This paper deals with derivational and semantic problems of diminutive epithets of animals. Such words are usually used in Lithuanian folk songs for domestic or wild animals, first of all, for a ...horse and a hare. They have been produced with nine different diminutive suffixes, most popular among them were -elis and -ėlis. In most cases diminutive epithets of animals have been produced from suffixal derivatives or compound words (jautelis baubuolėlis, gegutytė pilkuolytė, kurmelis žemrausėlis, ančiukai raibaplunksnėliai). The most common motivation features of such words was the color of the animal (kiškelis baltužėlis, žirgelis sartonėlis), its body parts (ožkutė rudakutė, zuikelis statausėlis), its typical actions (katinėlis repečkėlis, laputė čiuženutė).
The article, based on a variety of ethnolinguistic material, especially folklore texts, aims to reveal the main similarities and differences in the interpretation of the image of the magpie in the ...ethnic culture of Lithuanians and Slavs. This bird in two traditions, in Lithuanian and in Slavonic, is treated ambivalently, more often negatively. This is due to the peculiarities of the bird’s appearance, and in particular the variegation of its plumage. This characteristic feature in the ethnic culture of many peoples is traditionally associated with evil spirits. Too talkative people, most often women, are compared with this bird. Common is the motive of the thief magpie. The name of the bird in all the languages is feminine, therefore, in both Lithuanian and Slavic mythopoetic texts, the social roles of a peasant woman are attributed to it: a daughter-in-law, a mother, a hostess, a cook, a nanny. Another common feature is the image of a magpie as a sorceress, herald of good or evil news and future events. These functions are associated with the tendency to depict witches and other mythical characters in the form of a magpie. The most striking differences in the interpretation of the magpie are the following ones: it is unusual for Lithuanians to associate the idea of procreation with it, and some Slavs (for example, the Czechs) believe that magpies bring children into the house. Lithuanians are also unaware of some features of the “working” behavior of a magpie, for example, the threshing motive. In their turn, Lithuanians attribute such crafts as shoemaking, brewing, and agriculture to magpies.
In the Lithuanian dialects and folklore, 22 different proper names for the devil have been recorded. Together with their vernacular variants found in various regions of Lithuania, the number would be ...close to 50. Usually they are names used in the Christian tradition, names for the devil used outside the Christian tradition occur rather seldom. The present article discusses the origin, formation and function of devil‘s names. Devil‘s names in the Christian tradition may have originated from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or more rarely from the Germanic or Slavic languages. The devil in etnic culture is often perceived as an anthropomorphic character, theirfore, the anthroponyms that are used to refer to him reflect a conventional diversity of Christian names in Lithuanian quite well. The greatest variation (phonetic, morphological, word formation differences) is characteristic of the proper names for the prince of hell. Anthroponyms tend to turn into euphemisms for the devil because they do not have a lexical meaning. Proper names for the devil in folklore texts may perform five different functions: appellative, magic, euphemistic, pragmatic, and apotropaic.
The current article, that follows the research cycle analyzing natural phenomena metaphors, examines the star metaphors identified in the works of 40 Lithuanian and 54 Russian poets (mostly 20th ...century). It also studies the subject metaphors which constitute from the ethnolinguistic point of view the most numerous and most interesting group of six semantic subgroups of star metaphors. The subject metaphors of stars can be both substantive and verbal. However, the article focuses on substantive metaphors. They are divided into nine groups: 1) something written, drawn or embroidered (letters, written texts, books, drawings, figures); 2) lighting devices and other lighting means; 3) clothing, fabrics, yarn, knitted or woven items; 4) small metal, shiny, rounded or sharp objects (jewelry, coins, nails, needles, weapons, etc.); 5) buildings and their parts; 6) kitchen utensils; 7) food and drinks; 8) vehicles; 9) fragments of large objects and debris. The study showed the similarity of the poetic systems of the two languages, in which the same metaphorical models are presented, as well as their differences. The largest number of subject metaphors of stars in both poetic traditions was found in the first four groups, the examples from the following three groups were less common, while the examples in which star metaphors related to vehicles were hardly found. The differences between the two poetic systems may be observed due to the differences in cultures and traditional names of stars and constellations in the languages. The article noted that the author’s poetic metaphor in both Lithuanian and Russian could correlate with folklore tradition, that is with riddles, proverbs, legends and traditional beliefs, which are often common to the two languages.
The current article, which is one of the further researches on the metaphors of natural phenomena in Lithuanian and Russian poetry, discusses the metaphors of rain (based on the works of 45 ...Lithuanian and 57 Russian poets). They reflect the following aspects of the phenomenon: acoustic, dynamic, temporal, visual, temperature, as well as its intensity, destructive consequences, belonging to a certain season and others. The metaphorical expressions are divided into seven semantic groups: 1) anthropomorphic, 2) zoomorphic, 3) biomorphic (plant), 4) associated with inanimate nature objects and phenomena, 5) ‘material’ (subject), 6) related to abstract concepts, and 7) others. In both languages, the anthropomorphic and subject groups of metaphors have turned out to be the largest, while the smallest groups are zoomorphic, biomorphic (plant) and abstract metaphors. The comparison of the metaphorical expressions that define rain in Lithuanian and Russian poetry showed that there are common metaphorical models, however, there are also differences that are related to the prevalence of certain models, as well as their presence/absence in one of the two languages. Thus, among zoomorphic metaphors, the models rain-bird (with a common wing image), rain-horse and rain-small creature are common, while their difference consists in the fact that the models are used to characterize various properties of rain. For instance, a popular Lithuanian verb metaphor the rain blooms, as well as the comparison of rain with flowers (a biomorphic (plant) group of metaphors), are absent in Russian poetry.The richness and diversity of rain metaphors in Lithuanian and Russian poetry illustrate the authors’ ability to use a number of images that have already existed in the language and their creativity to utilize absolutely new comparisons that are usually fit for the existing metaphorical models.
The present article is devoted to metaphors of winter natural phenomena, that is frost, ice and hoarfrost, in Lithuanian and Russian poetic texts that mainly come from the 20th century. The metaphors ...have been identified on the basis of poetry collections, anthologies, children's poetry and the Russian language corpus (363 metaphors in total from 53 Russian and 44 Lithuanian poets’ works). The researchers rely on previous experience in the analysis of metaphors of natural phenomena. Thus, the article considers five groups of metaphors: 1) a natural phenomenon is a living creature or a part of it; 2) frost, ice and hoarfrost are objects (phenomena) of inanimate nature; 3) a winter phenomenon is an object from the social sphere; 4) frost, ice and hoarfrost are abstract objects; 5) some other metaphors. The comparison of the metaphors in two poetic languages has shown both significant similarities and striking differences. The similarity consists in the fact that subject metaphors are most often utilized in poetic texts, as well as anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and biomorphic metaphors. The differences are explained by the lack of metaphors in one of the systems that are presented in the other one, for instance, in Lithuanian poetry there are no metaphors of ‘frost’ as smoke and ‘ice’ as mica, while Russian poets do not use metaphors, such as ‘a winter phenomenon of nature’ is a means for lighting, or ‘icicles’ are a clock that is characteristic of Lithuanian poetry. In Russian poetry, there is a branching group where ‘a winter phenomenon’ is metal, a precious stone, and in Lithuanian poetry there is a group of ‘frost (ice, hoarfrost)’ that is a sharp cutting object. The differences between the two poetic systems are also associated with connotations: in Russian poetry, unlike Lithuanian, metaphors of winter natural phenomena quite often have positive connotations. At the end of the article, a scheme is presented that reflects the results of the analysis.
The article, based on a variety of ethnolinguistic material, especially folklore texts, aims to reveal the main similarities and differences in the interpretation of the image of the magpie in the ...ethnic culture of Lithuanians and Slavs. This bird in two traditions, in Lithuanian and in Slavonic, is treated ambivalently, more often negatively. This is due to the peculiarities of the bird’s appearance, and in particular the variegation of its plumage. This characteristic feature in the ethnic culture of many peoples is traditionally associated with evil spirits. Too talkative people, most often women, are compared with this bird. Common is the motive of the thief magpie. The name of the bird in all the languages is feminine, therefore, in both Lithuanian and Slavic mythopoetic texts, the social roles of a peasant woman are attributed to it: a daughter-in-law, a mother, a hostess, a cook, a nanny. Another common feature is the image of a magpie as a sorceress, herald of good or evil news and future events. These functions are associated with the tendency to depict witches and other mythical characters in the form of a magpie. The most striking differences in the interpretation of the magpie are the following ones: it is unusual for Lithuanians to associate the idea of procreation with it, and some Slavs (for example, the Czechs) believe that magpies bring children into the house. Lithuanians are also unaware of some features of the “working” behavior of a magpie, for example, the threshing motive. In their turn, Lithuanians attribute such crafts as shoemaking, brewing, and agriculture to magpies.
THE TIMBRE CORRELATION IN TWO LITHUANIAN DIALECTS Summary The main purpose of this paper was to study the differences of distribution of palatalized and non-palatalized consonants in two uncommon ...Lithuanian dialects (Eastern Aukštaičiai Uteniškiai and Northern Žemaičiai Kretingiškiai). The analysis revealed that palatalized and non-palatalized consonants should be treated as different phonemes in both dialects. The so-called supersegmental interpretation is rather useful only for Kretingiškiai. Relying on the facts of both dialects, some presumptions about the diachronic development of timbre correlation can be made. At first such consonants as k, g, š, ž became palatalized before front vowels. The further stages of this development can be shown in a following way:
PDF
