Dėl kalbos archaikos ir inovacijų santykio : Zietelos lietuvių šnektos duomenimis

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjamas kalbos archaikos ir inovacijų santykis Zietelos lietuvių šnektoje; smulkiau aptariami šiai šnektai buvę būdingi diftongų ei ir ie mišimo atvejai. Autorės nuomone, iš publikuotų tarminių tekstų matyti, kad šis fonetinis reiškinys buvęs kelių sluoksnių. Tai: archajiškasis (pasižymintis baigtiniu žodžių, kuriuose jis galėjo vykti, sąrašu) ir inovatyvusis (atsiradęs dėl ryškaus slavų kalbų poveikio). Pateikiami šią hipotezę grindžiantys argumentai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Zietelos šnekta; Izofona; Inovacijos; Substratas; Baltų kalbos; Zietela subdialect; Isophone; Innovation; Substrate; Baltic languages.

ENThe article is concerned with the relationship between archaism and innovations in the Zietela Lithuanian subdialect; more attention is given to the cases of intermingling of the diphthongs ei and ie. Analysis of the published language heritage of the Zietela subdialect shows that the subdialect was never very stagnant and isolated from the whole area of the Lithuanian language and other subdialects. In the writer’s opinion, it is seen from the published subdialect texts that this phonetic phenomenon used to have several layers. They are: 1) archaic (characterised by a list of words where the process might have taken place) and 2) innovative (which appeared due to a significant impact of the Slav languages). The article presents a detailed sociolinguistic and morphonologic analysis of the data of this subdialect; phonetic and phonologic causes of this phenomenon are also discussed. A low frequency of the usage of the diphthong ei in all the word positions of the Zietela subdialect shows that this diphthong was not characteristic of the subdialect: it distinguished the subdialect from the rest Aukštaitian subdialects. Therefore, the premise that the discussed phenomenon really could have been brought, i. e. an archaic phonetic form of substrate origin is highly possible, as the inner system of the phonologic subdialect of the Lithuanian language should not have upheld the disappearance of the diphthong ei. Otherwise, the diphthong would have also started to disappear in other Aukštaitian subdialects.Varied change realisation of ie // *ei that becomes clear from varied written forms of respective words – ei >ẹ