ENThere are only 3 reports mentioning the mythonym Deywoty Zudwity in the10 manuscripts of the Yatvigian Book which are still extant (α, B, C, E, G, G(p). J(p), K, X [the last one is a newly discovered document, not mentioned in the work of Wilhelm Mannhardt (1936), now known by its identification code Ms. Uph. fol. 34]): a) in the manuscript A (presented in Mannhardt’s work); b) the lexical syntagm Deywoty Zudwity was modified in the C manuscript; it is to be assumed that the author of the manuscript C transformed it into two parts as Deÿ wothÿ, evidently, to relate it to Eccles. L. deī vōtī[vi] ‘the holy gods’. Translators of the original German text into Lithuanian and other languages, as well as interpreters of the lexical syntagm Deywoty Zudwity, usually attach it to ethnonyms but not to mythonyms, i.e. they present it as a sememe ‘Gods of the Yatvigians’. Such an explanation is fallacious from the linguistic viewpoint, since, leaving aside the phonetic structure of the syntagm, its elements should primarily be reconstructed in accordance with the principles of the compound-making system but not with the derivational suffixal sub-class. Given the typology of the morphophonetic changes in the structure of the first element Zudwity, as well as the alternation of the fricative and affricate sounds in the parallel forms Zudewiten A / Sudewithen α / Zudewitten C / Zudwity ir Sudauen A, one can state that the authentic, or primary, structure of these mythonyms should primarily be reconstructed in accordance with the decoding methodology but not along the erroneous lines of Hieronim Malecki (Hieronymus Maeletius or Meletius) or W. Mannhardt, who do not take these phonetic differences into account. [...]. [From the publication]