Lithuanian etymological dictionary

• Smoczyński, Wojciech
• Holvoet, Axel
• Young, Steven
• Browne, Wayles

ENALEW analyzes lexical material from before 1700, termed Old Lithuanian, a large part of which are Slavic borrowings from Old Belarusian, Belarusian, and Polish. BIL, in turn, focuses on singling out from the lexicon of the three Baltic languages the inherited Indo-European elements, that is, what is left after eliminating Balto-Slavic or “Northern Indo-European” innovations, secondary derivatives, borrowings, and onomatopoeia. These two works can be said to complement LED, since the latter encompasses the entirety of the Lithuanian lexicon, irrespective of its historical (16th–21st cc). or dialectal differentiation (dialecal words are treated on a par with the standard), and without regard for a distinction between “primary words” and “secondary words.” In addition, LED records a large number of borrowings (mainly Slavic, but also German) and a considerable selection of onomatopoeic words. Reference to previous etymological works has been kept to an absolute minimum in LED, in view of the online database developed on the initiative of Prof. Vincas Urbutis at Vilnius University’s Department of Baltic Studies (see http://etimologija.baltnexus.lt). In some ways, LED differs from the pioneering work of Fraenkel (LEW): 1° It gives priority to “word” etymologies over so-called “root” etymologies (Wurzeletymologie). 2° It does not subscribe to the theory of root extensions (Wurzelerweiterungen), and thus does not seek, for example, a common denominator for forms as diverse as briáutis, braũkti, Latv. bružât and RuCS brŭsnuti (LEW 54 f., s.v. braũkti). 3° In analyzing lexemes inherited from PIE, LED adheres to the current model of vocalic alternations, which assumes a theory of three PIE laryngeal consonants (see Smoczyński 2006).4° Lexical material characterized by ablaut alternations is broken down in LED into ablaut grades (e-grade, o-grade, zero-grade, lengthened zero-grade, etc.); the aim of this stratification is to reveal preserved features of Lithuanian morphonology. 5° More often than in LEW, the entries in LED end with the statements “Unclear,” “No etymology,” “Without good etymology.” The aim of this practice is to clearly demarcate uncertain material, requiring further research, from material which has been positively (or at least to some extent) etymologized. Of course the quality of an etymological dictionary is determined not so much by the competence of its author, as by the quantity and quality of the works used to prepare a synthesis of this kind. I have in mind, on the one hand, lexical monographs, especially monographs devoted to close-knit semantic fields, such as terms for parts of the body, both human and animal, farm buildings (and their structural details), human activities, including crafts (together with terms for tools), village festivities, plants and trees, wild and domestic animals, farming, fishing, and weaving terminology, onomatopoeic words, etc.; and, on the other hand, historical-comparative monographs in various areas of morphology and word formation (e.g. ablaut in conjunction with affixation, compounding, the genesis of particles). There is at present a dearth of such works for Lithuanian lexicography; the exceptions can be counted on the fingers of one hand. In the area of ethnographic terminology, some help has recently been provided by the LEEŽ dictionary, although for purely linguistic purposes it is not sufficient. [Extract, p. x-xi ]