Patterns of Morphological Integration of Slavic Loan Nouns in Petkevičius’ Catechism (1598) as an Indication of Their Origin and Chronology

Patterns of Morphological Integration of Slavic Loan Nouns in Petkevičius’ Catechism (1598) as an Indication of Their Origin and ChronologyThis article focuses on the morphological integration of Slavic loan nouns featuring in Merkelis Petkevičius’ Catechism (1598) into the Lithuanian language. It attempts to establish whether the pattern of adaptation of a Slavic loanword to a particular Lithuanian stem can suggest its more precise origin. In order to achieve this objective, I extracted all Slavic loan nouns from Petkevičius’ Catechism, identified their stems and meanings, and established their equivalents in Slavic languages of the relevant period (Old Russian, Ruthenian, Old and Middle Polish). Comparing this data made it possible to establish some common patterns of integration of Slavic loanwords into the morphological system of the Lithuanian language. A direct relationship was identified between the endings and gender of the Slavic words and the Lithuanian stems into which they were integrated. Therefore, in some cases the pattern of adaptation of a Slavic loanword can suggest its path into the Lithuanian language. Adaptacja morfologiczna słowiańskich zapożyczeń rzeczownikowych w katechizmie Pietkiewicza (1598) jako wskazówka na temat ich źródła i chronologiiNiniejszy artykuł omawia adaptację morfologiczną słowiańskich zapożyczeń rzeczownikowych w języku litewskim na podstawie materiału leksykalnego katechizmu Melchiora Pietkiewicza (1598). Podjęta analiza stanowi próbę ustalenia, czy ich dostosowanie do określonego rdzenia litewskiego może dokładniej wskazywać na źródło pochodzenia. W toku przeprowadzonych badań z katechizmu wyekscerpowano wszystkie rzeczowniki zapożyczone z języków słowiańskich, zidentyfikowano ich rdzenie i znaczenia oraz ustalono ich ekwiwalenty w językach słowiańskich w odpowiednim okresie (staroruskim, ruskim, staro- i średniopolskim). Porównanie tych danych pozwoliło uchwycić pewne prawidłowości adaptacji zapożyczeń słowiańskich do systemu morfologicznego języka litewskiego. Ustalono bezpośredni związek pomiędzy końcówkami i rodzajem gramatycznym leksemów słowiańskich a ich adaptacją do określonych rdzeni litewskich. W pewnych przypadkach wzorzec adaptacji może zatem wskazywać na źródło zapożyczenia słowiańskiego w języku litewskim.


Introduction
was the first Reformation book in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the second volume in Lithuanian published in the country (1598). It is thought to have come as a response to the Catholic Catechism of Mikalojus Daukša, issued in Lithuanian in Vilnius three years earlier (Zinkevičius, 1988, p. 196). In a pattern typical for Reformation catechisms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Petkevičius' volume includes catechism, psalms, prayers and procedures of church rites (Kuźmina, 2002, pp. 17-18).
Although Petkevičius' Catechism is the second book published in Lithuanian in the Grand Duchy, it has received little attention from scholars so far. It has only been discussed in the general context of Lithuanian writings of the seventeenth century  and has mainly been viewed as a source of Calvinist worldview . Scholars are also interested in its translations of psalms into Lithuanian, particularly those written by Jan Kochanowski . The grammatical, lexical and phonetic features of the language of the Catechism have been hardly investigated at all -studies in this area only concern possessive pronouns , dialectal features  and lexical units .
The research on Slavic loanwords in the Lithuanian language goes back to Alexander Brückner's Die slavischen Fremdwörter im Litauschen (Brückner, 1877). The more recent works mainly focus on such issues as their origin and equivalence of Slavic sounds (Būga, 1958(Būga, -1961, and include observations on the vowel shift . Slavic loanwords in Lithuanian are also mentioned in the context of lexis of old writings and contemporary Lithuanian (Dini, 1990ALEW, 2015;SEJL, 2019; or its dialects . Discussions about the numbers of Polish and Belarusian loanwords are found in the articles by Jonas Palionis and Vincas Urbutis . The later works mainly address Slavic nominals; only the studies authored by Jurgis Pakerys  and Kirill Kozhanov  consider Slavic loan verbs. A comprehensive analysis of issues related to the origin of Slavic loanwords, including verbs, is presented in the works by Rolandas Kregždys . Although Slavic loanwords are not a new research topic, works devoted to their morphological integration are few and far between. Božena Voitkevič  aptly observes that in those few studies  "it is difficult to envisage any theoretical foundation which could contribute to the identification of principles of morphological integration of Slavic loanwords" (Voitkevič, 2010, p. 244). She claims that the donor language can be determined on the basis of the assignment of a loanword to a particular type of declension (Voitkevič, 2010, p. 248). The aim of this article is, then, to identify whether the stem of a Slavic loanword can suggest its origin more precisely. With a view to achieving this objective, I extracted all Slavic loan nouns from Petkevičius' Catechism, categorised them according to their stems, and identified patterns of their integration into the Lithuanian morphological system. The total number of extracted lexemes of Slavic origin was 446; 199 of them are Slavic loan nouns analysed in this study. Their stems as well as their meanings were identified on the basis of the Catechism (other sixteenth-century sources were used when the PC data were not sufficient; only the meanings attested in the PC are presented; Lithuanian Language E-Dictionary [LKŽe, n.d.] was also used). In the next stage, the equivalents of Slavic loanwords were looked up in dictionaries of Slavic languages of the relevant periods -Old Russian: SRIA XI-XVII, 1975-2011SDIA, 1989;Ruthenian: SSM, 1977-1978HSBM, 1982HSBM, -2015MDSUM, 2002MDSUM, -2003Old andMiddle Polish: SS, 1953-2002;SPol, 1966SPol, -2012. The equivalents are the words that can be potentially regarded as sources of loans in terms of their root and meaning.

The Concept of Slavic Loanwords
With regard to their origin, the words in the Lithuanian language fall into two major categories: native words and loanwords, adopted from other languages through various contacts (economic, cultural, political, etc.) (Jakaitienė, 2009, p. 227). Those borrowed from the neighbouring countries are German, Slavic and Latvian loanwords. In analysing the Slavic loanwords, the essential thing is the direct source of the borrowing, not the language from which the word originally spread in other languages: if a German word came to the Lithuanian language through Polish, it is considered to be a Polish loanword, not a German one.
The oldest Slavic borrowings entered the Lithuanian language from the western dialects of East Slavs between the ninth and eleventh centuries, e.g. muilas < mylo (soap), stiklas < stьklo (glass) (Būga, 1958(Būga, -1861. Slavic loanwords came to Lithuanian through contacts with East Slavs (Zinkevičius, 2002, pp. 100-101); in the fifteenth-seventeenth centuries they appeared together with Polish speakers (Jakaitienė, 2009, p. 229;Zinkevičius, 2002, p. 106). The Polish language started spreading in the Grand Duchy only after the Christianisation of Lithuania, and by the mid-sixteenth century it had already gained a firm position in the country.
The history of the Polish language is divided into three stages: Old Polish (fourteenth-fifteenth centuries), Middle Polish (sixteenth-eighteenth centuries) and Modern Polish (since the end of the eighteenth century). Periodisation of the linguistic history of East Slavs is more complicated. The language of East Slavs served as the basis for the Old Russian written language, which started splitting into its eastern and western variants in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. The Russian language (великорусский язык) formed on the basis of the eastern dialects. The south-western part of the area where it developed belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the written Ruthenian language started to emerge there in the thirteenth century; the process completed in the fifteenth century. Since the language was influenced by Polish, Lithuanian, Czech, Latin and German, it deviated from the eastern variant of Old Russian more and more. The Ruthenian language (книжная проста мова) is referred to differently by various scholars: Western Russian (западнорусский язык), Old Belarusian (старобелoрусский язык), Old Literary Belarusian (старобелорусский литературный язык), Old Ukrainian (староукраинский язык), Old Literary Ukrainian (староукраинский книжный язык) or even Polish-Belarusian (język polsko-białoruski). Considering that Petkevičius' Catechism was published in 1598, the Slavic loanwords used there could have derived from Old Russian, Ruthenian, Polish (Old and Middle) or the dialects of Polish and East Slavic languages.
Vytautas Kardelis stresses that the term assimilation used in Lithuanian linguistics is not accurate enough to determine conformation of a loanword to the phonological, accentual and morphological system of the Lithuanian language as it firstly refers to phonetic phenomena (Kardelis, 2003, p. 21). Indeed, The Encyclopaedia of Lithuanian Language defines assimilation as "a full or partial adjustment of a sound to the sounds of the same or adjacent word" (LKE, 2008, p. 33). Likewise, the terms adaptive affixation and integrational affixation only consider one aspect of adaptation of a loanword -its conformation to the morphological system of the recipient language. The most precise term to be used in this context, then, is integration, as it embraces not only a broader usage of a borrowing but also its adaptation to particular language systems (Kardelis, 2003, pp. 21-27).

Slavic Loan Nouns in Petkevičius' Catechism
Following their phonetic adjustment, which is a necessary condition for integration of words of foreign origin, borrowed nouns have to be assigned to the category of gender and the Lithuanian declension system. In the case of loan nouns from Slavic languages, they usually retain the gender from the donor language (Voitkevič, 2010, p. 248). However, as there is no neuter gender in the Lithuanian language anymore, Slavic neuter words borrowed into Lithuanian and adapted to the Lithuanian morphological system after Leskien's law took effect (i.e. later than in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries) acquired the feminine ending of the ā-stem, probably due to the phonetic adjacency of the vowels o and a (Girdenis, 2001, p. 385). Prior to that, Slavic neuter nouns with the ending o were assigned to the neuter gender in the Lithuanian language. After the change described by Leskien, such neuter loans, together with Lithuanian neuter inheritances, moved to the category of masculine gender and acquired the masculine ending of the ȏ-stem (Girdenis, 2001, p. 385). Hence, the stem of a loanword can imply the chronology and origin of a particular borrowing.
Page 9 of 30 These nouns are early borrowings from East Slavs; they were initially integrated into the Lithuanian language as neuter but later shifted to masculine (Leskien's law); the oldest loanwords in Lithuanian are considered to have derived mainly from Old Russian.
Hence, these loanwords reached the Lithuanian language later than the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries and acquired the feminine endings of the ā-stem.
The consonants ž, š, č, c, r were palatalised in Old Russian (IAM, 2005, p. 44), and the Polish ž <rz> and c, inherited from the Slavic proto-language, once were the palatalised r and c. As the forms вeчepa, зара, зара, зора from Old Russian show, newer forms (with the non-palatalised r) were attested in East Slavic languages as well. Considering that the hardening of the consonants ž, š, č, c, r began in the fourteenth century, pamačia, večeria, zaria must have been borrowed earlier and are more likely to be borrowings from East Slavic languages.
It appears that all these Slavic nouns end in c or č, the consonants which were palatalised by the fourteenth century. Consequently, the loanwords were borrowed before, which makes it possible to assume that they probably derived from East Slavic languages. If their borrowing had occurred after the hardening of consonants, they would have been integrated into the ā-stem.
The stem of Slavic loanwords in the latter group can suggest their origin: integration into the i̯ u-stem indicates that they were borrowed into Lithuanian before the hardening of Slavic ž, š, č, c, r; therefore, it is more likely that East Slavic languages or, to be more precise, Old Russian served as the donor language in this case.
Assignment of pahonis to the i-stem (cf. pahonies PC 228,27) seems inconsistent: the features of all Slavic languages would favour its integration into the ȏ-stem. Pranas Skardžius points out that this particular stem was primary (cf. pagonas), and later the form of the word underwent changes (Skardžius, 1998, p. 209). The reasons for such changes are not clear. The form of collective noun погань 'pagans, infidels' (SDIA, 1989(SDIA, , vol. 2, p. 1012, which was attested in Old Russian, could have influenced this process.
Page 21 of 30 should remain masculine. Due to the Polish ending -a, this noun could have also been declined according to the i̯ ā-stem, which is not typical of the masculine gender (cf. kastyria [Kregždys, 2016, p. 91;Skardžius, 1998, p. 157]). The Ruthenian word костырь 'a dicer', then, is a more likely source of this borrowing (HSBM, 1982(HSBM, -2015. Considering the gender and the variety of stems that Slavic loanwords integrated into, it can be concluded that kastyrius is a borrowing from Ruthenian assigned to the i̯ u-stem.

Conclusions
There is a direct relationship between stem endings and gender of the Slavic words which served as a source for Slavic loanwords in the Lithuanian language and the Lithuanian stems those Slavic loanwords were integrated into: -masculine Slavic loanwords whose equivalents in Slavic languages are nouns of masculine gender with a hard (non-palatalised) ending or nouns of neuter gender integrated into the ȏ-stem; -feminine Slavic loan nouns whose equivalents in Slavic languages are feminine nouns with the ending -a, or words of neuter gender and, less frequently, Slavic loanwords of common or masculine gender whose equivalents in the Slavic donor language also have the ending -a, integrated into the ā-stem; -feminine Slavic loan nouns whose equivalents in Slavic languages are feminine nouns with the attested palatalised end of the stem (Ruth. зброя; Pol. zbroja); with the palatalised ž, š, č, c, r at the end of the stem attested in East Slavic, but with non-palatalised ones in the Polish language (O. Rus. вeчepѧ; Ruth. вeчepя; Pol. wieczerza); with the non-palatalised ž, š, č, c, r at the end of the stem in East Slavic and Polish languages (O. Rus. душа; Ruth. душа, доуша; Pol. dusza) entered the i̯ ā-stem class; in rare cases, masculine Slavic borrowings whose equivalents in Slavic languages are also of masculine gender with analogous stem endings also integrated into the group of i̯ ā-stem words; -masculine Slavic words whose equivalents in Slavic languages end in й, -j, a palatalised consonant or the attested palatalised ž, š, č, c, r at the end of the stem in East Slavic languages, but already non-palatalised in Polish, integrated into the i̯ u-stem group; Page 22 of 30 -feminine Slavic loan nouns whose equivalents in Slavic languages are of feminine gender with the soft (palatalised) stem ending (apart from ž, š, č, c, r), and nouns of neuter gender, became part of the i-stem class; less frequently, masculine Slavic borrowings whose equivalents are masculine nouns with the palatalised ending of the stem in Slavic languages were also assigned to this stem group; -feminine Slavic loan nouns whose equivalents in Slavic languages are abstracts of neuter gender ending with -e in East Slavic languages and with -ie in Polish, and less commonly feminine nouns with palatalised endings of the stem, integrated into the ē-stem.
In cases where Slavic loanwords belong to the i̯ ā stem or the i̯ u stem and their equivalents in Slavic languages have the palatalised or non-palatalised ž, š, č, c, r at the end of the stem, there is a higher probability that the loanwords reached Lithuanian from East Slavic languages and, thus, such stems can suggest the origin of Slavic loanwords.
Slavic borrowings derived from masculine and feminine nouns retain their gender in Lithuanian. While Lithuanian lost the neuter gender rather early, Slavic languages retained this feature. The changes that occurred after Leskien's law took effect clearly indicate the chronology of borrowing and the origin of Slavic loanwords: when a noun in Slavic languages is of neuter gender and a Slavic loanword that derives from it is assigned to the ȏ-stem in the Lithuanian language, it means that such a borrowing came from East Slavic languages; when a loanword belongs to the ā-stem group, it means that it reached Lithuanian later than the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries, and thus its source could have been Polish or East Slavic languages.

Patterns of Morphological Integration of Slavic Loan Nouns in Petkevičius' Catechism (1598) as an Indication of Their Origin and Chronology
Summar y This article focuses on the morphological integration of Slavic loan nouns featuring in Merkelis Petkevičius' Catechism (1598) into the Lithuanian language. It attempts to establish whether the pattern of adaptation of a Slavic loanword to a particular Lithuanian stem can suggest its more precise origin. In order to achieve this objective, I extracted all Slavic loan nouns from Petkevičius' Catechism, identified their stems and meanings, and established their equivalents in Slavic languages of the relevant period (Old Russian, Ruthenian, Old and Middle Polish). Comparing this data made it possible to establish some common patterns of integration of Slavic loanwords into the morphological system of the Lithuanian language. A direct relationship was identified between the endings and gender of the Slavic words and the Lithuanian stems into which they were integrated. Therefore, in some cases the pattern of adaptation of a Slavic loanword can suggest its path into the Lithuanian language.