Priešdėlio be- vedinių ir dūrinių su kirčiuotu antruoju dėmeniu cirkumfleksinė metatonija lietuvių kalbos tarmėse ir jos kilmė

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Tarmės; Cirkumfleksinė metatonija; Priešdėlis be-; Vediniai; Dūriniai; Kirčiavimas; Kirtis; Dialects; Circumflex metatony; Prefix be-; Derivatives; Compound words; Accentuation; Accent.

ENIn 1981: 58-64, the author of the present article provided the preliminary data from Eastern Lithuanian subdialects showing the connection between circumflex metatony in the prefix be- derivatives or the second component of possessive compounds and the mobility of the base word/the second component, cf. be-galvis, -ė 'headless', didžia-galvis, -ė 'large-headed', and gálvą, galvà 3 'head'; but - bekélnis, -ė 'without trousers', plačia-kélnis, -ė 'wearing wide leg trousers' <= kélnės 1 'trousers', a case with a root-stressed base word/the second component and without metatony. The present article aims at examining the functioning of circumflex metatony in the prefix be- derivatives and compounds in Lithuanian dialects, including a special questionnaire-based analysis of the said morphonological phenomenon in the Eastern Lithuanian subdialect of Utena. The synoptic investigation based on the material from the "Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language" and the dictionaries of dialects of the Lithuanian language showed that circumflex metatony of the derivatives under discussion did not function equally in the dialects. In the Žemaitian dialect it is a regular phenomenon independant of the accent paradigm of the base word/the second component of the compound. Dependence of circumflex metatony on the accent paradigm of disyllabic words, which form the basis for derivatives/the second component of the compound, is observed in the area of Western Aukštaitian. If those words belong to the 3rd accent paradigm, the metatony of the formations is regular; if they belong to the 1st accent paradigm, the formations that undergo and do not undergo metatony, as well as the formations varying with respect to metatony, are recorded.Eastern Aukštaitians are notable for the fact that circumflex metatony is usually not characteristic of the formations under discussion when a disyllabic word of the 1st accent paradigm is their base word/the second component. When this word belongs to the 3rd accent paradigm, metatony depends on a specific word and the subdialect. As to circumflex metatony, Southern Aukštaitians are between Western and Eastern Aukštaitians: they are related to the former by the cases where words of the 1st accent paradigm are base words/ the second component of the formation, and they are related to the latter by a similar treatment of metatony in those formations, which are based on words of the 3rd accent paradigm. The questionnaire survey of the informants of Utena confirmed the same trend, which is characteristic of Eastern Aukštaitians: a part of the formations whose base words/second components, being independent, belong to the 3rd accent paradigm, undergo circumflex metatony. The absence of circumflex metatony or frequent exceptions in dialects, with the exception of Žemaitians, in those cases where the base words/second components of the formations under discussion are disyllabic nouns of the 1st accent paradigm, and its presence in the formations (at least their part) whose base words/second components are of the 3rd accent paradigm show that the origin of this phenomenon can be associated with the base words/second components with the mobile accent (the 3rd accent paradigm). The reason for the rise of circumflex metatony in the Lithuanian formations can be attributed not to the questionable phonetic but sooner to analogical processes, which took place after de Saussure’s Law had been formulated.Hence, the prefix be- derivatives are stressed according to the accentual properties of the base stems, e.g. *be'kājīs (cf. koja 1), *be'rañkīs (cf. rankà, rañką 2), *begāl'vīs-acc.sg. *'begālviñ (cf. galvà, gálvą 3), and *bevaĩ'kīs-acc.sg. *'bevaĩkiñ (cf. vaĩkas 4), after the Law had been formulated, developed into *be'kājīs, *be'rañkīs, *begāl'vīs-be'gālviñ and *bevaĩ'kīs-'bevaĩkiñ. Mobility of the *begāl'vīs-be'gālviñ type not being characteristic of Lithuanian was replaced with a root stress by analogy with both *be'kājīs (->*be'gālvīs, cf. Eastern Aukštaitian begálvis) and *be'rañkīs (->*be'galvīs, cf. dialectal and Standard Lith. begalvis). Finally, mobility of the *bevaĩ'kīs-'bevaĩkiñ type was replaced with the root stress (->*be'vaĩkīs, cf. dialectal and Standard Lith. bevaĩkis). Another analogical process characteristic of Žemaitian and Western Aukštaitian dialects seems to be the turning of *be'kājīs into *be'kājīs (->bekõjis). The accentuation of possessive compounds follows the same patterns as in case of be- derivatives. [From the publication]