Lietuvių tarmių kilmė

LTKnyga skirta lietuvių kalbos tarmių ir svarbiausių jų ypatybių atsiradimui išaiškinti. Tai pirmas išsamus lietuvių istorinės dialektologijos veikalas. Įvade supažindinama su dialektologijos pagrindais, pateikiama tarmių tyrimo apžvalga, aptariama tarmių tarpusavio sąveika. Nagrinėjami labai senais laikais buvusios kalbinės diferenciacijos palaikai šių dienų kalboje, dabartinių tarmių ištakos ir jų diferenciacija. Analizuojama atskirų tarmių ir patarmių kilmė, būdingų ypatybių raida. Tarmių suskilimas į patarmes ir jį sukėlusios priežastys tiriamos daug dėmesio skiriant substratui. Knygoje pateikiamos dialektologinių darbų nuorodos ir žemėlapiai. [Anotacija knygoje]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Tarmės; Bendrinė kalba; Kalbos istorija; Rašomoji kalba; Tarmių salos; Tarmės Gudijoje; Tarmės Baltarusijoje; Tarmės Lenkijoje; Kalbų kontaktai; Dialects; Standard language; Language history; Written language; Lithuanian dialects in Belarus; Lithuanian dialects in Poland; Language contacts.

ENLithuanian dialects have traveled the complicated road of development as have the Lithuanian language itself and the nation speaking it. These are considered to be the early isophones that divided the area of the Lithuanian language and gave a start to its dialects: 1. ą, ę >ų, į - began in the Xth century and perhaps even in the IXth c.; 2. an, am, en, em >un, um, in, im - occurred in the XI-XIIIth c.; 3. *ti, *di >č, dž / c, dz; the beginning of the palatization of the consonants t, d - before the Xlth c., the affrication ended in the eastern part of the area in the XIVth c. and in the western part in the XVth c.; 4. t(v), d(v) >c(v), dz(v) before i type vocalism; the beginning of the palatization probably occurred in the XI-XIIth c., while affrication ended around the XVth c.; 5. *ia >e in the future area of the žemaičiai (Samogitian) dialect probably before the XIHth c., and the clear separation of the žemaičiai from the aukštaičiai according to the usage of affricates — only from the XVth c.; 6. the velarization of the form lē probably began in the Xth c. An analysis of the oldest significant dialect peculiarities shows that due to the narrowing of ą, ę the area of the Lithuanian language at an early time, apparently around the IX- Xth c., split into two parts: the western where ą, ę remained not narrowed, and the eastern where they were narrowed. Later, about the XI-XIIIth c., the narrowing of an, am, en, em divided the eastern part into the current southern and eastern aukštaičiai dialects; the southern aukštaičiai retained these forms while the eastern aukštaičiai narrowed them.The most important causes of the split of the eastern aukštaičiai dialect, the most changed of all the aukštaičiai dialects from proto-Lithuanian, into smaller dialects were the from the north arriving waves of softening endings and retracting accents and other changes, created by the Semigallian and Selonian substrata. In the relatively unified dialect area in the northwest distinct innovations arose quite early, forming the embryos of the current panevėžiškiai, especially the northern, and kupiškėnai as well as the anykštėnai dialects. The Semigallian (northern panevėžiškiai) and Selonian (kupiškėnai- anykštėnai) substratum in many cases may have given the impulse for these innovations. The developed kupiškėnai and anykštėnai dialects divided in half the relatively unified eastern aukštaičiai dialect. Afterwards, the innovative panevėžiškiai wave arriving from the northwest flooded the western part of the east aukštaičiai dialect, and only some places on its eastern borders (around Vabalninkas and between Kavarskas-Vidiškiai) changed less and now are similar to the uteniškiai (Vabalninkas) and širvintiškiai (Kavarskas-Vidiškiai) dialects, which are geographically beyond the kupiškėnai and anykštėnai dialect areas. The remaining larger part of the eastern aukštaičiai dialect, which was to the east of the kupiškėnai, anykštėnai and širvintiškiai dialects, still remained unified for a long time after the appearance of these dialects even though the old inherited č, dž / c, dz isophones and other isophones of the dzūkai had already made inroads. The other differences characteristic of the uteniškiai and vilniškiai dialects, at least in phonetics, developed later.The narrowing of the ą, ę determined the southern aukštaičiai dialect, but the retention of the an, am, en, em diphthongs as well as the substratum of the Yotvingians helped preserve more archaic forms in this dialect. The western aukštaičiai dialect has changed the least from the protoLithuanian prototype and has retained the ancient structure of the Lithuanian language the most, especially in the area that was enslaved by the Teutonic knights and became part of the German state of Prussia. This was determined by the language substratum of the Western Balts, first of all the Prussians, who retained the very old Baltic model as well as archaic forms. One can search for the sources of our common language in this dialect. The Zietela dialect is considered to be a relic of the Western aukštaičiai dialect, which in earlier times had spread far to the east and southeast. The innovative waves of the Curonians-Semigallians arriving from the north determined the origin of the western aukštaičiai šiauliškiai dialect. The Curonian substratum (ọi, ẹi, and ọ, ẹ instead of uo, ie; an, en, un, in instead of ą, ę, ų, į, reduction of endings; withdrawal of the accent, etc.) had a determining influence on the appearance of the žemaičiai dialect. The chronological order of the phonetic development of the žemaičiai dialect was the following: 1. the broadening of the short u, i and conversion into ọ, ẹ; 2. the disappearance of the short vowels and a reduction of the long circumflexes in unaccented endings; the shortening of acute endings; 3. the withdrawal of the accent; 4. the conversion of the diphthongs uo, ie into ū, ī / ọu, ẹi / ō, ē; 5. the monophtongization of the diphthongs ai, ei; 6. the narrowing of the nasal vowels ą, ę and the diphthongs an, am, en, em. Dialects are one of the more important elements of a nation’s heritage. [...]. [From the publication]