Lietuvių kalbos polonizmų žodyno specifikacija

• Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
• Lenkų kalba / Polish

LTStudia Etymologica Baltica I (StEB I) publikuojama mokslo studija Lietuvių kalbos polonizmų žodyno specifikacija / Charakterystyka słownika polonizmów w języku litewskim, kurioje apibrėžiama lenkybių identifikavimo metodika bei kriterijai. Veikalas yra skirtas ne tik specialistams (lingvistams, istorikams, kultūrologams, sociologams), bet ir visiems, besidomintiems lietuvių ir lenkų tautų kalbinio ir kultūrinio paveldo autentiškų reliktų verifikacija. [Anotacija knygoje]

ENThe study presents a build-up schedule for specification of the Dictionary of Polish loanwords in Lithuanian, which is prepared in the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (Vilnius). The Lexis belongs not only to a scholarly lexicon type, designated for academics interested in Baltic and Slavic linguistics and cultural studies, but it is intended for populace needs either. The analysis of the lexemes is based on internal reconstruction and typology, and results in the assignment of the word to the group of Polish loan words in Lithuanian. Next, the study examines the methodology and criteria of identification of Polish loan words in Lithuanian. Also etymology, peculiar developments, and trends in the infiltration of these borrowings are discussed. The following conclusions are proposed based on the analysis: 1) Polonisms in Lithuanian can be divided into three groups, based on the principles of (a) establishing the primary source of the variants of the Lithuanian word (through areal distribution), and (ß) the words’ phonetic, morphological and semantic identity (correlated with the modulation of a). Also taken into account are peculiarities in the usage of the primary forms (not necessarily in the inherited layer) on the West Slavic ground, and their secondary variants in the East Slavic languages (based on the influence of factors a and ß). The resulting three groups are: I. monogenic II. indeterminate III. alternative (III. 1. forms belonging to the inherited layer, characteristic of Polish and one of the East Slavic languages; III.2. doublet variants of foreign origin, derived from a different primary source; III.3. Semipolonisms). 2) The kg digraph is one of the crucial characteristics that allows Polish loanwords in Lithuanian to be divided into the monogenic, indeterminate, and alternative.It is attested in the structure of Old Belorussian lexemes, and it reflects the phonetic feature of the Belorussian explosive velar consonant г /g/ in loanwords and in words of the inherited layer [...]. 3) Spirantization of the West Slavic sonant *f (>r /z/ or /§/), when the temporal factor is taken into account [...], is a feature of paramount importance as it allows Lithuanian words to be identified and attributed to either Polish or Belorussian. 4) The phenomenon of vocalization of the Polish lateral sonant / (the shift to /у/), also known as vavation, is reflected in those loanwords in Lithuanian which belong to a later period, in dialectal forms, and also in Belorussian lexemes, and it regulates the division of borrowings into Polonisms and Belorussianisms. 5) When attributing loanwords based on differences in vowels, it is their place in the system that should be considered, not their pronunciation. 6) The etymological status of the borrowing is determined by a match between the semantic value of the word in Lithuanian, and the original form in the West and/or East Slavic languages. 7) The fact that the Polish etymon is itself of East Slavic origin, has no influence on the establishing of the status of Polonism for a borrowing into Lithuanian [...]. Due to the analysis of the structural variation of phonetic / morphological alternatives and secondary derivates of the Polonisms and its etiology, 2 main types of adaptation are suggested here: 1) motivated modulation; 2) sporadic transformation. [...]. On the basis of the etymological analysis suggested here, Polonisms-Latinisms of the Lithuanian language are to be codified under to the following criteria.1) by virtue of the formal usage, i.e. in accordance with the identical morphological and semantic status of the lexemes of Polish and Latin origin, the obligatory dialectal usage of these borrowings should be stated; 2) be cause of structural conformity / discrepancy; 3) by means of semantic congruity / contrariety. [...] The study also discusses the etymology and developmental peculiarities of the 36 Polonisms-Hebraisms borrowed into Lithuanian (except derivatives). Due to the analysis suggested here the following conclusions are proposed: 1. Polonisms-Hebraisms borrowed into Lithuanian are to be distributed into 5 derivational-semantic models, distinguished by the combination of: I. semantic / phonomorphological congruence II. semantic congruence / phonetic discrepancy; III. semantic congruence / morphological discrepancy garments worn by men in fulfillment of the biblical commandment; [...] IV. semantic discrepancy / phonomorphological congruence ; V semantic / phonomorphological discrepancy. 2. The semantic extension of the loanwords presupposes 5 principal notional subgroups: a) terms of the religious system or cultural realia of the Jews; b) ethnonyms c) terms of the cultural embedded d) toponyms and anthrotoponyms e) referents with neutral connotation. 3. The paths of infiltration of the borrowings are to be defined as predetermining indicator in the establishment of the communication level between societies of the Jews and Lithuanians. A presumption is also made about determination of the lexical field/domain of the Dictionary of Polonisms borrowed in Lithuanian which is to be codified under to the following criteria: 1. on the basis of conformity / discrepancy of the etymological core; 2. by virtue of the formal usage, i. e. in accordance with the identical phonetic, morphological and semantic status of the lexemes. 3. by factors of areal usage of the lexemes in case of parallel etymological link. [From the publication]