Václav BLAŽEK BALTO-SLAVIC “SMITH” BALTISTICA XLIV(1) 2009 25–31

7/27/2019 Vclav BLAEK BALTO-SLAVIC SMITH BALTISTICA XLIV(1) 2009 2531

1/7

25

B A L T I S T I C A X L I V (1) 2 0 0 9 2531

Vclav BLAEK

Masaryk University

BALTO-SLAVIC SMITH?

1. Within Baltic a quite unique designation of smith appears in Prussian

wutris smith (EV 513: Smyt). Apparently it cannot be separated from autresmithy (EV 514: Smede). The personal name Wutterattested in 1414 canbelong here (Trautmann 1925, 122). The same proper name probably ap-pears in some toponyms: 1270 Vutraynen, 1419 Wutterkaym, 1412 Wttrowin,

1400 Utreyn (Gerullis 1922, 209, 211). There are two alternative solutionsof the reconstruction of the protoform:(i) *utras vs. *autri (cf. Trautmann 1923, 336; Topo rov I 174; on the

prothesis w- before u see Smoczyski 1989, 104).(ii) *utras vs. *utri. For autre Bga (III 661) and Maiulis (IV

272) propose the conjecture +(v)utre in this case no ablaut did operate.Smoczysk i (2000, 120) mentions other examples, when au or eu are usedinstead of expected *u in Prussian: dauris door (EV 211) vs. Lithuaniandrys id. or peuse Kiefer (EV 597) vs. Lithuanian p/ pus id.

2.1.

There are no safe correspondences within Baltic. Trau tmann (1910,466) compared wutris/ autre with Lithuanian jtryna fest eingelassenesSchloss einer Tr, but it is adapted from Russian nutrjanik Einlassschloss(Fraenkel 196265, 199). Toporov (I 175) sought a possible cognate inunclear Latvian autrs, attested in the phrase mes ir tik autrs, tik atskangs(ME I 231), approximately The forest is as autrs, as sounding (about echo;I am indebted to Dr. Pavel toll for interpretation of this folkloric sentence).But Endze l in/ Ha usenbe rg (193438, 189) inform us that: autrs ist einDruckfehler fr jatrs, which means munter, frohsinning, frhlich and

corresponds with Lithuanian jautrs frisch; wachsam; leise (ME II 104).These forms are rather far in both semantics and phonetics from wutris/autre.

2.2. Endze l in (1931, 180) compared Prussian wutris/ autre with Lithua-nian uts/ utlouse, Latvian uts/ ute id., speculating about a primary verbin the sense to pierce (quoted after Fraenkel 196265, 1173 and Topo-


2/7

26

rov I 175), which have so to correspond to Slavic *kolti to pierce vs. Baltic*kaltei to forge. This idea remains unproven.

2.3. Smoczyski (2000, 205f.) discusses two quite new hypotheses ofa borrowing:

(i) From Middle Low German wrte Arbeiter < Old Saxon wurhtio;(ii) From Middle High German *htter, hypothetically derivable from

htte arbeitet.3. Most of etymologists connect West Baltic *utras and South Slavic

*vtr, attested in Old Church Slavonic/Middle Bulgarian vtr ,faber ferrarius; , faber lignarius (Miklosich 186265, 113), artifex,opifex (SJS352, e.g. jegoe ssuda jee vtr smotrit i gladit or i svtogosego duxa kak jest vtr razumti xoju inBesdy na evangelije pagy GrigorijaVelikago = Homiliae s. Gregorii Magni 30, 323, 204 respectively;mss. from the

13th c.) and Serbian Church Slavonic (16th c.) vtr. Russian Church Slavonicvtr smith, vtr mdjanyj coppersmith (e.g. Tako e ielzo krom jest vtr a xytrost v vtri, da vzem e, jako e xoet ssud,tak e stvorit .Ioannes Exarchus, Hexameron, 1263 - see Sreznevski j I434), represent apparently the adaptation of the Church Slavonic word (seeTrubaev 1966, 337; Toporov I 174). Cf. also the Church Slavonic abstractderivative vtrstvo , ars fabri (Miklosich 186265, 113).

Middle Bulgarian (13th c.) vtr, Serbian Church Slavonic (16th c.) vtr,Russian Church Slavonic vtr, e.g. vtr mdjanyj (see

Trubaev 1966, 337; Toporov I 174). Excluding the possibility of a bor-rowing from early Polish into Prussian, Trubaev (1966, 337f.) speculatesabout an opposite direction of borrowing. He is undoubtedly right that ahypothetical, although unattested Polish form +wetrz could not be adaptedin Prussian as *wutris. But just this result is quite expectable in the case ofborrowing of Russian Church Slavonic vtr. It is necessary to stress thatRussian Church Slavonic served for several centuries as a literary language inneighbourhood of Prussia, namely in Lithuania and Belorussia.

4. Trubaev (l.c.) sought a connection with Prussian wetro wind (EV

53), Lithuanian vtra Sturm (wind), Unwetter, Slavic *vtr wind vs.Lithuanian udra storm, assuming the semantic equation smith = thatwho works with bellows. Although there are no apparent parallels in the se-mantic development, it is perhaps in principle possible. More difcult is thephonetic explanation. The Balto-Slavic isogloss *tro-/- (storm) wind isderivable from the IE root *a ()- < *H2eH1- to blow (Pokorny 1959,


3/7

27

81-84; LIV 287). But there is no example of the development of this rootleading to the zero-grade of the type *u-Co.

5. Regarding some of other designations of the smith (-god) etymologiz-able as the re-maker (e.g. Vedic karmra- blacksmith; artisan, mechanic,

articer [RV X 72.2] vs. kalmalkaming, burning [RV II 33.8], kalmal-m. splendour, brightness, sparkling [AV XV 2.1], Hittite kalmisana-/ kal-mesna- c. Meteor, Himmelserscheinung, cf. also kalmara- c. Strahl, Son-nenstrahl (Tischler 2001, 70); Greek [Il. XVIII 397; VIII 195;Od. IV 617 etc.], Doric , Aeolic , Mycenaean a-pa-i-ti-

jo [KN I 588.1] = * or *, perhaps derivable from lightning, kindling, I kindle re [Schrader, Nehring II 239,330], plus the second component *aistos, reecting maybe *aithtos : I light up, kindle, cf. burning heat, re; Roman re-god Volcnus

vs. Old Indic ulk re falling from heaven, meteor, rebrand, in RV IV 4.2used about the ames of the re-god Agni; Latin faberand Celtic *gob-s/-ens-(n-), or *gob-t-s / -ent-(n-) > Old Irish gobae, gen. gobann, MiddleWelsh gof, pl. gofein, Gaulish instr. pl. gobedbi vs. Lithuanian gab ~ gubre - see Blaek 2008), the idea of Otrbski (1967, 227) to connectthe Prussian terms with Slavic *vatra big re seems quite acceptable fromthe point of view of semantics, but difcult in word formation. And difcultis the Slavic word itself, attested in Bulgarian vtra, Serbo-Croatian v`tra,Slovak/ Czech dial. (Moravia) vatra (big) re, Polish watra re(place),

ashes, Ukrainian vatra re, and further in some of the non-Slavic lan-guages of Balkan: Albanian Tosk vatr, Gheg votr replace, Rumanianvatr, Hungarian vatra id. It is very probable that the Slovak, Czech, Polishand Ukrainian examples can be ascribed to the culture of the Carpathian pas-toralists. And so the word seems to be a heritage of the Dacian substratum (soBER I 123f.). The original form without the prothesis should be preserved inRussian Church Slavonic ob-atriti to iname, ob-arenije inammation(BER I 123f.; SSJ 1, 9193), but the cluster -b- + -v- is regularly simpliedin Slavic (SSJ 1, 92). The generally accepted comparison with Avestan tar-

re, Armenian airem I burn, Latin terblack, Umber atru, adro atraetc. (Pokorny 1959, 69), exclude the initial v- in Slavic. The etymology ofthe Slavic and Prussian words for smith based on South Slavic *vatra is somuch more complicated. The opposition of the Balto-Slavic forms with theinitial *- against the word *tr- re resembles the situation of Balto-Slavic*epras pig vs. Latin aper id., Umbrian acc. pl. abruf; Germanic *ebura-


4/7

28

>Old High German ebur, Old English eoforetc. (Trautmann 1923, 351;Pokorny 1959, 323). In the case of the Balto-Slavic smith it is possible tothink about a prex *au- of or the verb *a()- to blow + reduced root*tr- re?

6. It is possible to admit a simplication via dissimilation of a compoundconsisting of *ur(H)-/ *tr- burning re, where the rst componentshould represent the zero grade of the verb *erH- > Hittite war-/ur- toburn, warnu- to kindle, Armenian vaem I kindle, vaim I burn;Albanian vorb Kochtopf; Lithuanian vrda : vrti kochen, sieden, OldChurch Slavonic var heath, variti to cook; Tocharian wrtk- to cook(Pokorny 1959, 1166; LIV 689: *erH1?-). A continuant semantically closestto the smithery appears in the Baltic designation of copper: Lithuanianvrias, Latvian va(also ore, metal), Prussian (EV 525) wargien /varjan/

(Maiulis IV 221); cf. also Prussian (EV 529) auwerus Metallschlacke(Toporov I 176f.).

It is tempting to speculate about the nomen agentis *ur(H)-ter/-tro formedfrom the same root *erH1?- (see above), again with the dissimilative lossof the rst -r-. But it is necessary to stress that the nomina agentis in *-terare not typical in Balto-Slavic (Brugmann 1906, 33646; he quoted e.g.Lithuanian vtra storm and Old Church Slavonic vtr wind, air).

7. The Slavic word has usually been derived from *utri-, *utro-, but inprinciple, it is possible to imagine the dissimilation from *vrtr, leading to

the protoforms of the type *tri-, *tro-. This dissimilative loss of the rst-r- in the cluster *-rtr- has analogy e.g. in the mountain name Tatry, formingthe northwestern part of the Carpathian Mountain chain. The oronym Tatry,Ukrainian Tovtry, reect primary *Trtry, how it is conrmed in the formTurtur Mons recorded in the Gesta Hungarorum from the 13th c. (Sheve lov1964, 483).

8. No unambiguous etymology was so proposed till the present time. Sev-eral hypotheses were discussed above. One may be added. The hypotheticalprotoform *tri-, *tro- remarkably resembles such Indo-Iranian forms

as Old Avestan vrram. Widerstandsbrecher [Yasna 44.16], vs. YoungAvestan vrra- Verteidigungskraft, Widerstand, aii-vrra- mit metal-lenen Schildern [Yat 13.45; translation Wolff 1910, 236], vrrana- n.Brechung des Widerstands, Sieg, m. Name eines Gottes, Middle Persianwahram Kriegesgott, Gott Sieg, Vedic vtr- n. restrainer, m. Vtr-serpent-like demon, son of Tvaar-, antagonist of Indra, cf. Vtra-hn-


5/7

29

Vrtra-killer about Indra and later Vtrri- enemy of Vrtra also aboutIndra (EWAI II 573f.; Monier-Williams 1899, 1007). The hypotheticalpre-(Balto-)Slavic *tro- can be interpreted as belonging to *tro- andit is quite realistic about the dragon-like demons antagonist, in the Iranian

tradition represented by the smith (cf. the hero Kwe, in the classical Per-sian epic hnme, i.e. Book of Kings, the famous smith of Ispahn whodefeated the usurper dragon-like Zahhk, and established Faridn on thethrone of Persia see Steingass 1892, 1010). With the same probabilityit is possible to understand this derivative as the *tro-maker, concretelymetallic-shield-maker, hence smith. In both cases it seems more prob-able the borrowing from (Indo-)Iranian into Balto-Slavic or only into Slavicand from here into Prussian, than their common heritage.*

BALT IR SLAV KALVIS?

S a n t r a u k a

Pr. wutris kalvis (E 513) ir piet sl. *vtr t. p. yra lengvai ivedami i ben-dros praformos *utri-, *utro-. inant, kok vaidmen banytin slav kalba kaip o-ciali ir rato kalba vaidino vidurami Prsijos ir LDK teritorijose, io prs odioslavika kilm neatmestina, nors esti ir greiiausiai giminik form kaip autre kalv(E 514) arba asmenvardis Wutter(1414). N viena i autoriui inom odio etimologijneatrodo tikinama, todl pamatuota iekoti naujo aikinimo. Geras sprendimas galtbti prielaida, kad odis patyr disimiliacij, galinani rekonstruoti praformas *tri-,tro- (plg. kalno vard Tatry i *Trtry, rekonstrukcij remia Turtur Mons i GestaHungarorum, 13 a.), deranias su tokiomis ind-irann formomis kaip n. av. vrra-Verteidigungskraft, Widerstand, aii-vrra- mit metallenen Schildern [Yat 13.45].Turint galvoje specin (balt)-slav-irann leksikos atitikmen pobd, atrodo pa-tikimiau manyti, kad is kultrinis prs-piet slav odis yra ne j bendras paveldas, oiranizmas.

*Acknowledgment. This study originated in cooperation with the Centre for theInterdisciplinary Research of Ancient Languages and Older Stages of ModernLanguages (MSM 0021622435) at Masaryk University, Brno, and thanks to thegrant No. IAA901640805.


6/7

30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bartholomae, Christian 1904,Altiranisches Wrterbuch, Leipzig: Teubner.BER Blgarski etimologien renik 14, ed. Vladimir Georgiev et al., Soja: Izdatel-

stvo na Blgarskata akademija na Naukite, 1962f.

Bertes, E. . (ed.) 1960,Firdous: x-nme: Kritieskij tekst, Moskva: Institut vos-tokovedenija.

Blaek, Vclav 2003[04], Is Fenno-Lappic *epp smith of (Indo-)Iranian origin?Philologia Fenno-Ugrica 9, 1-10.

Blaek, Vclav 2008, Celtic smith and his colleagues, in Alexander Lubotsky, JosSchaeken and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.) Evidence and counter-evidence: Festschrift forF. Kortlandt 1, AmsterdamNew York: Rodopi, 35-53.

Brckner, Alexander 1922, Osteuropische Gtternamen. Ein Beitrag zur ver-gleichenden Mythologie,KZ50, 159-197.

Brugmann, Karl 1906, Grundriss der vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen

Sprachen 2.1, Strassburg: Trbner.Buck, Carl Darling 1949, A Dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages,ChicagoLondon: University of Chicago Press.

Bga, Kazimieras 1958-1962,Rinktiniai ratai 1-3, sudar Zigmas Zinkeviius ir Vy-tautas Maiulis, Vilnius: Mokslas.

EIEC J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams (eds.), Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture,LondonChicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997.

Endzelns, Jnis 1931, Skumi, Filologu Biedrbas Raksti 11, 180-186.Endzelin, Johann, Edith Hausenberg 1934-1938,Ergnzungen und Berichtigungen zu

K. Mhlenbachs Lettisch-deutschen Wrterbuch, Riga: Lettisch Kulturfond.SSJ O. N. Trubaevet al. (eds.)Etimologieskij slova slavjanskix jazykov, :

, 1974f.EWAI Manfred Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindoarischen 1-3,

Heidelberg: Winter, 1986-2001.Fraenkel, Ernst 1962-1965, Litauisches etymologisches Wrterbuch 1-2, Heidelberg:

Carl Winter; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Gerullis, Georg 1922, Die altpreussischen Ortsnamen, BerlinLeipzig: Walter de

Gruyter.LIV Helmut Rix with M. Kmmel, T. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer(eds.), Lexikon

der indogermanischen Verben, Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 2001.LK Lietuvi kalbos odynas 5, Vilnius: Valst. politins ir mokslins lit. l-kla,

1959.LPG Wilhelm Mannhardt, Letto-Preussische Gtterlehre, Riga: Lettisch-Literarische

Gesellschaft, 1936.Mann, Stuart E. 19841987, An Indo-European comparative dictionary, Hamburg:

Buske.Maiulis, Vytautas 19881997,Prs kalbos etimologijos odynas 1-4, Vilnius: Mokslas

(1); Mokslo ir enciklopedij l-kla(2-3); Mokslo ir enciklopedij leidybos institutes (4).


7/7

31

ME Karl Mhlenbach, Lettisch-deutsches Wrterbuch 1-4, ergnzt und fortgesetztvon Janis Endzelin, Riga: Lettische Bildunsministerium, 19231932.

Miklosich, Franz 1862, Lexicon Palaeoslovenico-Graeco-Latinum, Vindobonae: G.Braumueller.

Monier Williams Monier 1899 [1993],A Sanskrit-English dictionary, Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass.

Otrbski, Jan S. 1967, Lat. autumnus und griech. ,KZ81, 225-232.Pokorny, Julius 1959, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wrterbuch, BernMnchen:

Francke.RGA Heinrich Beck (ed.) Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Berlin

New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973f.Schrader, Otto, Alfons Nehring 1917-29,Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertums-

kunde 12, BerlinLeipzig: Walter de Gruyter.Shevelov, George Y. 1964,A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common

Slavic, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universittsverlag.

SJS Josef Kurz (ed.), Slovnk jazyka staroslovnskho 1, Praha: Academia, 1966f.Smoczyski, Wojciech 1989, Studia bato-sowiaskie 1, Krakw: Ossolineum.Smoczyski, Wojciech 2000, Untersuchungen zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreus-

sischen, Krakw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloskiego.Sreznevskij, I. I. 1893-1912,Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka 1-3, Sankt

Petrburg: Tipograja Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk (reprint Moskva: Znak 2003).Steingass, Francis J. 1892,Persian-English dictionary, London: Routledge.Tischler, Johann 2001, Hethitisches Handwrterbuch, Innsbruck: IBS 102.Toporov, Vladimir N. 1975f,Prusskij jazyk: slova1-5, Moskva: Nauka.Trautmann, Reinhold 1910,Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmler, Gttingen: Vanden-

hoeck und Ruprecht.Trautmann, Reinhold 1923 [1970], Baltisch-Slavisches Wrterbuch2, Gttingen:Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Trautmann, Reinhold 1925 [1974], Die altpreussische Personennamen2, Gttingen:Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Trubaev, Oleg N. 1966, Remeslennaja terminologija v slavjanskix jazykax, Moskva:Nauka.

Vasmer, Max, Oleg N. Trubaev, 1986-88,timologieskij slova russkogo jazyka 14,Moskva: Progress.

Wolff, Fritz (transl.) 1910,Avesta. Die heiligen Bcher der Parsen, Strassburg: Trbner.

VclavBLAEKRyneek 14826101 Pbram IIIBrno

Czech Republic[[email protected]]

Documents

Václav BLAŽEK BALTO-SLAVIC “SMITH” BALTISTICA XLIV(1) 2009 25–31