7/28/2019 SEC_16_8

1/3

Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia, vol. 16, pp.103-118Krakw 2011

Published online Decenber 10, 2011DOI 10.4467/20843836SE.11.008.0054

ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE LATVIAN

COMPARATIVE vars, vark

Daniel Petit

ABSTRACT

Latvian is the only Baltic language that presents a suppletive variation between a positive and

a comparative: adverb dadzmuch / vars orvarkmore. The question arises whether this

composite paradigm is an innovative feature of the Latvian language or could be traced back

to Proto-Baltic, and any answer to this question is strongly dependent on how we explain the

origin of the Latvian comparative vars, vark. The aim of this paper is to propose a new

etymology forvars and to shed some light on the prehistory of this suppletive variation thatappears to be unique in the Baltic languages.

Keywords: etymology, diachrony, language contact, areal linguistics, linguistic history

http://www.wuj.pl/page,art,artid,181.htmlhttp://www.wuj.pl/page,art,artid,181.htmlhttp://www.wuj.pl/page,art,artid,181.html

7/28/2019 SEC_16_8

2/3

Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia

ol. 16 Krakw 2011

Daniel PETIT (Paris)

ON THE ETyMOlOGy Of

the latvian comparative vars, vark*)

Abstract. Latvian is the only Baltic language that presents a suppletive variation betweena positie and a comparatie: aderb dadzmuch / vars orvarkmore. The questionarises whether this composite paradigm is an innovative feature of the Latvian language orcould be traced back to Proto-Baltic, and any answer to this question is strongly dependenton how we explain the origin of the Latian comparatie vars, vark. The aim of this

paper is to propose a new etymology forvars and to shed some light on the prehistory ofthis suppletie ariation that appears to be unique in the Baltic languages.

1. Introduction

Comparison of adjectives sometimes appears to be linked with the grammati-

cal phenomenon of suppletion,1 which, according to a basic definition, consists

in the use of formally unrelated stems to supply gaps in a paradigm. This is es-

pecially the case with the commonest adjecties that belong to the core lexicon,

such asgood/ better, bad/ worse ormuch / more. In some Indo-European lan-

guages, suppletion has been extended to other adjecties, with innoations such

as Old Irish ocus near compar. nessa, superl. nessam or Swedishgammalold

compar. ldre, superl. ldst. On the contrary, other languages hae reduced the

number of suppletie formations, sometimes een to such an extent that supple-

tion has completely disappeared in those languages. In the Baltic languages, for

example, Lithuanian does not present any kind of suppletion whatsoever, even in

* This paper was read at the ConferenceBaltic Studies in the Nordic Countries (StockholmUniversity, 12th June 2010). Many thanks to Eric Dieu (Toulouse), Audrey Mathys(Paris) and Claire Le Feure (Strasbourg) for their useful comments on a first draftof this paper.

1 On suppletion in comparatie and superlatie forms, see especially the monographyof Eric Dieu (to appear in 2011, based on a preious dissertation of 2007). My iewson Lat. vars, varkhae been stimulated by this important work.

7/28/2019 SEC_16_8

3/3

104 DANIEL PETIT

the adjectiesgras good (compar.gersnis better, superl.geriusias best)

andblgas bad (compar. blogsnis worse, superl. blogiusias worst) or in

the aderb dagmuch (compar. daugia more, superl. daugiusia(i) most).

At first glance, Latian seems to reflect a similar state of affairs, since there is

no suppletion een in the adjecties labs good (compar. labks better, superl.vislabks best) andslikts bad (compar.sliktks worse, superl. vissliktks

worst). But we find a suppletive variation between the adverb dadzmuch

and its comparatie counterpart varkmore (the superlatie visvarkmost

is derived from the comparative). The question arises whether this composite

paradigm is an innoatie feature of the Latian language or is inherited from

Proto-Baltic. Any attempt at answering this question is strongly dependent on

how we explain the origin of the Latvian comparative vark. As we shall see,

the etymological explanation usually found in the scholarly literature is far from

convincing; one can go so far as to say that a good etymology is still lacking.The aim of this paper is to propose a new etymology and to shed some light on

the prehistory of this suppletive variation which appears to be so untypical of

the Baltic languages.

2. pg d

To begin with, a brief survey of the philological data is necessary. In the Latvian

modern language,

2

dadzmuch is used either as a substantive (plenty of) followedby a genitive plural (e.g. daudz cilvku many people) or singular (with a collective

meaning, e.g. daudz maizes much broad), or as an aderb determining a erbal

form (e.g. daudz runtto speak a lot). Both functions are also carried out by the

suppletive comparative varkmore, which can be used in the same way either

as a substantie (with the genitie) or as an aderb. That the relationship ofdadz

much andvarkmore is to be seen as suppletie, is proen by three facts.

First, there is no positie form directly based on the stem of the comparatie

vark(*vars or the like). On the other side, there is no comparatie form directly

based on the positie dadz. A comparatie dadzkis poorly attested in Latian.

The Dictionary of Karl Mhlenbach and Jan Endzelin (ME I 443 [1923-1925])

presents the comparative varkas regular and reports a variant dadzkonly from

the Low Latvian dialect of Kandau (Kadava) in Kurland which, by the way, was

the birthplace of Karl Mhlenbach himself. I have found one further instance in

the High Latvian (Latgalian) dictionary of Jan Kurmin (Sownik Polskoacisko

otewski, 1858: 4). In this dictionary, Pol. wicej (Lat.plus) is translated into Latvian

as Wajrok usto (p. 237), but Pol. bardziej more (Lat.Magis validius, impensius)

2 Examples taken from Lvv (1984: 170).