CC BY
17
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2022. Vol. 18.1. P. 282-301 DOI 10.30842/alp23065737181282301
The prehistory of Old Lithuanian ufi oficjfy
Daniel Petit
École Normale Supérieure & École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris, France); daniel.petit@ephe.psl.eu
Abstract. The aim of the present paper, offered to Prof. Nikolai Kazansky as a token of respect and homage for his contribution to Indo-European linguistics, is to explore the etymology of an Old Lithuanian prepositional locution ufi oficji-q 'on the back side' used twice by Jonas Bretkunas in two different passages of his translation of the Bible (1590). It can be argued that the genitive plural oficji-q reflects a feminine noun *oscios 'backside' limited to the plural (plurale tantum) and is based on a Baltic feminine noun *az-ja-. Historically, *az-tja- seems to reflect the combination of a lengthened allomorph of the preposition az(u)- 'behind' and a suffix *-tio- which enjoyed a certain productivity in the prehistory of the Baltic languages. The long vowel of the preposition *az- is striking, however, and remains completely unparalleled in Lithuanian, where az(u)-is only attested with a short vowel, or with lengthening of the second vowel azùo-, but not with a first long vowel *az-, which in turn appears in some Latvian dialects (az). Taken at face value, the alternation between *az- and *az- preserved in the prepositional locution ufi oficji-q recalls that between *pa- (Lithuanian pa-) and *pa- (Lithuanian pô-), but the difficulty is how to clarify the function of its initial lengthening in contrast with the more common alternation *az(u)-/ azùo-. On the other hand, the Baltic suffix -tja (< Proto-Indo-European *-tieh2-) is well attested in Baltic, in particular in the formation of abstract feminine nouns derived from prepositions (cf. for example Lithuanian apacià 'lower parts, undersides', Latvian apaksa 'lower part' < Baltic *apa-tja < Proto-Indo-European *(H)opo-tieh2-).
Keywords: Lithuanian, Baltic, etymology, preposition.
Предыстория старолитовского ufi ofic3ty
Д. Пети
École Pratique des Hautes Études (Париж, Франция); daniel.petit@ephe.psl.eu
Аннотация. В данной статье рассматривается этимология старолитовского выражения ufi oficji-q 'на обратной стороне', встречающегося дважды в переводе
© Daniel Petit, 2022
Библии Йонаса Бреткунаса (1590). В обоих случаях uß oßcjty оказывается дополнением или глоссой к словам ußpakali 'на задней стороне' (loc. sg.) или ifch ußpakalo 'сзади' (is + gen.) в основном тексте. Можно предположить, что oßcj^—это форма родительного падежа множественного числа от имени женского рода *oscios 'обратная сторона' (plurale tantum) и восходит к балтийской праформе *äz-tjä-, образованной от алломорфа предлога az(u)- 'за, позади' при помощи суффикса *-tiä-, который был в определенной степени продуктивным в предыстории балтийских языков. Вариант *äz-, реконструируемый в рамках данной этимологии, в литовском не засвидетельствован. Тем не менее литовские предлоги демонстрируют высокую степень вариативности: так, для предлога со значением 'за' известны следующие формы в литовском (azù, àz, uzù, ùz, azûo-, azu-, uzûo- и zù) и латышском (az, äz, aiz, iz, uz, uoz и uz). Такое количество алломорфов отчасти обусловлено смешением двух изначально разных предлогов, однако продление гласного является одним из известных типов видоизменения предлогов в балтийских языках, ср., например, лит. pä- ^ *pä-, лит. po-.
Способ образования имен прилагательных от предлогов при помощи суффикса *-tio- хорошо известен в индоевропейских языках. Большинство образований подобного типа в литовском являются существительными женского рода, при этом иногда они могут изменяться только по множественному числу, как, например, äpacios 'остатки, (картофельные) очистки'. Соответственно, основой старолитовского высказывания uß oßcji-q, вероятно, было существительное множественного числа женского рода oscios 'обратная сторона', а не мужского рода *osciai.
Ключевые слова: литовский, балтийские языки, этимология, предлог.
"Und alles bleibe hinter mir" (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
Looking back over the span of the past twenty years, and particularly if I try to remember the time of the Lithuanian workshop at Paluse (1997), where I first met Prof. Nikolai Kazansky, I can only be struck by the fact that Baltic philology has taken on a different face. Not only have primary data been made more easily accessible to the scholarly world, due to the edition of many ancient texts, but Baltic philology has also implemented new linguistic approaches and developed original, hitherto unexplored perspectives. As a result, new problems came to light, both
in the synchronic description of the Baltic languages and in their dia-chronic analysis. The Old Lithuanian corpus, in particular, provided us with a wealth of new data, which were previously unknown or ignored and deserve thorough philological investigations, paying due attention to their context. The aim of this paper, offered to Prof. Nikolai Kazansky as a token of respect and homage for his contributions to Indo-European linguistics, is to explore the prehistory of an Old Lithuanian locution uß oßcjii[ 'on the back side', which appears exclusively in the works of Jonas Bretkünas (16th century) and has left no trace in Modern Lithuanian.
The Old Lithuanian locution uß oßcj^ 'on the back side' is not mentioned in Ernst Fraenkel's [LEW] (1962-1965), nor in Wojciech Smoczynski's [SEJL] (2007), but is duly described in Wolfgang Hock's [ALEW 2: 722], where it incidentally grabbed my attention. In Old Lithuanian, it seems to be limited to Jonas Bretkünas' translation of the Bible (1590), where it occurs twice:
(1) Old Lithuanian: Jonas Bretkünas, Biblia (1590: 95v25, Ex. 26:23) priegtam dwi lenti
in addition two.Acc.Du.F board.Acc.Du.F
ußpakali [uß oßcjty]
back side.Loc.sG on back side.gen.pl
ant dweiu sqfparu [tabernakulo] on two.GEN.PL corner. gen.pl tabernacle.GEN.sG
'(And you shall make) two frames for corners of the tabernacle in the rear.' (German: dazu zwey bret hinden an die zwo ecken der Wonung)
(2) Old Lithuanian: Jonas Bretkünas, Biblia (1590: 79vi6, 1Sam. 15:11) nefa ghis ifch ußpakalo nog manens
for 3.SG.NOM out of back.GEN.SG from 1.SG.GEN
atkrjpa [ußu ofchcjiu
turn back.psT.3 on back side.GEN.PL
nüg manens nufsikreipe] from 1.sg.gen turn back.psT.3
'For he turned back from me.' (German: er hat sich hinder mir abgewand).
In both occurrences the locution uß oßcjii appears as an addition, or a gloss, to the main text, where we find ußpakali 'on the back side' (loc. sg.) resp. ifch ußpakalo from the back side' (is + gen.). It may be suggested that uß oßcjii reflects an alternative translation of the text, eventually downgraded to a marginal note and replaced by a more usual expression. As such, it is unlikely to represent anything else than a moribund archaism. This prompts us to examine this frozen locution carefully in order to determine its origin. No other Old Lithuanian document displays anything similar. Samuel Chylinski's translation of the Bible (1660), cited after Kavaliünaite [2008], for example, has an entirely different text in the two passages: teypag dwi lati, kampo iatumpNomero, ifz abieju fzalu (Ex. 26:23), resp. delto jog atjigryzo nog manes (1Sam. 15:1).
The locution uß oßcjii is completely isolated in Lithuanian. Considering the regular construction of the preposition uz 'on, behind' with the genitive, the form oßcjii is likely to be the genitive plural of a noun of unknown gender, either *osciai (m. pl.) or *oscios (f. pl.). No such noun, however, is documented at any stage of the history of the Lithuanian language. Following the LKZ [8: 1021], the ALEW [2: 722] suggests a masculine plural osciai (?) with a question mark, but a feminine plural oscios is equally possible and cannot be ruled out. Concerning the formation of the word, the ALEW sees in osciai a derivative in *-tio/eh2-from a prepositional basis corresponding to Latvian dial. az 'behind', thus assuming a Lithuanian prototype that could be reconstructed as *az-cia-or *az-cia- < Baltic *az-tja- (suffix *-tio-) or *az-tja (suffix *-tieh2) with a meaning 'back side' (Germ. Hinterseite, Rückseite). The redactor of the entry in the ALEW concludes with a note of caution: Die Verbindung bleibt so mit einer Unsicherheit behaftet.
There are good reasons for taking a closer look at this etymology. The first one is that it supposes a prepositional basis *az- that has an equivalent in some Latvian dialects (az), but remains otherwise entirely unknown to Lithuanian. The second problem is the meaning of the formation in *-tio- or *-tia- applied to a prepositional basis. Both aspects require a precise analysis, which has not yet been done.
To begin with, it is necessary to remind that the preposition 'behind' may exhibit several forms in the Baltic languages, both in its prepositional
usage and in composition (verbal or nominal prefix). In Lithuanian, we find the following variants:
Table 1
Lithuanian Initial vowel a- Initial vowel u- Initial vowel u- Initial vowel 0-
Final -z- az uz uz-
various dial. North, East, Belarus ubiquitous East Lith. dial. (as a nominal prefix)
Final -zu- azu uzu zu
Old Lith.: Sirvydas Old Lith.: Mazvydas, Bretkunas, Morkunas, Petkevicius, Klein dial. Rodunia (Belarus)
Final -zuo- azuo- uzuo-
East Lith. (as a nominal prefix) ubiquitous (as a nominal prefix)
Final -zü- azu-
East Lith. dial. (as a nominal prefix)
Zigmas Zinkevicius [1966, 428; 1981: 189] writes that variants with initial a- are limited to the East Lithuanian dialects; in Old Lithuanian, az(u)- is sporadically found in Western Lithuanian (East Prussia) as well, which suggests that it was once more widely spread. The variation between initial a- and u- cannot be explained by regular phonetic change and it is better to assume that we are dealing with two originally distinct prepositions that eventually merged in the course of their history. This assumption is supported by the fact that some Old Lithuanian documents and some modern dialects use both variants (az and uz) side by side with
a difference of meaning. According to Zinkevicius [1966: 428], in East Lithuanian az covers the range of meanings of Standard Lithuanian uz 'behind, beyond, after' (+ gen.), 'for' (+ acc.), whereas uz corresponds to ant 'on' (+ gen.). It is therefore likely that there were originally two prepositions, *azu and *uzu (or *uz if *uzu is taken for secondary after *azu), and that their distinction was blurred in many Lithuanian dialects. The striking point, however, is that there is in Lithuanian no trace of a long vowel variant *az that could be the basis of the nominal form *az-cia- or *az-cia apparently preserved in the Old Lithuanian locution ufi oficjii 'on the back side'.
In Latvian, we find the following variants:
Table 2.
Latvian Initial vowel a- Initial vowel a- Initial vowel ai- Initial vowel u-
Final -z- az az aiz uz
various dial. 'behind', 'on' (Latgalian oz) various dial. 'behind', 'on' (sometimes only as a nominal prefix) ubiquitous 'behind' dial. 'on', 'onto, to'
Latvian Initial vowel u- Initial vowel uo- Initial vowel i-
Final -z- uz- uoz- iz
Old Latv. uhs dial. uz (as a nominal prefix) Prussian Latvian High Latv. dial. 'on', 'onto, to'
As far as I can see, forms with an initial vowel u- (uz and its lengthened variants uz- and uoz-) and with an initial vowel i- (iz) are restricted to the meaning 'on, onto' and secondarily 'to, towards', 1 whereas aiz and dial. az mean 'behind' and occasionally 'on, onto'. It is clear that we are
1 Cf. Endzelin [DI, 1: 409-425 and 575-580 for uz, 541-548 for aiz; 1923: 485-489 for aiz, az, 507-508 for iz, 532-537 for uz].
dealing with two different prepositions, *a(i)z 'behind' on the one hand, and uz 'on' on the other hand, and that their merger did not reach the same stage as in Lithuanian.
The Old Prussian data are confused and uncertain. Three prepositions can be compared to Lith. uz, East Lith. azu and Latv. aiz:
— OPr. enfai = Germ. auff 'on' (III: 11723);
— OPr. effe = Germ. von, aus 'from, out of' analyzed by Vytautas Maziulis [PKEZ2: 187] as *aza < Common Baltic *azo = East Lith.
azu;
— OPr. unfey = Germ. auff 'on' (III: 11723) analyzed by Vytautas Maziulis [PKEZ2: 924] as a contamination of *en 'in' and *uz 'on'.
It seems to be the case that Old Prussian possessed both *azo (= East Lith. azu) in effe and *uz (= Lith. uz) in unfey, but their semantic relationships are far from clear: while unfey routinely means 'on', effe exhibits a completely unparalleled ablative meaning ('from, out of'). This difficulty is compounded by the fact that a contamination seems to have taken place with *en 'in' to explain the nasal in unfey (*uz + *en- > *unz-); the hapax enfai could be a mistake for *unfai (it comes after ften in III: 11723). In addition, the endings of the different prepositions are unexplained: -ai, -ey is reminiscent of the adverbial ending -ai (cf. labbai 'well'), but the ending -e of effe (-a in affa in I and II) is obscure. And, last, but not least, we do not know how the meaning 'behind' was expressed in Old Prussian.
To sum up, it may be assumed that the Baltic languages inherited two different prepositions *azo 'behind' (= East Lith. azu) and *uz 'on' (= Lith. uz, Latv. uz). Their distinction was lost, or at least blurred, in some dialects, and this merger may locally have had formal consequences: Old Lith. uzu (instead of uz) was probably created after azu, and conversely Latv. dial. az (instead of *azu) may have been shaped after uz. It is possible that Latv. aiz results from a contamination of az with iz, whose vowel is not completely clear, however. The short form zu (instead of azu) in the Lithuanian dialect of Rodunia (Belarus) might be due to the influence of Slavic za.
In view of this, it is difficult to reconstruct a uniform prototype for all the forms mentioned above. The comparison with Slavic and
other Indo-European languages adds a greater level of complexity. Two Slavic prepositions may belong here: za 'behind, beyond, after, for' (Ru. za, Pol. za, etc.) and vbz-b 'in return for, up, back' (Ru. vz(o)-, voz-'up, back', Pol. wz(e) 'up'). 2 While the former might go back to Slavic *zo, i.e. the same form as Baltic *azo 'behind', but without initial a-, the latter can reflect Slavic *uz, like Baltic *uz 'on'. The apparent variation between Slavic *zo and Baltic *azo can hardly be explained in terms of PIE ablaut (zero grade vs full grade) and remains completely in the dark. A PIE prototype *(He/o)ghoH would fail to explain the vowel alternation, and the structure of the preposition would still be obscure. The other form, Balto-Slavic *uz, could be traced back either to *(H)ud-gh- (with *ud- = Skt. ud 'up, away, out of', cf. Gk. uoxepo^, Skt. uttara- 'higher, later') or to *(H)up-gh- (with *up- = Goth. uf 'on', cf. Hitt. upp-zi 'to come up'); Rick Derksen [EDSIL: 533] proposes reconstructing more directly Balto-Slavic *uz as *up-s (*up- + adverbial ending -s?) with generalization of the voiced sandhi variant, which is uncertain. Reinhold Trautmann [1923: 336] compares Lith. uz and Slavic za with the Armenian polyfunctional preposition z- 'through' (+ acc.), 'about' (+ abl.), 'around' (+ instr.), 'against' (+ loc.), but this comparison, which goes back to Heinrich Hubschmann [1897: 446], is formally and semantically imprecise. The PIE prehistory of both *(a)zo and *uz in Balto-Slavic remains unclear, but the only certainty is that the long vowel of Latvian az and Old Lithuanian oficjii is unparalleled in Indo-European and should therefore be given an internal explanation in Baltic.
Taking the Old Lithuanian locution ufi oficjii at face value, oficjii is likely to reflect the genitive plural of a noun. But both the suffixation and the formation of this noun remain to be determined: a Baltic reconstruction *az-tja- or *az-tja has to be motivated by formal and semantic parallels. The derivation of nominal forms from a prepositional basis by means of a suffix *-tja- or *-tja is not unparalleled in Lithuanian, as shown by the following forms: 3
2 Meanings are given after Derksen [EDSIL: 533, 540].
3 Cf. Skardzius [1943: 332]; Ambrazas [1993: 49].
— Lith. apacià 'lower parts, undersides' (e.g. fpod/fpodekcjego/ Ima fuperficies alicuius rei, pars inferior / Apacia in Sirvydas, Dictio-narium trium linguarum (ca 1643): 416 apud Kruopas [1979]) < Baltic *apa-tja < PIE * (H)opo-tieh2 (from PIE *(H)op- = Hitt. appa 'after, behind');
— Lith. ¡scia 'internal parts, womb, intestines' (e.g. nom. sg. ifcjia = Pol. zywot in Dauksa, Postilla Catholicka (1599): 62439 etc. apud Palionis [2000]) < Baltic *ins-tja (from the PIE preposition *hien, *hin = Gk. év 'in', Lat. in + adverbial -s as in Gk. eiç 'into' <
*hien-s);
— Lith. dial. priescia 'part located at the front' LKZ [10: 691] < Baltic *preis-tja (Lith. pries 'before', from PIE *prei-s);
— East Lith. dial. azacià 'place located behind, backside' LKZ [1: 533] < Baltic *aza-tja (East Lith. az(u) 'behind');
— East Lith. dial. azvacià 'place located behind, backside' LKZ [1: 536] < Baltic *azö-tja (East Lith. az(u) 'behind');
— Lith. dial. uzacià 'remote corner' LKZ [17: 586] < Baltic *uza-tja (Lith. ùz 'behind');
— Lith. uzuocià 'remote corner' (LKZ [17: 729], e.g. ujjocio 'in a remote corner', loc. sg. -io(je) in Daniel Klein, Naujos Giesmju Knygos: 4746 apud Michelini [2003]) < Baltic *uzö-tja (Lith. ùz 'behind');
— Lith. pasciukos 'residue', f. pl. (LKZ [9: 460]; ALEW [2: 737], e.g. Paßcjükos Grund=Suppe in Clavis Germanico-Lithuana 17th century: 817 apud Drotvinas [1995]), probably diminutive of a noun *pascià < Baltic *pas-tja (Lith. pàs 'near, by', compare Arcadian Greek rcoç 'towards' < PIE *pos and Lat. post 'after' < PIE *pos-ti).
Most of these derivatives are of feminine gender. The pattern [prep] ^ [prep + fem *-tja] is so widespread that one may reasonably surmise that the basis of the Old Lithuanian locution uß oßcjii[ is also a feminine
(plural) noun oscios 'back side, rear parts' (from Baltic *az-tja-) rather than a masculine (plural) noun *osciai. There are parallels for the specialization to the plural, e.g. Lith. apacios 'residues (of potatoes)' LKZ [1: 183] < 'what is left behind' beside the singular apacia. Some of these derivatives are built on a preposition that is still in use in the language, e.g. Lith. priescia ^pries 'before', uzacia and uzuocia ^ uz 'behind', East Lith. azacia ^ az(u) 'behind', and, more remotely, iscia ^ } 'into', but, in the case of apacia 'lower parts, undersides', the corresponding preposition *ap(a) was lost, probably due to the quasi-homonymy with apie 'around'.
One form deserves special attention. According to the LKZ [1: 337], in a few Lithuanian dialects (Birzai, Kriukai, north of Lithuania, close to the Latvian border), there is a compound asciagaliai 'grain residues' (nom. pl.), corresponding to Lith. nuobiros, grudagaliai. It seems to be based on a form *ascias or *ascia 'residue, what is left behind', apparently from *az-tja- or *az-tja- with short vowel (in comparison with the long vowel of *az-tja > Old Lith. * oscios). The status of this form is uncertain and the explanation of its first member given here is only a possibility among others.
The same pattern [prep] ^ [prep + fem *-tja] has existed in Latvian, and in some cases the correspondence with Lithuanian goes so far that one may assume a Common East Baltic formation:
— Latv. apaksa 'lower part' ME [1: 73] < Baltic *apa-tja (with epenthetic -k- in Latvian) < PIE * (H)opo-tieh2 (from PIE *(H)op- = Hitt. appa 'after, behind');
— Latv. ieksa 'internal part, interior', pl. ieksas 'intestines' ME [2: 30-31] < Baltic *en(s)-tja (with epenthetic -k- in Latvian) < PIE
*hien(s)-tieh2 (from PIE *hien = Gk. ev 'in', Lat. in);
— Latv. prieksa 'place located before' ME [3: 393] < Baltic *prei-tja (with epenthetic -k- in Latvian) < PIE *prei-tieh2 (from PIE *prej).
Some of these nouns are used regularly, or even predominantly, in the locative as adverbs or secondary prepositions, e.g. Latv. ieksa 'internal part, interior' ^ ieksa 'within, inside' (loc. sg., ME [2: 31]), Latv.prieksa
'place located before' ^ prieksä 'before, in presence' (loc. sg., ME [3: 394]). Sometimes, the noun has disappeared and is preserved only indirectly through its frozen locative: a noun *besa 'lack' (< *be-tjä, from be 'without' + feminine suffix -tjä) 4 may be inferred from the locative besä 'without' (adverb, ME [1: 281]).
In Old Prussian, the pattern [prep] ^ [prep + fem *-tjä] is not clearly attested as such, but an equivalent of Lith. jscia 'womb, intestines', Latv. ieksa 'internal part, interior', pl. ieksas 'intestines' might be reflected by OPr. inxcze 'kidney' (EV: 128, Germ. Niere).
The Old Lithuanian locution uß oßcjii[ 'on the back side' is thus likely to be based on a feminine noun *oscios 'back side, rear parts' (from Baltic *äz-tjä-). The derivation of a feminine noun in *-tieh2 on a prepositional basis is probably a secondary formation. There was in Indo-European an adjectival suffix *-tio- which served to derive adjectives from prepositions or adverbs. The most widespread adjective of this type is PIE *ni-tio-(Skt. nitya- 'own, familiar', Goth. nipjis 'relative, parent, cognate', Gall. Nitio-broges name of a tribe) from PIE *ni 'down' (Skt. m). Another archaic formation is PIE *(H)op-tio- (Skt. aptya- 'located outside', Hitt. appezziia-'later, last' with -e- by anaptyxis or by analogy to the antonym hantezziia-'located at the front') 5 from *(H)op- (Hitt. äppa 'after, behind'). On account of its meaning, the Sanskrit substantivized neuter apatyam 'offspring' is likely to reflect another formation PIE *h2epo-tio- from *h2epo- (cf. Gk. ano 'from'). Many of these adjectives are reflected in Ancient Greek, either directly (a) or through substantivized forms (b) or through adverbs (c):
(a) Ancient Greek adjectives:
— nepiooo^ 'excessive, superfluous' < PIE *peri-tio- 'located above' (from PIE *peri, Gk. nepi 'around, above', Skt. pari 'above'); alternatively, nepiooo^ could reflect PIE *peri-k-io- with a velar (cf. adv. rcepi^ 'around');
4 In Latvian the preposition be 'without' is usually replaced by the Slavic loanword
5 See Oettinger [1995], who reconstructs *h2op-tio-.
— rano^ 'laid on one's back' < PIE *up-tio- 'located under' (from PIE *up, Gk. rao 'under', Skt. upa 'under'); the lack of assibila-tion is unexplained.
(b) Ancient Greek nouns:
— 'A^iooa place name (near Delphi), perhaps from an adjective < PIE *h2embH-tio- 'located around' (from PIE *h2(e)mbhi, Gk. a^i 'around', Lat. ambi- 'from both sides, around', Skt. abhi); note, however, that 'A^iooa with short -a cannot be the direct reflex of the feminine of *a^iooo£ (this would be *a^9iooa); alternatively -ooa could reflect a Prehellenic suffix;
— 'AvTiooa place name (near Lesbos), perhaps from an adjective *avuooo^ < PIE *h2enti-tio- 'located in front' (from PIE *h2enti, Gk. avTi 'in front of', 'for', Skt. anti 'in front', Lat. ante 'before', Hitt. hanti 'in front'); note, however, that 'AvTiooa with short -a cannot be the direct reflex of the feminine of *avnooo^ (this would be *avTiooa); alternatively -ooa could reflect a Prehellenic suffix;
— eniooai 'younger daughters' (Hecataeus) from an adjective *eniooo^ (still reflected in Hesychius: eniooov to uocepov yevo-^evov) < PIE *hiepi-tio- 'located after' (from PIE *hiepi, Gk. erci 'on', Skt. api 'on', Arm. ew 'and, in addition');
— ^eTaooai 'lambs that are born later' (Od. 9, 221) from an adjective *^£Taooo^ (still reflected in H. Hermes 125: n. pl. ^eTaooa used adverbially 'afterwards') < PIE *meth2-tio- 'located after' (from PIE *meth2, Gk. ^eTa 'after', Goth. mip 'with').
(c) Ancient Greek adverbs:
— eiora adv. 'into', probably the adverbial instrumental of a substantivized adjective *eiooo^ < PIE *hien-tio- 'located inside, within' (from PIE *hien, Gk. ev 'in'); alternatively, eiora could be built directly on ei^ 'into' (< PIE *hien-s) + adverbial ending -ro (like avro 'upwards');
— e^ro adv. 'out', probably the adverbial instrumental of a substantivized adjective *e£o£ < PIE *hiegh-tio- 'located inside, within' (from PIE *hiegh, Gk. ¿k 'out'); alternatively, e^ro could be built directly on e^ 'out' (< PIE *hiegh-s) + adverbial ending -ro (like avro 'upwards') or even simply by analogy to eforo;
— o;u(o)oro adv. 'behind, back', probably the adverbial instrumental of a substantivized adjective *oniooo^ < PIE *hiopi-tio- 'located behind' (from PIE *hiopi, Myc. opi- 'on', Lat. ob 'towards, to, on account of');
— rcpo(o)oro adv. 'forwards, onwards', probably the adverbial instrumental of a substantivized adjective *npo(o)oo^ < PIE *pro-tio-'located before' (from PIE *pro, Gk. npo 'before', Skt. pra 'before', Lat. pro 'before').
Further vestiges of the same formation are found in other Indo-European languages:
— OCS nistb 'beggar' (< PIE *ms-tio-, cf. *m-s, the formation being parallel to that of Skt. nistya- 'external, foreign');
— OCS obbstb 'common' (< PIE *h3ebH-tio-, cf. *h3ebH 'about', OCS o);
— Lat. propitius 'favorable, propitious' (< PIE *propo-tiio-, cf. Lat. prope 'near' < PIE *propo, dissimilated from *pro-pro) 6
— Goth. aups (aupeis) 'desert' (< PIE *h2eu-tiio-, cf. adverb *h2eu-'away', OPr. au-, OCS u-);
— Goth. framapeis 'foreign', OHG fremadi, Germ. fremd (< PIE *promo-tiios, cf. Goth. fram 'from').
6 Cf. Dunkel [1980], accepted by de Vaan [EDL: 492]. Alternatively, but less likely, Lat. propitius could reflect a compound *pro-pet- (frompeto 'to strive for, to seek', cf. praepes 'flying swiftly'), cf. DELL [539].
and, last but not least, probably:
— Lith. svecias 'guest' < 'foreign', Latv. svess 'foreign, strange' (< PIE *sue-tio-, cf. the reflexive particle *sue 'own, apart').
The prehistory of the PIE suffix *-tio- is obscure, but its diffusion testifies to its antiquity beyond any doubt. In Baltic, adjectives of this formation are extremely rare: apart from Lith. svecias 'foreign, guest', which has its own history, one could perhaps mention Lith. dial. uzuocias 'concealed, secret' < 'located behind' LKZ [17: 729], but this might rather be a secondary back-formation based on the more common noun uzuocia 'remote corner' (loc. uzuocioje 'in a remote corner'). The first member of Lith. dial. asciagaliai 'grain residues' is unclear. There is no uncontro-versial evidence for adjectives in *-tja- (< PIE *-tio-) in Baltic, where this formation survives almost exclusively through substantivized feminines in *-tja (< PIE *-tieh2). To this formation belongs in Old Lithuanian the feminine plural *oscios 'back side, rear parts' (from *az-tja-).
The last point I have to clarify is the form of the first member of *az-tja-. As already mentioned, the preposition 'behind' exhibits a great diversity of forms in Lithuanian (azu, az, uzu, uz, azuo-, azu-, uzuo- and zu) and Latvian (az, az, aiz, iz, uz, uoz and uz). Some of these variations are attributable to the merger of two originally distinct prepositions, but there must be other parameters to explain the extent of the variations. It has long been recognized that there is in Balto-Slavic a system of formal differentiation separating three related forms—preposition, verbal prefix and nominal prefix. In Lithuanian, for example, there is still nowadays a marked distinction between the preposition nuo 'out of, from' (+ gen.), the verbal prefix nu- (e.g. nutekiti 'to flow, to stream down', ind. prs. 3 nuteka) and the nominal prefix nuo- (e.g. nuotakas 'basin, drain, gutter, sewer'):
preposition [nuo] ^ verbal prefix [nu-] ^ nominal prefix [nuo-]
The distribution of these three degrees was described in Petit [2011] and their origin was clarified by Le Feuvre [2011]. For the present purpose, it suffices to provide an overview of the variations attested in Lithuanian:
Table 3
Lithuanian Preposition Verbal prefix Nominal prefix Examples
Type 1. Suppletion ant/ùz sù ùz- sù- ant-sàm-, sàn-, sq- uzplusti 'to flood, to inundate' / antpludis 'flow, influx, crowd' sujùngti 'to connect, to link up' / sqjunga 'union, alliance'
Type 2. Metatony Ï per 1- pér- /-pér- }nèsti 'to bring in' (j-nesa) / inasas 'contribution' pértraukti 'to break, to interrupt' / pértrauka 'break, interruption'
Type 3. Formal variation 1 1- in- jtekèti 'to flow (into)' (jteka) / intakas 'affluent'
Type 4. Addition of a syllable ùz ùz-at(i)- uzûo-atä- or ato- uzmègzti 'to knot, to start' (ùzmezga) / uzuomazga 'plot, embryo, rudiment' atskaityti 'to deduct, to count off / ataskaita 'account' atslugti 'to fall off, to fall away' / atoslugis 'ebb, low tide'
Type 5 a. Metatony + Formal variation nuo prie po pro nù-pri-pà-prà- nüo-prie-po-pro- nutekéti 'to flow down' (nùteka) / nuotakas 'basin, drain, gutter, sewer' pritarti 'to approve' (pritaria) / prietaras 'superstition, prejudice' pasùkti 'to turn, to swing' (pàsuka) /posukis 'turn, turning, turning point' praskinti 'to clear away' (pràskina) /proskyna 'opening, cutting (in a forest), clearing'
Lithuanian Preposition Verbal prefix Nominal prefix Examples
Type 5b. Metatony + Formal variation po pro pà-prà- pä-prä- pazadéti 'to promise' (pàzada) / pazadas 'promise' pranèsti 'to announce' (prànesa) /pranasas 'precursor, herald, harbinger, prophet'
Type 5c. Metatony + Formal variation apie ap(i)- apy- apibrèzti 'to delineate' / apybraiza 'outline, contour, sketch'
Type 6. No distinction is is- is- isréiksti 'to express' / israiska 'expression'
and Latvian: Table 4
Latvian Preposition Verbal prefix Nominal prefix Examples
Type 1. Metatony nùo pie nùo- pie-ie- nuo- pië-ië- nuodalit 'to separate, to fence off / nuodala 'department, section, chapter' piedegt 'to burn' /pied§gas 'burns' iekaut 'to forge' / iekava 'instrument for forging'
Type 2. No distinction pa sa pasa- pasa- pagulet 'to take a nap' /pagula 'nap, short sleep' sajust 'to feel' / sajuta 'sense, sensation'
Some of the variations observed in the preposition 'behind' can receive an explanation within this system. For example, azuo-, azu- and uzuo- in Lithuanian, az- and uz- in Latvian are limited to the function
of a nominal prefix. Descriptively, the variation of the nominal prefix can take on four main forms:
— Type (a). Metatony: e.g. Lith. j-nesti, ¡-nesa 'to bring in' ^ j-nasas 'contribution';
— Type (b). Lengthening: e.g. Lith. pa-sukti, pa-suka 'to turn, to swing' ^po-sukis 'turn, turning, turning point';
— Type (c). Diphthongization: e.g. Lith. nu-teketi, nu-teka 'to flow down' ^ nuo-takas 'basin, drain, gutter, sewer';
— Type (d). Addition of an extra syllable: e.g. Lith. uz-megzti, uz-mezga 'to knot, to start' ^ uzuo-mazga 'plot, embryo, rudiment'.
The different realizations of the system may lead to secondary analogies: Lith. azu ^ azuo- (type c. diphthongization) may be locally replaced by azu ^ azu- (type b. lengthening), and likewise in Latvian we can find az ^ az-, uz ^ uz- (type b. lengthening). It is not necessary to go into the details of these variations nor to weigh up in individual cases which variation is original, which one is secondary. Suffice it to say that types
(a), (b) and (c) are likely to form the core of the system, with (a) limited to the case when the basis is already a long vowel or a diphthong, and
(b) resp. (c) formed from short vowels. Type (d) is generally a secondary evolution of (b) and (c) after the loss of a final syllable. The position of the preposition may vary: it can agree with the verbal prefix (e.g. Lith. uz = verbal prefix uz- ^ nominal prefix uzuo-) or it can remain isolated on its own (e.g. Lith. nuo ^ verbal prefix nu-, nu- ^ nominal prefix nuo-). The important point is that most of these variations can receive an internal explanation in Baltic in terms of paradigmatic analogy. In the case of *azo and *uz, one can reconstruct the following possibilities:
— Lith. azu ^ azuo- (type c);
— Lith. azu ^ azu- (type b);
— Lith. az ^ *az- (type b) in Old Lith. *oscios (< *az-tja-);
— Lith. az ^ *az- (no variation) in Lith. dial. asciagaliai (< *az-tja-);
— Lith. uzu ^ uzuo- (type c) or uz ^ uzuo- (type d);
— Latv. az ^ az- (type b);
— Latv. uz ^ uz- (type b).
One may note that type (b) (lengthening) may be applied either to the final vowel of a dissyllabic basis (e.g. Lith. azu ^ azu-) or to the unique vowel of a monosyllabic basis (Latv. az ^ az-) alike, which shows that it remained productive at different stages of development. In view of this, the Old Lithuanian derivative *oscios 'backside' (in the locution ufi oflc^ 'on the back side') may reflect an allomorphic variation of the type Lith. az ^ *az- (type b), which is as such not attested for this basis in Lithuanian, but has good parallels within the language (e.g. Lith. pa—> *pa-, Lith. po-). Strikingly enough, the same basis ('behind') may exhibit various allomorphs in the formation of the secondary derivative in *-tja-or *-tja:
— Lith. az ^ aza- (East Lith. dial. azacia); Lith. az ^ azuo- (East Lith. dial. azvacia); Lith. uz ^ uza- (Lith. dial. uzacia); Lith. uz ^ uzuo- (Lith. uzuocia); Lith. az ^ az- (Old Lith. *oscios in ufi ofic^i'ty); Lith. az ^ az- (Lith. dial. asciagaliai).
No doubt that some of these variations can be of secondary origin: Lith. az ^ aza- (East Lith. dial. azacia) and Lith. uz ^ uza- (Lith. dial. uzacia), for example, might have been influenced by the parallel formation of Lith. apacia (ap-a-). Similarly, the pattern az ^ az- reflected by Old Lith. *oscios might owe its existence to the parallel pattern of Lith. pa ^ pa- (Lith. po-), independently of the similar formation az ^ az-found in Latvian for the same reasons. It is almost by accident that this residual possibility was preserved by Jonas Bretkunas, barely recognizable, in the frozen locution ufi oficjii[ 'on the back side'. A precise mapping of these variations remains to be done to determine not only dialectal patterns of diffusion, but also the position of each allomorph in the morphological system. It has to be noted that nominal prefixes occupy a unique position, regularly distinguished from the corresponding prepositions and verbal prefixes, but at the same time the formation of a noun
on a prepositional basis such as *äz-tjä- 'back side' (< 'what is behind') seems to be caught between two conflicting pressures, that of the prepositional basis it is derived from and that of the process of nominalization to which it is subject.
Abbreviations
1, 2, 3 — 1st, 2nd, 3rd person; abl. — ablative; acc. — accusative; du. — dual; f. — feminine; gen. — genitive; ind. — indicative; loc. — locative; m. — masculine; n. — neuter; nom. — nominative; pl. — plural; prep. — preposition; prs. — present; pst. — past; sg. — singular.
Arm. — Armenian; Gall. — Gallic; Germ. — German; Gk. — Greek; Goth. — Gothic; Hitt. — Hittite; Lat. — Latin; Latv. — Latvian; Lith. — Lithuanian; Myc. — Mycenaean; OCS — Old Church Slavic; OHG — Old High German; OPr. — Old Prussian; PIE — Proto-Indo-European; Pol. — Polish; Ru. — Russian; Skt. — Sanskrit.
References
ALEW—W. Hock. Altlitauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 vols. Hamburg: Baar, 2015.
Ambrazas 1993 — S. Ambrazas. Daiktavardziq darybos raida. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1993. Bretkunas 1590 — J. Bretkunas. Biblia. Königsberg, manuscript. 1590. DELL — A. Ernout, A. Meillet. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck, 1932.
DI — J. Endzelin. Latyskie predlogi (dissertation, 1905-1906). J. Endzelin. Darbu
Izlase. Vol. 1. Rïga: Zinatne, 1971. P. 307-654. Drotvinas 1995 — V. Drotvinas (ed.). Clavis Germanico-Lithuana, RankrastinisXVII
amziaus vokieciq-lietuviq kalbq zodynas. 4 vols, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1995. Dunkel 1980 — G. Dunkel. Ennian atque atque; prope. Glotta. 1980. Vol. 58. P. 97-103.
EDL—M. de Vaan. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. EDSIL—R. Derksen. Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Endzelin 1923 — J. Endzelin. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter, 1923. Endzelin 1971 — J. Endzelin. Darbu Izlase I. Rïga: Zinatne, 1971.
EV—Elbing Vocabulary. V. Maziulis. Prusq kalbos paminklai. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1966-1981. P. 14-46.
Hübschmann 1897 — H. Hübschmann. Armenische Grammatik, Teil I. Etymologie. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897.
Kavaliunaite 2008 — G. Kavaliunaite (ed.). Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas. Vilnius: Lietuviq kalbos institutas, 2008.
Kruopas 1979 — J. Kruopas (ed.). Pirmasis lietuviq kalbos zodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979.
Le Feuvre 2011 — C. Le Feuvre. L'allongement des prepositions en composition (préfixes) en baltique et en slave. D. Petit, C. Le Feuvre, H. Menantaud (eds.). Langues baltiques, langues slaves. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2011. P. 199-222.
LEW—E. Fraenkel. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Heidelberg: Winter, 1962-1965.
LKZ — Lietuviq kalbos zodynas. 20 vols. Vilnius: Lietuviq kalbos institutas, 1941-2001.
ME — K. Mühlenbach, J. Endzelin. Latviesu valodas vardnica, Lettisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. 4 vols. Riga: Izglïtïbas ministrija, 1923-1932.
Michelini 2003 — G. Michelini (ed.). D. Kleino Naujos Giesmju Knygos Tekstai ir jq saltiniai. Vilnius: Lietuviq kalbos institutas, 2003.
Oettinger 1995 — N. Oettinger. Hethitisch appezziia- und vedisch aptyä-. W. Smoczynski (ed.). Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia, vol. II. Kurylowicz Memorial Volume. Part One. Krakow: Universitas, 1995. P. 181-185.
Palionis 2000 — J. Palionis. Mikalojaus Dauksos 1599 metq Postilé ir jos saltiniai. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2000.
Petit 2011 — D. Petit. Préverbation et préfixation en baltique. D. Petit, C. Le Feuvre, H. Menantaud (eds.). Langues baltiques, langues slaves. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2011. P. 235-271.
PKEZ2 — V. Maziulis. Prusq kalbos etimologijos zodynas. 2 ed. Vilnius: Mokslas, 2013.
SEJL—W. Smoczynski. Slownik etymologiczny jçzyka litewskiego. Vilnius: Univer-sitetas, 2007.
Skardzius 1943 — P. Skardzius. Lietuviq kalbos zodziq daryba. Kaunas: Universite-tas, 1943.
Trautmann 1923 — R. Trautmann. Balto-Slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vanden-hœck & Ruprecht, 1923.
Zinkevicius 1966 — Z. Zinkevicius. Lietuviq kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Min-tis, 1966.
Zinkevicius 1980-1981 — Z. Zinkevicius. Lietuviq kalbos istoriné gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1980-1981.
