Olga Jagintseva

Artikkel doktoritööst GLYOK — A JUG OR A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT?

Glyok — kas savipott või muusikariist?

Olga jagintseva

Kokkuvõte

Artikli teema on seotud mitme teadusvaldkonnaga, mistõttu on teoreetiliselt võimalikud selle erinevad käsitlused. Ühe käsitlusviisi kohaselt võib kaasata keelefakte rahvakultuuri rekonstrueerimiseks, teine käsitlusviis lähtuks kulturuloogilistest faktidest varasemate keele olekute fikseerimiseks.

Eesmärk on leida lekseemi „глёк“ päritolu ning selle tõestamiseks on kasutatud foneetilist, semantilist, morfoloogilist ja sõnamoodustuseanalüüsi. On ilmne, et keelematerjali uurimisele etümoloogilises aspektis aitavad kaasa etnograafia, folkloori ja ajaloo andmed. Artikis on materjali analüüsimisel kasutatud eelkõige võrdlev-ajaloolist meetodit ja etümoloogilise analüüsi metoodikat. Lisaks sellele on aktuaalne H. Schuchardti välja töötatud uurimissuund „Wörter und Sachen“, mis on üles ehitatud vormist lähtuval ja tähendusele ning funktsioonile viival seletusel. Nimetatud uurimissuuna teine eelis seisneb selles, et sõna vaadeldakse lahutamatus seoses selle abil tähistatud esemega. Kolmas antud uurimuse seisukohalt tähtis metodoloogiline koostisosa seisneb slaavi etnolingvistilise traditsiooni järgimises.

Erinevaid etümoloogiameetodeid rakendades selgitati välja, et uuritav lekseem on motiveeritud verbiga гудеть. Slaavi etnolingvistilise traditsiooni järgimine aitas selgitada, et mõnesid kodutarbeid kasutati heli tekitamiseks. Võib julgesti oletada, et ka kannu oli kasutatud samas sekundaarfunktsioonis ja nimisõna глёк tähendas ‘mingit muusikapilli’. Nimisõna егол sisevorm on hästi seletatav

sõna глёк kaudu. Vanasti võis nimisõnal „глёк“ olla tähendus ‘kodutarbeese / muusikapill (löökpill)’.

Võtmesõnad: glyok, savipott, kööginõud, etümoloogia, muusikariist, etnolingvistika, dialektoloogia.

Introduction

A historical analysis of the lexemes presupposes a well-coordinated research in the fields of both ethnolinguistics and etymology. Ethnolinguists study the relationship between language and culture. Ethnolinguists study the way perception and conceptualization influences language, and show how this is linked to different cultures and societies. The etymology uses different facts which are recieved with a help of ethnolinguistics. These two fields cannot be divided. A study of the kitchenware usage helps to discover that some pottery items were used to produce sounds.

This article aims to study the noun glyok, a characteristic of the dialects of the southern and western regions of Russia, which means ‘an earthenware jug’ (a narrow long large pot) (dal 2003 I, 583). This lexeme does not have a certain etymology. It is widely represented in the dialects of voronezh; gilyok, glyok ‘an earthenware washstand’ — in dialects of Kursk, Smolensk, Pskov (ESRj I, 92). In the dialects of the region of Tver has been discovered the word glyochik with the meaning ‘ladle for the water with the handle’ (TSgTO 2004 3, 60). Ukrainian glyok, glyochik ‘pot, jug’, bulgarian glyok, glyak, glyachek ‘round pot with a short neck’ — is characteristic for the southwestern eastern Slavic dialecticism (Trubachyov 1966, 217). In the dictionaries of contemporary Literary Russian neither of these forms is represented.

Methodics

A historical analysis of the lexemes presupposes a well-coordinated research in the fields of both ethnolinguistics and ethymology. A study of the kitchenware usage helps to discover that some pottery items were

Artikkel doktoritööst

Artikkel doktoritööst

used to produce sounds. One can assume that the clay jug could perform such secondary function, and the inner form of the noun glyok could mean ‘a musical instrument.’ The reconstructed semantic and wordforming relationships have a very archaic character, which explains the fact that the lexeme glyok lost its word-forming productivity. based on the ethimological analysis, comparativ-historical method and a study of some ethnographical facts, this article argues for a relationship between the noun glyok ‘a clay jug’ and the verb gudet’ ‘to drone.’

Results

The article makes an attempt to reconstruct the original internal form of the “non-transparent” dialectal word and glyok ‘a clay jug’, found in some Russian dialects, on the basis of etymological analysis and with a support on the ethnographical facts.

In Vasmer’s etymological dictionary, this word is marked as «not clear». The reconstructed proto-form of glyok is *gǔd - l - ĭk -ŭs. One can assume that the clay jug could perform such secondary function, and the inner form of the noun glyok ‘a clay jug’ could mean ‘a musical instrument.’ The reconstructed semantic and word-forming relationships have a very archaic character, which explains the fact that the lexeme glyok lost its word-forming productivity.

The author proposes a new explanation of the etymology of the noun glyok ‘a clay jug’, arguing for a connection between this noun and the following group of words: lit. gaudžiù, gaũsti ‘to sound, to drone,’ gaudonẽ ‘a gadfly,’ lith. gáudas ‘weeping, a complaint.’

Discussion

E. Berneker proposed to compare glyok to glej ‘earthenware’ (berneker 1908–1913 I, 310). However M. vasmer writes that the forms glyok, gol’k make these kind of rapprochement complicated (vasmer 1986–1987 I, 412). On the other hand E. gavlova draws attention to the fact that the

proto-form *gl’j’ could not be combined to the Russian gol’k, Old Russian g”l’k” (gavlova 1968, 98). In reality there are no proofs to the fact that in the stem *gl’- between *g and *l stood a vowel in Indo-European language. She explains the current misunderstanding with the circumstance that “berneker knows and gives only Ukrainian glyok that is in his opinion identical to the Russian dialect form glyok ‘slime, ichor, pus’”. In reality these different words have different phonetics and etymology.

In the dictionary of I. Sreznevsky there is represented the Old Russian form g”l’k” (Sreznevsky 1989 I, 519, 612). A. Preobrazhensky as well as E. berneker thought that the stem for the derivation is the noun glej ’sticky, wet earthenware’ the suffix –k” has joined to its stem. If one reconstructs the proto-form *gloi-ko-, it is possible to assume that the original word looked like this glhk”. However this kind of proto-form evidently contradicts to the Old Russian data. This fact was recognized by A. Preobrazhensky himself and it was pointed out also by M. vasmer (vasmer 1986–1987 I, 412). doubts of A. Preobrazhensky and critics of M. vasmer had no influence on the opinion of N. Shansky who continued to relate the analyzed lexeme to the noun glej ’earthenware, glue’ that ascends to the Indo-European form *gloi- (ESRj I, 92).

O. Trubachyov claimed in the book “Remeslennaya terminologia” (Craft Terminology) that “in front of us we have old, Proto-Slavic form *gl’k” the nomination of the limited distribution that is related to the (*gl’-k”) <…> Proto-Slavic *gl’j’, also the nomination of the limited distribution: Ukrainian glej ‘viscous, earthenware soil’, bulgarian glej ‘mud’” (Trubachyov 1966, 218). The logic of O. Trubachyov who in this case is following E. berneker and j. Rudnicki is understandable, but this kind of approximation makes one wonder: since in Slavic languages there are in general unknown any of nominations of pottery items that would be derivated from the more active version of the stem *glin-. This is the reason why the current etymology seems hypothetical. However the turning point is that Old Russian forms cannot be phonetically explained with

Artikkel doktoritööst

Artikkel doktoritööst

glej. That fact was acknowledged by O. Trubachyov in ESSj (Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages 7, 192) where he represented the main form in this way: *g”l’k”.

The interpretation of A. brükner is very uncertain. brükner relates g”l’k” to Polish word gleń ‘slice of bread’ and derivates both words from the stem *gŭl-, it is possible that it is related to the Lithuanian word gulti ‘lie’, but more likely german Knäuel (< Kläuel) ‘ball’, Kugel (< Klugel) ‘ball’, Klotz ‘pack, block’, greek γλντος ‘something round’ (brückner 1957, 141, 172). I. Nosovich and f. Slawski compared our word to the verb gl”tati ‘swallow’, but as E. gavlova writes fairly from the point of view of semasiology the forms *gl”t- and g”l’k” cannot be related and in the phonetic relation current reconstruction is as weak as the comparison to the glej (gavlova 1968, 97).

A better chance has the etymology that was proposed by E. gavlova. Similarly to the Lithuanian scientist K. būga, she compares analyzed word to the greek word γαυλός ‘jug, round vessel for water or milk; round beehive’, γαλλας ‘type of bowl’, Old Indian golah ‘round vessel for water’, classical Hebrew gullā ‘round vessel for milk’, Akkadian gullatu ‘type of vessel’, Aramaic gulletā, ‘jug for wine’, Arabic. qulla ‘jug’, georgian (it is possible that the word was borrowed from Arabic) kula ‘narrow-necked jug for wine, from wood or dried pumpkin’. gavlova refers to j. Pokornyj who represents these words as derivatives from Indo-European stem *geu- ‘to bend, to round’. The mentioned greek word, more often with a secondary accent, stands as well for the round Phoenician cargoship and is related to Old Icelandic kjóll, Icelandic kjóll, kjöll, Old English cēol, Old Saxon and Old High german kiol, Old High german kēl ‘ship’. E. gavlova explains it with the fact that names of vessels were often used for naming ships, compare for example Russian sudno ‘vessel’ and ‘ship’. However if professor būga considered these words primordially related, then the conclusion of gavlova consists in the fact that in this case we have cultural term of the East Mediterranean area, that extended to the north

to Slavs and germen and to the east to Indians (gavlova 1968, 98–99). Also it is possible that the word has a Semitic origin.

The author of current article will not agree with the opinion of E. gavlova, since this kind of ancient separate borrowing seems unreal (has place in East Slavic languages but missing in West and South Slavic languages). In addition to that the comparison with Akkadian gullatu ‘type of vessel’ should be rejected as well from point of view of the cultural history because of a very big chronological gap. On the contrary the opinion about the lexeme glyok being very ancient (this idea arises from comparisons of K. būga (būga 1959, 295)) makes it difficult to understand why the word is not presented in West and the South Slavic languages. This fact indicates to quite late appearance of this noun (later than vI century, i.e. after separation of South and East Slavs). One can see that there exist many different versions relating the etymology of the word, but none of those is completely convincing. All the mentioned circumstances give reasons to carry on analyzing and propose the alternative version of origin for the word glyok by relating it to the lexeme gusli. One is motivated to talk about it because of the role of music in the life of Ancient Slavs.

The art of singing in the ancient times was very developed. The songs had a very special part in human’s life, since they accompanied all the activities from the birth till the death. The celebrations, work, events of personal life – every time songs were presented, music filled times of work and leisure covering different emotional spheres. The singing is also interesting because it stores in itself traces of the ancient vision of the world. The culture of music of Slavs was not limited only to singing. The melodies were spread as well, played on stringed and the wind instruments. In Ancient Russia there are existed two primary concepts: music and singing. The playing on the string musical instruments was called as gudenije (buzz), on the wind instruments — sopenije (puffing). Without any doubt as in every ancient culture in Russian music was also the component of percussion (see below), however the special term for

Artikkel doktoritööst

Artikkel doktoritööst

this kind of playing is unknown. One of the most spread instruments in Ancient Russia was gusli. The name comes form Proto-Slavic *gọd - sl - i, related to the gudet’ (to drone) (vasmer 1986–1987 I, 477). It is possible to search for the ancient connections between this verb and the word glyok. In other words the author is trying to see in the stem of analyzed word the ancient function of the object the word stands for. In the historical period the glyok is the receptacle for many things. However this will not exclude the possibility that in the earlier times this object was used as the musical (percussion) instrument. It is very natural to choose the motivated character by the function for the material object. I.e. we connect the noun glyok to the verb gudet’.

In this case the proto form *g”l – ‘k – “is not primary. The earlier form one can reconstruct this way: *gǔd - l - ĭk -ŭs. It is well known that in Russian, Ukrainian and belarusian the combination *dl is presented in simplified way unlike in the West Slavic languages that had conserved this group of the consonants. The current fact is related to the wide-spread opinion that the Polish forms that are related to the analyzed word are borrowed from the East Slavic language. In general the analyzed words looks like the innovation of East Slavic on bases of the primordial morphemic units. At the same time “ < ǔ one can see as the zero level of the ablaut without a nasal infix, similar to the Lithuanian gaudžiù, gaũsti ‘to sound, to hoot’, gaudonẽ ‘gadfly’, Latvian gáudas ‘crying, the complaint’ (vasmer 1986–1987 I, 440).

The indirect testimony of the possibility that glyok belongs to this lexical group are gul, razgul, guljat’. The alliance of these words has been recognized by E. berneker, A. brükner, f. Slawski, P. j. chernyh (ESRj I 4, 196; cHERNyH I, 226). The last of them had different interpretations in the literature (see vasmer 1986–1987 I, 473–474) those as a whole is unsatisfactory. In modern time the popular explanation is the derivation from *gọd-, that was proposed by R. O. jakobson (ESSj 7, 173). In spite of the remarks made by O. N. Trubachyov it is more convincing. compare to the

noun gul: “Proto-Slavic form could have been *gudl”, with the stem (*gud-), standing for not nasalized version of common Slavic *gọd- (compare Polish gędzić; Russian gudet’)“ (chernyh I, 226). The primary meaning of sound-making in the verb guljat’ can be compared to the modern jargon word gudet’, it means ‘to party, to drink very much alcohol’.

from the point of view of the ablaut the word guljat’ as a link relating Russian glyok and Lithuanian gaudžiù is not strong enough, because there is the full grade in the word guljat’ as well as in Lithuanian lexeme. It is justified to reconstruct the combination *dl for the words in that group that have the East Slavic characteristics (the majority of scientists consider that similar the Polish, czech, Slovak and bulgarian words were borrowed from Russian) (ESRj I 4, 196; chernyh I, 226).

Reconstructed suffix *-l- in the stem of a verb is of course seen as the suffix of the past participle. The comparisons that have been made in this article let one as well to assure the initial suffixal character of *-l-. As the suffix -l- is seen by N. M. Shansky (ESRJ I 4, 195).

There are only a few special drumming instruments in the Old Russian musical culture. In their place were very often used items from the household. for example: drums were replaced by the pots. The same thing can be said about the plates, spoons, horns of the domestic animals (those were used as vessels and as well as musical instruments).

Using the following material objects in the place of percussion instruments had been marked:

1. rubel ‘the instrument for washing the home-made cloths’, it was as well used as a musical instrument: with one hand the instrument was held by the handle and with the other hand was held the spoon or a wooden stick that was quickly drawn on the ridge side of the object;

Artikkel doktoritööst

Artikkel doktoritööst

2. uhvat ‘the tool that was used for putting in and pulling out the pots and the cast-iron pots from the Russian stove’. The rhythms for dancing were produced by knocking with the ends of uhvat’, 3. rogach ‘the tool for drying the kitchen ware, is used in the villages of Orlovshina as a musical instrument’, 4. scythe ‘one can play on it when it has been removed from the staff. With one hand a scythe is held so that the blade would be downwards, with the other hand a big nail is held and a person knocks different rhythms with it on the scythe’. All of these items had two functions.

Conclusions

One can summarize the result of research. during the linguistic analysis with an emphasis on the ethnographic facts author has discovered the connection between the noun glyok and the verb gudet’. considering various ways of using the ware we find out that some items of household were used in the process of making different sounds. It is possible to assume that the jug was used in that function as well and the noun glyok in its inner form it had the meaning of ‘some kind of musical instrument’.

References

berneker,E. (1908–1913). Slavisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg. brückner, A. (1957). Słownik języka polskiego. Warszawa. buga, K. (1959). Rinktiniai raštai. vilnius. gavlova, E. (1968). Slav. G”l’k” ‘kuvshin’. (Slavic g”l’k” ‘jug’) Etimologija. Moscow. 97–99. dal, v. I. (2003). Tolkovyj slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo jazyka (Explanatory dictionary of the Living great Russian Language). Moscow. Sreznevsky, I. I. (1989). Slovar’ drevnerusskogo jazyka (dictionary of Old Russian

Language). Moscow. Trubachyov, O. N. (1966). Remeslennaja terminologia v slavjanskih jazykov (craft

Terminology in Slavic Languages). Moscow. TSgTO (2004). Tematicheskij slovar’ govorov Tverskoj oblasti (Thematic dictionary of the dialects of the region Tver). Tver’.

vasmer, M. (1986–1987). Etimologicheskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka (Etymological dictionary of Russian Language). Moscow. chernyh, P.j. (1993). Istoriko-etimologicheskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka (Historico-

Etymological dictionary of Russian Language). Moscow. ESRj (1965–). Etimologicheskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka (Etymological dictionary of

Russian Language). Ed. N. Shansky. Moscow. ESSj (1974–). Etimologicheskij slovar’ slavjanskih jazykov (Etymological dictionary of Slavic Languages). Moscow.

Artikkel doktoritööst