ~ spūgainis (: spūgas “pimple”) Ž VIII 1467, P 186, cf. pluoštagėlė BVŽ 1998: 195; Latin Silybum, Polish Ostropest, pstrošt, margāinis ~ margainis (: margas) Ž VIII 1557, P 253, cf. margainis BVŽ 1998: 277.

-enis: Latin Dactylis (Dactylis glomerata Ž), Polish Rżniączka, psia trawa Ž, niestrawa P, pievēnis ~ pievenis (: pieva) Ž VIII 1551, 1553, P 125, cf. Latin Dactylis glomerata, šunažolė Iv, Mln, syn. pamienis Iv St LBŽ 1938: 115, šunažolė BVŽ 1998: 107; Latin Erythronium, Polish Psi ząb Ž, szewnik P, skajstēnis ~ skaistenis (: skaistus) Ž VIII 1551, P 134, cf. eritronis BVŽ 1998: 126; Latin Smyrnium, Polish Przewłoka, gardoklēnis ~ gardoklenis (: gardoklis) Ž VII 1379, P 196 (the base word for this derivative is considered to be another plant name given by Ivinskis—gardōklis, Latin Angelica Archangelica Ž II 245).

-enė: Latin Methonica, Polish Pysznokwiat, wdziękostawa Ž, stebuklėnė ~ stebuklenė (: stebuklas) Ž VIII 1596, P 133; Latin Saponaria, Polish Psie goździki Ž, mydlnica, mydlownik P, muilėnė ~ muilenė (: muilas) Ž VIII 1551, P 182, cf. putoklis BVŽ 1998: 267; Latin Isopy-

136

rum, Polish Przyjemka, zdrojówka, rautėnė ~ rautenė (: rautas) Ž VII 1425, P 161, cf. bligna BVŽ 1998: 164.

Some derivatives are formed with very rare suffixes (-minys, -menis, -mūnis, -mūnys, -ėnis, -ėtis, -ėtras, etc.), e.g.: Latin Chara, Polish Ramienica, suktminis Ž VIII 1622, sūktminis ~ suktminys (: suktas) P 96, cf. maurabragis Mln, synonym graudele Iv LBŽ 1938: 83, maurabragis BVŽ 1998: 81; Latin Potamogeton (Potamogeton natans Ž), Polish Rdestnica, wrzecznica Ž, wrzecznik, wodnica, rdestnica P, vandminis Ž VIII 1636, vandminis ~ vandminys (: vanduo) P 119, cf. Latin Potamogeton natans, plūduriuojančioji plūdė, synonym plaudenės Iv LBŽ 1938: 277; Latin Diospyros, Polish Przysproa, juodmūnis ~ juodmūnis (: juodas) Ž VII 1497, P 216, cf. persimonas; juodmedis BVŽ 1998: 114; Latin Cynoglossum (Cynoglossum officinale Ž), Polish Psi język, lėžmūnis ~ ležmūnys (: ležti “to lie wilted, droop (of plants)” DūnŽ 1976: 174) Ž VIII 1551, P 233, cf. šinlielė BVŽ 1998: 106; Latin Helichrysum, Polish Radostka, suchokwiat P, sausūmėnis ~ sausūmenis (: sausas) Ž VIII 1614, P 255, cf. šlamutis BVŽ 1998: 150; Latin Albuca, Polish Ptaszla, sūltienis ~ sultenis (: sultys) Ž VIII 1562, P 132; Latin Erineum, Polish Rdzawnik, rudietras ~ rudėtras (: rudas) Ž VIII 1637, P 48, etc.

Derivatives with prefixes (pa-, san-, ap-) are somewhat less common, e.g.: Latin Cycas, Polish Rdzenica, pāverbė ~ paverbė (: verba) Ž VIII 7, P 143, cf. cikas BVŽ 1998: 104; Latin Cynometra, Polish Psia rózga Ž, Otrewa P, pāpienis ~ papienis (: pienas) Ž VIII 1551, P 211; Latin Eranthis, Polish Rannik, sānwasāris Ž VIII 1625, sānwasāris ~ sanvasaris (: vasara) P 161, cf. erantis BVŽ 1998: 124; Latin Majanthemum, Polish Pst roczek, pādziaugsmis ~ padžiaugsmis (: džiaugsmas) Ž VIII 1556, P 131, cf. Majánthemum bifólium, medutė, synonym mieji̇gas Iv LBŽ 1938: 210.

One suffixal derivative has been found: Latin Cunonia, Polish Radziliszek, āp- rāžgis ~ apraizgis (: apraizgė) Ž VIII 1616, P 188; and one compound: Latin Euphorbia, Polish Psie mleko, wilczomlecz lancetowaty Ž, Ostromlecz P, kārtpienė Ž VIII 1551, kārtpienė ~ kartpienė (: kartus + pienas) P 150, cf. karpažolė, synonym kartpienė Iv LF 1971: 580.

The formation of a quarter of the names in this group is unclear, since their derivational bases are unknown, e.g.: Latin Atraphaxis, Polish Racięžnica, aj-

137

szmas Ž VIII 1607, ājszmas ~ aišmas P 157; lot. Banksia, lenk. Pyszlin, skūbras ~ skūbras Ž VIII 1595, P 155; lot. Bupleurum, lenk. Przewiercień, daunzas Ž VII 1375, lānszas ~ lansās P 192, plg. gaivenis BVŽ 1998: 59; lot. Coldenia, lenk. Kociąg, strāmas ~ stramas Ž VIII 1607, P 234; lot. Excaecaria (Excaecaria agalocha Ž), lenk. Rajskie drzewo Ž, Ślepin, slepodrzew P, araszas rōjiskāsis Ž VIII 1620, āraszas ~ arasas P 150; lot. Farsetia, Berteroa, lenk. Pyleniec, plė jnis ~ plėinis Ž VIII 1591, P 176, plg. Berté́roa incána, pilkoji miltinaitė Iv LBŽ 1938: 48, miltinaitė BVŽ 1998: 51; lot. Fedia, lenk. Rapunkul, nājstis ~ naistis Ž VIII 1629, P 252; lot. Oenanthe, lenk. Przewłóka, ilksnis ~ ilksnis Ž VII 1379, P 192, plg. Oenánthe aquática, vandeninė išnė Iv LBŽ 1938: 237, išnė BVŽ 1998: 208; lot. Ornithopus, lenk. Ptaszyniec, sānstris Ž VIII 1562, sānstris ~ sanstris P 208, plg. Ornithopus sativus, sėjamoi seradelė Iv; sin. saradelė Iv LBŽ 1938: 241, seradelė BVŽ 1998: 211; lot. Valerianella, lenk. Rapontyka, klāinis ~ klainis Ž VIII 1627, P 252, plg. Valerianella olitória, sultenė Iv, Mln LBŽ 1938: 365, sultenė BVŽ 1998: 307.

The names given in the Dictionary and Prigimtūmenė for the same plants are entirely identical in both form and spelling; only an occasional name differs in its diacritic mark. Of the group discussed, only one of Ivinskis’s new coinages is currently in use: margainis, used for the same Latin genus Silybum (see LBŽ 1938: 323 and BVŽ 1998: 277). Had even one of Ivinskis’s mentioned works been published, perhaps more of his new coinages, whose motivation is clear, would have become established.

In compiling the Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary, the aforementioned manuscripts by Ivinskis were not used; his plant names were taken from calendars and from other Ivinskis manuscripts received by Kazys Grinius. A review of the plant names and synonyms included in LBŽ shows that for some plants already mentioned it gives different names by Ivinskis than those found in the manuscripts under discussion, e.g.: šunažolė, išnė, sultenė, miltinaitė, seradelė, which are also used in current botanical nomenclature (see BVŽ 1998). Four of these names—išnė, miltinaitė, sultenė, šunažolė—are most likely formations coined by Ivinskis, while the fifth name is a borrowing (see also Matulionis 1907: 12, 23, 60). A couple more names by Ivinskis are given in LBŽ as synonyms, e.g.: graudelė (Latin Chara) and plau-

138

denės (Latin Potamogeton), but these are not used in current nomenclature. And only one of Ivinskis’s new coinages from the group under discussion is included in LBŽ as a synonym: kartpienė.

The formation of a considerable proportion of the plant names in the second group—that is, those that differ between the Polish–Samogitian Dictionary and Prigimtuomenė—is likewise unclear, e.g.: Latin Aulax, Polish Rososna, dròmienis ~ dromenis Ž IX 1722, plīntas ~ plýntas P 154; Latin Dirca, Polish Rzemienica, jèrkāinis ~ jerkainis Ž X 2046, sàjluwas ~ sailuvas P 155; Latin Epacris, Polish Rzęst, jūstras ~ jūstras Ž X 2051, tièkšzras ~ tiekšras P 14; Latin Himantalia, Polish Rzemienica (no Polish equivalent is given in Prigimtuomenė), stièm uo ~ stiemuo Ž X 2046, sànkietris ~ sankietris P 96; Latin Onosma, Polish Rumianica, ràumiē ~ raumė Ž X 2007, lièsmuō ~ liesmuo P 233; Latin Umbilicus pendulinus, Polish Rząsa wietrzna, gīniāwas ~ gyniavas Ž X 2041, Latin Umbilicus, Polish Urocznik, pępowiec, ēl k r a s ~ el kras P 187; Latin Sisyrinchium, Polish Ryjaczek, jèlis ~ jelis Ž X 2027, sànrinklis ~ sanrinklis P 136, cf. vikšruolė BVŽ 1998: 278, etc. The plants mentioned, except the last one, are included neither in LBŽ nor in BVŽ.

Comparing the different names given for the same plant in the works under discussion, one can observe that the names coined by Ivinskis most often differ completely. Those plant names whose formation is clear differ both in their base word and in their derivational formant; only a few names can be related to one another. In the Dictionary, the name gárstis ~ garstis Ž X 2005 is given for Latin Nasturtium, Polish Rūkie w, whereas Prigimtuomenė gives the prefixed derivative pàgārs tis ~ pagars-tis P 161, whose base word was probably taken from the plant name given in the Dictionary (cf. rėžiukas BVŽ 1998: 203). Conversely, Latin Thalictrum, Polish Rutewka: in the Dictionary the derivative rùtmetië ~ rūtmetė Ž X 2017 is given; its derivational base may perhaps be the suffixal -mė derivative rùtmiē ~ rutmė P 161, given in Prigimtuomenė to name this plant (cf. vingiris, synonym rūtnicis Iv LBŽ 1938: 344). The names of two further plants should also be mentioned; they are based on the same base words: Latin Agrimonia, Polish Rzepik, twìlkietris ~ tvilkėtris (: tvilkės + -ėtris) Ž X 2048 and twìlkēnē ~ tvilkenė (: tvilkės + -enė) P 203 (cf. Latin Agrimonia Eupatoria, dirvuolė gydūnė, synonyms tvilkės Iv, St LBŽ 1938: 11, dirvuolė BVŽ 1998: 22); Latin Cakile, Polish Rukwiel, snapėjnis

139

~ shapeinis (: shapas + -einis) Ž X 2005 and s n ā p o t i s ~ snapotis (: snapas + -otis) P 178 (cf. Lat. Cákile maritima, seaside stock Iv, St LBŽ 1938: 60, stoklė BVŽ 1998: 60).

The derivation of some differing plant names is clear in one of Ivinskis’s manuscripts, while the derivation of the names given in the other manuscript is harder to trace or entirely unclear. A few examples of plant names whose derivation is clearer in the Dictionary: Lat. Marchantia, Pol. Porostnica, kerpėnė ~ kerpenė (: kerpė + -enė) Ž VI 1225, i w a j r i s ~ yvairis P 99, cf. maršantija BVŽ 1998: 190; Lat. Onobrychis; Pol. Rzesnia, d ò b i l ė n i s ~ dobilėnis (: dobilas + -ėnis) Ž X 2050, s ž i b r u n i s ~ šilbrunis P 209, cf. Lat. Onobrychis viciaefolia, sainfoin, syn. jungenes Iv, St, sparceta Iv LBŽ 1938: 238, esparcetas BVŽ 1998: 209; Lat. Pegamum, Pol. Rutewnik, r u t ė j n i s ~ rūtėnis (: rūta + -ėnis) Ž X 2017, g a n d r ò n i t i s ~ gandonitis P 165, cf. peganas BVŽ 1998: 219; Lat. Sium, Pol. Potocznik, u p ė n i s ~ upenis (: upė + -enis) Ž VII 1249, l a n t ė k l i s ~ lanteklis P 192, cf. dregmenė Iv LBŽ 1938: 324, dregmenė, syn. lanteklis Iv LF 1976: 61; Lat. Jacquinia, Pol. Rozwidzcznia, s k à i s t r a ~ skaĩstra (: skaistrus + -ra) Ž X 1981, j ò k ū n i s ~ jokūnis P 218, and others. The latter plant is included neither in LBŽ nor in BVŽ.

Plant names whose derivation is clearer in Prigimtūmenė, for example: Lat. Celastrus, Pol. Roślidlawa, d à j g ò n i s ~ daigonis (: daigoti ‘to destroy, kill’ + -onis) P 213, r ù t w i e n i s ~ rūtvenis (?: rūtva + -ėnis) Ž IX 213, cf. smaugikas BVŽ 1998: 74; Lat. Galega, Pol. Rutwica, ž i r n ū k l a s ~ žirnūklas (: žirnis + -ūklas) P 207, r ù t w à j n i s ~ rūtvanis (: rūtva + -ainis, the base word of this derivative was probably taken by following the Polish equivalent) Ž X 2017, cf. Lat. Galéga officinális, goat’s rue, syn. žirnytės Iv, St LBŽ 1938: 149, ožiarūtis BVŽ 1998: 137; Lat. Isotes, Pol. Rypina, p a n a r ū n i s ~ panarūnis (: pa- + narūnas) P 116, s k à n d i n i s ~ skandinis Ž X 2032, cf. slepišėre BVŽ 1998: 163; Lat. Magnolia, Pol. Rozwoń, d i d ė n ė ~ didenė (: didis + -enė) P 163, ž i ė g r i s ~ žiegis Ž X 1993, cf. magnolija BVŽ 1998: 187; Lat. Restio, Pol. Rześć, p r á m a u d i s ~ pramaudis (: pra- + maudai, see maudai (Lat. Scirpus) P 121) P 129, r i è z g i s ~ riezgis Ž X 2049, cf. restijas BVŽ 1998: 251; Lat. Nissolia (Lathyrus Nissolia), Pol. Rydzyń, r ã ž u w a s ~ ražūvas (: ražas +

140

-nvas) P 209, rìntis ~ rìntis Ž X 2025, cf. Lat. Lathyrus, pelėžirnis, syn. pažìrnis Iv, žirnikas Iv LBŽ 1938: 191; Lat. Callitriche, Pol. Rzęśl, nertis ~ nertis (: nerti + -tis) P 199, ašìtwie ~ ašivė Ž X 2050, cf. praujene Iv LBŽ 1938: 63; Lat. Elate, Pol. Rosława, skléjstis ~ skleístys (: skleisti + -tys) P 128, gietres ~ gietrès Ž IX 1719, and others. The latter plant is not included in either LBŽ or BVŽ.

None of Ivinskis’s neologisms in the second group discussed is used in current botanical nomenclature; however, three of the plants mentioned are now known by names coined by Ivinskis—stoklė (Lat. Cakile), drėgmenė (Lat. Onobrychis), and praujėnė (Lat. Callitriche). These were given not in the Dictionary or Prigimtūmenė, but in his other writings.

A comparison of the plant names Ivinskis himself created, as recorded in the manuscripts of Ivinskis’s Lithuanian–Samogitian Dictionary and Prigimtūmenė, clearly shows that for almost half of the plants he gave one name in one manuscript and a different name in the other. It is difficult to say why this happened. Ivinskis wrote Prigimtūmenė somewhat later than the Dictionary; moreover, in Prigimtūmenė he classified plants by distinguishing taxonomic categories, so, in reconciling them, he may have changed his mind about some plant genus names he had used earlier, wishing to make them more precise or improve them.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

Auksoriūtė A. 1998: Lauryno Ivinskio rankraščiai Krokuvoje. – Terminologija 5, 102–110.

Auksoriūtė A. 1999: Lauryno Ivinskio žodynų terminija. – Lituanistica 2(38), 22–33.

BVŽ 1998: Botanikos vardų žodynas. Sud. R. Jankevičienė, Vilnius.

DunŽ 1976: V. Vitkauskas. Šiaurės rytų dünininkų šnektų žodynas, Vilnius.

Ivinskis L. 1995: Raštai. Sud. R. Mikšytė, Vilnius.

Jankevičius K., Jankevičienė R. 1962: Kai kurie nauji duomenys apie L. Ivinskio darbus lietuviškos botanikos terminijos srityje. – Botanikos klausimai 2, 151–163.

LBŽ 1938: Lietuviškas botanikos žodynas. Red. J. Dagys, Kaunas.

LF 1971: Lietuvos flora 4, Vilnius.

LF 1976: Lietuvos flora 5, Vilnius.

LKŽ 2002: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 20, Vilnius.

Matulionis P. 1907: Žolynas: Lietuvos augalų žodynas ir augalų taislas, Vilnius.

141

P: Prigimtūmenė (Prigimtūmenė, turentė savicje dalijkus žemies, žoliun ir giwunun su parodimu anun wartojimo), manuscript.

Ž: Lietuvių-žemaičių kalbų žodynas (Słownik polsko-żmudzki), manuscript.

INDIVIDUAL NAMES OF PLANTS IN L. IVINSKIS’ Polish-Samogitian Dictionary AND PRIGIMTŪMENĖ

Summary

This article deals with the names of plants of individual word-formation presented in two manuscripts – Lenkų-žemaičių kalbų žodynas (Polish-Samogitian Dictionary) (about 1863) and a scientific work Prigimtūmenė (Nature) (1870). About 80 individual names included in both manuscripts are compared. The similarity of the Lithuanian names given in both manuscripts is demonstrated by their Latin equivalents.

All Ivinskis’ terms of individual word-formation which have been compared can be distributed into two groups: 1) the same names used to name the same plants in both the dictionary and Prigimtūmenė, 2) different plant names – i. e. in the dictionary and Prigimtūmenė the same plant is named differently. Names of the first group make about 54% of the compared names. In respect of word-formation names are quite different, most of them are suffix derivatives and the way of formation of about one quarter of them is not clear, because the underlying word is not known.

Comparison of different names for naming the same plant in the dictionary and in Prigimtūmenė shows that those names are entirely different. Word-formation of most of them is not clear and these, which have a clear word-formation pattern, have a different underlying word and a different formant.

It is difficult to say why Ivinskis gave different names in the two manuscripts to almost a half of plants. Prigimtūmenė was written later than the dictionary. In Prigimtūmenė he classified plants according to taxonomy categories, so it is possible that he had changed his opinion when trying to co-ordinate names of these categories or to improve and to make plant names more accurate.

Albina AUKSORIŪTĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-2055 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected]

Received 2003-10-31

142