ON THE INDO-EUROPEAN NAMES FOR ‘FIRE’
Summary
The Indo-Europeans used ‘fire’ in two main meanings: a) ‘hearth (→ camp) fire’ (‘I fire’) and b) ‘lightening-thunder (→ blaze) fire’ (‘II fire’). Both ...I.-E. fires are taboo, especially ‘II fire’; this is why it was very open to euphemism and mythologisation. It seems, that both I.-E. fire names later experienced certain contaminations in dialects, in some places reflected by ‘I fire’, and elsewhere by ‘II fire’.
The archaic Lith. ugnìs (= Latv. *ugnis) most likely derives from I.-E. *n̥gni-, which gave rise to b.-sl. *ungnis, turning this into b.-sl. *ugnis (> Lith. ugnìs, etc.) due to the loss of the root’s nasality from alliteral dissimilation (AD). The AD rule influenced not only Baltic and Slavic words, but other Indo-European words with root alliteration.
The I.-E. * n̥gni- (‘I fire’) is most likely linked with I.-E. *angli- ‘hearth (ember) fire’ having the apophonic root I.-E. *ang- (> Lith. anglìs ‘coal’, etc.). They can both presuppose the ‘I fire’ synonymous heteroclit forms n̥g-i/n-and *ang-i/l-, which are derived from heteroclit I.-E. forms of non I.-E. verb. * n̥g-//*ang-.
The component titi- of the Lith. (dial.) compound titi-nagas and component Tit- of Lith. hydronyms quite clearly presupposes the I.-E. ‘II fire’ heteroclit *titi-, which is a derivative of the I.-E. formant *-i/n- from non I.-E. verb. *tit-, meaning ‘to gleam (to lighten)’.
It seems that the the above-mentioned I-E. ‘II fire’ was older than I.-E. r/n- heteroclit ‘II fire’, which due to its strong taboo was euphemistically reworked from *peHur- /*peHun- to *peHnu- (metathesis) > *penu- > West Balt. *panu ‘fire’.
Dėl kuršių kalbos palikimo Mažiulis, Vytautas
Baltistica,
12/2011, Letnik:
43, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
ON THE HERITAGE OF CURONIANSummaryLithuanian dial. aukà/ aũkas “Opfer” (“victim, sacrifice”) is from Lith. alkà / al̃̃kas “Hain”, which is from Balt. *alkā / *alkas „Hain“, which along with Goth. ...alks „Hain“ suggests that I.-E. *alk- „Hain“, is most likely derived from the I.-E. verb *alk- (: *alek-) „to preserve, protect“. Perhaps the I.-E. verb *ol- / *el- „to flow“,“to twist, meander“ is hidden in it.The Samogitian hill Girgždū̃tė is in the place of the older Girgždutà < Cur. *Girzdutā, which is mobile subst. (fem.) *girzdutā „that (stream), which gurgles, babbles“← verb. Cur. *girzd- „to gurgle“, a derivative from subst. Cur. *girzda- „gurgle, gravel“. Criticism is provided against the traditional opinion, that the name of the hill Cur. *Girzdutā is attested inaccurately to in historical sources (XIV—XV centuries).The settlement Lith. (Žem.) Krãžiai, as the plur. collectivum, presupposes the former Cur. river/settlement *Kraźā́ from onomatopoetic Cur. (mobile subst.) *kraźā́ „the murmurer“← verb. Cur. *kreź-/*kraź- „to murmur“. Afterwards, when the river *Kraźantē appeared, the form *Kraźā́ from river/settlement turned into the settlement name *Kraźā́. The issue of the West Balt. (and Cur.) words for „ant“ are touched upon. First of all Prus. (E 791) sangis „ant“, is most likely from *zangis „speedy one“; further on the Lith. skruzdìs „ant“ is discussed. Also discussed is the Curonian origin of the Žem. place names Šatrijà and Var̃niai, and evidence is given, that the latter appeared not from the word „varna (crow)“ which is the traditionally held view, but from „that, which is blackish“.
Iš baltų etimologijos Mažiulis, Vytautas
Baltistica,
12/2011, Letnik:
42, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
FROM BALTIC ETYMOLOGY (1. “SIEVE” AND “PLEIADES”; 2. LITH. Medvė́galis; 3. LITH. ŽEM. Tvẽrai) Summary1. The form pr. E (346) baytan “sieve” should be corrected to Pr. (E) *saytan “id.” = Pr. ...*saitan “id.”, while this is derived from balt. *seitan “id.” (neutr.), which was not only “sieve”, but also “Pleiades” (an astronomical term). Later on the following formed: a) For Eastern Balts next to the form *seitan (neutr.) “sieve; Pleiades” its suffix derivative *Seitīna- “Pleiades” (seems to be neutr.) and b) for Western Balts next to the form *seitan “sieve; Pleiades” suffix derivative *Seitāran “Pleiades” (neutr.); the last being shown by its form (E 6) *Paytoran „id.“, should be corrected to *Saytoran = pr. *Paitāran „id.“ (neutr.), which probably derives from Western Balt. *Seitāran „id.“ (neutr.). The word is Baltic, i.e. Balt.-Sl. *seitan “sieve” – the derivative of the suffix *-ta- is from the presentic stem from the old Balt.–Sl. verb *sē-ti “to sift, sieve”.2. The name Medvėgalis (the ía- stem), which is the name of a large hilly area with small rivers fed by underground well, is a composition with a second component of -galīs from galas, meaning “corner, place”. The component Medvē-, which should not be linked with Žem. mẽdė “forest”, the little river’s name supposed by Cur. *Med(u)vē, flowing through a Curonian sacrificial place (a holy site). The gender of *Med(u)vē (up.) from the older Cur., *Med(u)vā is the suffix’s *-(u)vā- derivative from subst. Curonian (Balt.) *medu “honey” (neutr.). Such an etymology of the river’s name is supported by the river’s holyness (because of the sacrificial place) and especially the fact, that its water was clean because of the currents (where it flowed along the banks) and was clear like fresh linden honey (it seems that for the Balts, honey was holy).3. The name of the old Samogitian settlement called Tvẽrai, mentioned numerous times in the writings of the Teutonic Order dating from the 13th-14th century, first of all arose in the form Rus. (1251) Твиреметь (Твиременть), the origin of which is unclear. Now it has become clear, that this Russian form reflects the Lith. (Žem.) composition *Tveramedīs “Forest of Tverai” (ía-kamienį), which is: *Tvera- (= sing. *tveras “enclosure”) + *-medīs (< Žem. mẽdė “forest”). Next to the form Lith. (Žem.) *tveras “enclosure” would have been from Lith. (Žem.) *tverta- “id.”. Both synonyms are from Lith. (Žem.) *tvaras “id.” resp. *tvarta- “id.” – a suffixed derivative from the verb Cur. (Balt.) *tvar- “to enclose”.
PDF
