Martynas Mažvydas is known and celebrated as the founder of Lithuanian literature and the compiler of the first Lithuanian book. Naturally, this perspective gives special significance to the first Lithuanian book and its research, but this comes at the expense of his other books. Published in 1559, Forma Chrikʃtima is a mature author’s and experienced publisher’s individual and, in terms of genre, coherent work (the “fragmented” 1547 paleotype, which is heterogeneous in terms of genre and authorship, consists of different parts: a catechism and a hymnal), but it ended up alongside the unfortunate “third-row” books that do not receive much attention. In this respect, Forma Chrikʃtima repeats the fate of Pranciškus Skorina’s “Apostle” (1525), which even on this important anniversary remains in the shadow of the “Ruthenian Bible” (1517–1520) and the “Little Travel Book” (1522). Even the general public knows how many copies of M. Mažvydas’ catechism there are and where they are kept; with Forma Chrikʃtima, the situation is the opposite. The aim of this article is to provide a more detailed introduction to the second copy of the 1559 edition, which has been “ignored” by researchers until now, in the context of the history of research on Forma Chrikʃtima. This should encourage and facilitate the preparation of a critical edition of Forma Chrikʃtima for publication.
This article examines the accentuation history of Lithuanian denominal verbs in -(i)au-ti. In modern Lithuanian, these verbs typically have suffixal stress, and the few derivatives with root stress are generally formed from nouns of accentual paradigm 1 (e.g., pókštauti ← pókštas, a. p. 1). This situation can be interpreted as a result of Saussure’s Law. An analysis of the relationship between all non-suffix-stressed verbs attested in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽ) and the accentuation of their base words shows that the vast majority of such verbs are derived from a. p. 1 nouns (e.g., úogauti ← úoga, a. p. 1), and therefore preserve an accentual state inherited from the period before or immediately after the onset of Saussure’s Law. The accentuation of some derivatives with stative meanings and unexpected root stress together with acute metatony (e.g., mérgauti ← mer̃gą) may have been influenced by iteratives of similar semantics. The latter are characterized by root stress and acute metatony inherited from Proto-Baltic (e.g., válkioti ← vel̃ka, cf. Latvian val̃kât ← vȩ̀lk). A small set of verbs derived from color adjectives exhibits circumflex metatony (e.g., juõdauti ← júodas), which appears to have developed under the influence of accent patterns found in analogous -(i)uo-ti derivatives. Other rare instances of non-acute root stress in LKŽ are typically either recent derivatives from Slavic loanwords (e.g., triū̃bauti), possible transcription uncertainties (e.g., beñdrauti), or forms in which the root tone appears to be semantically motivated (e.g., pė̃dauti) or influenced by other factors.
This article aims to verify the empirical background of the phonetic interaction of prosodic elements in Standard Lithuanian – specifically word stress and phrase intonation. A multifactorial (MANOVA) analysis of F0 dynamics was performed to achieve this, revealing that the ratio of three acoustic parameters (F0 range, F0 jerk, and duration) depends on word stress. The speaker‘s intention to distinguish a syllable from its environment prosodically can be associated with a relatively wider F0 range, its more linear modulation, and a longer duration of the sound. The overall picture of F0 dynamics correlates with the position of the stress within the word. The primary phonetic cue for achieving the effect of a stressed final syllable is the static phonation of adjacent pre-stressed syllables (F0 acceleration →0 resulting in F0 jerk →0 and reduced syllable duration →0). The need to highlight intersyllabic differences in dynamic F0 profiles diminishes when the word stress is on the first syllable, leading to the assumption that the absolute beginning of the word, under phonetic ceteris paribus, acquires greater relative weight from a prosodic point of view. Bearing this in mind, one can conclude that the same F0 dynamics reflect the interaction of prosodic elements. The only distinction is that the intonational factor determines the overall change of F0, while the word stress controls its (intra)syllabic dynamics (variation of F0 over time).
In this article, which is part of a series devoted to the investigation of consonant clusters in East Baltic, I examine the cluster *-rTv-. The main motivation for examining this cluster is a new etymological proposal: I suggest that Baltic *kirvja- ‘axe’ belongs to the root *kert- ‘to chop’. This is defended in Section 1, followed in Section 2 by a comparison with alternative proposals that start from roots of the shape *ker- and *kʷer-. In Section 3, I return to the cluster *-rTv-, identifying one probable and another potential parallel, and examine counter-evidence. In the course of the discussion, I also reassess the outcome of the cluster *dv in Baltic.
The aim of this study is to identify the acoustic similarities and differences of selected Lithuanian directive phrases and to assess their potential impact on phrase type perception. The research material consists of sentences read seven times by three male actors, simulating assertion, request, supplication, permission, and command. For the perception experiment, one typical phrase of each type was selected from each speaker, with three additional samples from different speakers. Twenty-two participants were asked to identify the phrase types. The results show that command was identified most accurately (94%), while permission (73%) and assertion (67%) were less reliably identified; request and supplication were poorly identified (54% each). Participants relied partly on lexical-semantic and grammatical cues. For this reason, command and permission (Dabar eikite namo [dɐ²ˈbɐrˑ ²ˈɛɪˑkʲɪtʲɛ nɐ²ˈmoː‖] – “Go home now”) were not confused with supplication and request (Dabar norime eiti namo [dɐ²ˈbɐrˑ ¹ˈnoːrʲɪmʲɛ ²ˈɛɪˑtʲɪ nɐ²ˈmoː‖] “We want to go home now”) or assertion (Dabar galime eiti namo [dɐ²ˈbɐrˑ 2ˈɡɑːlʲɪmʲɛ 2ˈɛɪˑtʲɪ nɐ2ˈmoː‖] – “We can go home now”), though the latter were often confused with each other. The analysis of acoustic parameters considered: (a) mean, maximum, range, register, and contour of F0; (b) mean, maximum, range, and curve of intensity; (c) duration of words, syllable nuclei, and consonants. The findings indicate: (1) F0 parameters were generally similar, except for permission, which was produced with higher pitch; all phrases shared comparable intonation models: flat low (without narrow focus) or falling and rising–falling (with narrow focus); (2) permission exhibited the lowest intensity, while supplication, request, and assertion were produced with higher intensity, and command demonstrated the widest intensity range; all phrases ended with slightly lower intensity than at the beginning; (3) in terms of duration, supplication stood out with the longest segments across all categories, while command was characterized by consonant shortening.
The relationship of the Latvian verb naigât, -ãju and the adj. naîgs with the Slavic noun *ně̋ga and verb *něgati was identified already by Bezzenberger and Fick in 1881. Later attempts to add new comparanda have not been convincing. The present contribution discusses possible cognates in Tocharian and Celtic, implying the Indo-European protoform *nei̯gu̯-.
In Lithuanian, there are a number of quantificational adverbs that can perform the same functions as noun forms, even though they are invariable and are not marked by case endings, e.g. daũg ‘much’, mãža / mažaĩ ‘little, few’, ganà ‘enough’, kíek ‘how much’, tíek ‘so much’. The purpose of this article is to determine what strategies the Lithuanian language uses to compensate for the lack of case marking in these forms and to prevent this from leading to ambiguity about their syntactic function. The data from the Old Lithuanian texts are particularly interesting because they show a variety of possibilities: (1) the use of derived variants with case marking (daũgelis ‘much’, daugýbė, daugùmas ‘great number’), (2) the use of inflected forms (*daugis, *kiekas, *tiekas), (3) the transfer of the inflectional markers to the noun accompanying these adverbs (e.g. daũg žmonė́ms dative plural). These different possibilities obey both the organic logic of the language itself and sometimes linguistic interference in the case of translated texts.
Lithuanian abstract nouns of the type plõnis (gen. sg. plõnio) ‘thinness’ (← Lith. plónas ‘thin’) are a continuation of IE neuter adjectives with the suffix *-iyo-. A syntactic analysis of Lithuanian neuter adjectives allows us to assume that the change *-iyo- => -i- is the result of the following phonetic change: plónas ‘thin’ → neutr. *plān-ìja- > (loss of /a/) *plānī- > *plāni- > masc. plõnis ‘thinness’. The presented explanation sheds light on, among other things, the emergence of masculine nouns of the type dagỹs ‘thistle’ / Latv. dadzis < *dagijas (Est. takijas). The development of masculine adjectives with -ijas => -is / -īs is an analogical, not phonetic, process; its starting point was neuter adjectives. Furthermore, the formation of the Baltic declension in -ē- is based on analogy, in accordance with the model proposed by Kuryłowicz (1966; 1975).
This article focuses on the sources and outcome of the cluster *šr in East Baltic. This cluster is conspicuously absent in word-initial position. This appears to be the result of “Weise’s law”, which describes a phonotactic limitation against clusters of the type *Ḱr in Proto-Indo-European. In Balto-Slavic, there is also evidence that Weise’s law applied word-medially: where the cluster *-šr- does occur, there is usually a clear model for the restoration of *-š-. An interesting case is *ašra- ‘sharp’ — as the most basic member of the word family, and given exact parallels in other Indo-European languages, it is not likely the result of a recent restoration. This paper examines this lemma in detail. First, with the help of a parallel in strė́nos ‘small of the back’, it is shown that Lithuanian aštrùs ‘sharp’ must reflect a proto-form without *-t-. Second, it is argued that Latvian ass ‘sharp’ may also reflect Proto-East-Baltic *ašra- through a novel sound law *-šr- > -s-. Two probable and two more possible parallels can be found for this sound change. While the evidence as a whole supports the validity of Weise’s law in both word-initial and word-medial position, various evidence points towards the law having ceased to be productive in Proto-Indo-European, thus placing it in a pre-PIE timeframe.
The Second Commandment appears in strikingly varied formulations among Old Prussian, Old Latvian, and Old Lithuanian religious texts, particularly in catechisms from the 16th–17th century. The translation models employed in the three Baltic traditions suggest varying interpretations of the verb expressing the divine prohibition, with meanings including ‘to mention’, ‘to lead’, ‘to take’, ‘to (ab)use’, and ‘to drag, put on’. I seek to explain this remarkable diversity by tracing the attestations back to their immediate and secondary sources.
Lithuanian abstract nouns of the type plõnis (gen. sg. plõnio) ‘thinness’ (← Lith. plónas ‘thin’) are a continuation of IE neuter adjectives with the suffix *-iyo-. A syntactic analysis of Lithuanian neuter adjectives allows us to assume that the change *-iyo- => -i- is the result of the following phonetic change: plónas ‘thin’ → neutr. *plān-ìja- > (loss of /a/) *plānī- > *plāni- > masc. plõnis ‘thinness’. The presented explanation sheds light on, among other things, the emergence of masculine nouns of the type dagỹs ‘thistle’ / Latv. dadzis < *dagijas (Est. takijas). The development of masculine adjectives with -ijas => -is / -īs is an analogical, not phonetic, process; its starting point was neuter adjectives. Furthermore, the formation of the Baltic declension in -ē- is based on analogy, in accordance with the model proposed by Kuryłowicz (1966; 1975).
The aim of this article is to illustrate the method for the potential identification of Latvian pre-Christian personal names elaborated and approbated by the authors, considering that earlier research encourages a hypothesis that at least some contemporary Latvian surnames can be traced to ancient personal names of Baltic origin. The article introduces an approach that combines geographical, historical, linguistic, and statistical methods; hence, two examples have been illustrated in the analysis. Latvian surnames with suffixes -ān- and -ēn- (viewed as patronyms by researchers) and without a clear appellative or a newer forename have been selected. In the article, they are represented by such surnames as Beitāns/Beitēns and Geidāns. To the extent possible, we have identified the distribution of such anthroponyms in the territory of Latvia nowadays and in older documents. The distribution is then compared to corresponding Latvian toponyms of different ages. Lastly, possible etymologies are considered by comparing them to the research data on Lithuanian and Old Prussian personal names and by establishing other possibilities of origin from contact languages. Based on this analysis, conclusions are formed about the potential connection between selected surnames and the old personal names of ancient Balts. Among registered contemporary Latvian surnames, there are about ten surnames derived from the root Beit-. In the 1930s, the surname Beitāns was widespread in southern Latgale, Selonia, and eastern Vidzeme. There are also forms such as Beite, Beits in Selonia; Beitiņš in Zemgale, Vidzeme; Beitiks in Vidzeme. Documents from the 16th century feature a personal name with the root Beit- distributed sporadically all over Latvia. In Vidzeme, there were no personal names with the root Beit- in the 17th century; however, there are relatively many homestead names derived from the root in south-eastern and north-western parts of Vidzeme. Contemporary place names exhibit a similar distribution, and they are concentrated along the southern border of Latvia and in Vidzeme. Patronymic forms are quite dominant. When considering the distribution of the onomastic stem Beit-, its potential origin, unconvincing explanations of its origin, and toponymic evidence, it can be concluded that Beit- is, possibly, a stem of a Baltic personal name which was widespread in the 16th century and now remains in surnames and place names all over Latvia. There are also more than ten surnames registered in contemporary Latvia that are derived from the root Geid-/Ģeid-. In the 1930s in Latgale, surnames Geide, Geidāns, and Geiduks were widespread, and in Selonia – Geida, Geide, and Ģeida, also Geidāns and Ģeidāns. None of these surnames were widespread in Kurzeme and Semigallia, but in Vidzeme in 1826 the surnames Geide and Geidjan were registered in manor estate metrics; therefore, the root Geid-/Ģeid- can be mainly linked to southern and south-eastern parts of Latvia. Older proper names written with the root Geid- have been identified in Vidzeme metrics from 1638. Those are five homestead names, but there are no such personal names. A tendency geid- > gaid- has been identified in homestead names from later documents. Nowadays, homesteads named Geidāni are mostly concentrated in south-eastern Vidzeme, Latgale, and Selonia. Underived variants can also be established in northern Vidzeme, and Kurzeme. The Latgalian and Selonian surnames can be connected hypothetically with the Lithuanian and Polish languages. However, this etymology is not reliable because the sound shift ai > ei is only present in a small area of northern Latgale in Latvia. The onomastic root Geid-, according to its distribution in Latvia and its related etymologizations, is of the Baltic origin; however, it most likely entered the Latvian language through Lithuanian. Its etymology is assumed to be the Indo-European verb root *ghei̯dh- ‘wait’. When considering the results of the study, it may be concluded that the historical, geographic, and etymological methods allow the recovery of lost Baltic personal names, namely, to specify the origin of personal names, and to demonstrate the origin, distribution, and history of the productivity of the stem of the proper name.
