Evidently, the conditions that determine the lengthening of the first component resemble the restrictions on the lengthening of vowels before the tautosyllabic r in Latvian dialects. In both languages, they include suprasegmental features and vowel height. High vowels are not lengthened in the standard languages and the areas on which they are based (Western Aukštaitian, Central Latvian).
This may be connected with the fact that, accidentally, both standard languages are based on more archaic dialects where the change only affects low vowels.
Another matter is the lack of lengthening under one of the tones/accents as it shows similar geographic distribution. The first component is short under the broken (or the corresponding rising) tone in East Latvian (42a) and under the circumflex accent in the eastern and southern parts of the Aukštaitian dialect in Lithuanian (42b). In the western parts of both Latvia (Kurzeme) and Lithuania (in Žemaitian), the first component is lengthened under any of the contrastive tones/
accents (43).
(42) a. East (Central and High) Latvian
*var̃na>[ˈvɑːːrnɑ] ‘crow’
*dàrzi>[ˈdɑːrzi] ‘garden’ (nom.pl)
*darbi>[ˈdɑrˀbi] ‘labor’ (nom.pl) – no lengtheninĝ b. Aukštaitian
*káulas>[ˈkɑːʊlas] ‘bone’
*laũkas>[ˈlɒuˑkas] ‘field’ – no lengthening (43) a. West (Curonian) Latvian
*var̃na>[ˈvɑːːrnɑ] ‘crow’
*dàrzi>[ˈdɑːrzi] ‘garden’ (nom.pl) *dar̂bi>[ˈdɑːˀrbi] ‘labor’ (nom.pl)
b. Žemaitian
*káulas>[kɑˑˀʊls] or [kɑːˀʊls] ‘bone’
*laũkas>[lɑˑʊks] or [lɑːʊks] ‘field’
Lithuanian and Latvian dialectologists have paid surprisingly little atten- tion to these similarities between the two Baltic languages, with the exception of
the development of high vowels into [i(ː)ǝ], [u(ː)ǝ], which may accompany their lengthening (see Grinaveckis 1973: 245) (44).
(44) a. Sourthern Žemaitian (Viduklė-Nemakščiai) pìrmas>[ˈpʲiːǝrms] ‘first’
pùlti>[ˈpuːǝlʲtʲɪ] ‘attack’ (inf) b. Curonian Latvian
kur̃pe>[ˈkuəːrpe] ‘shoe’
zir̂gs>[ziǝˀrks] ‘horse’
One of the reasons for the neglect may be the different status that the results of the lengthening receive in Latvian and Lithuanian. In Latvian, vowels that are lengthened before r are identified with historically long vowels both in dura- tion and as part of the vowel inventory. It is also important that in Latvian, the lengthening of the first component is independent of stress (see Section 2.2). In Lithuanian, the lengthened first components of diphthongs and diphthongal sequences waver between long and half-long, and their lengthening is traditi- onally seen as the enhancement of the acute-circumflex contrast, which only appears under stress. The difference in the treatment of the lengthened compo- nent is even reflected in the orthography (45).
(45) a. Standard Latvian
vā̀rdi [ˈvɑːrdi] ‘word; name’ (nom.pl), cf. uzvārdi [ˈuzvɑːrdi] ‘surname’
(nom.pl)
b. Standard Lithuanian
dárbas [ˈdɑˑrbas] or [ˈdɑːrbas] ‘labor’, cf. ùždarbis [ˈuʒdarʲbʲɪs] ‘wage’
It is less surprising that specialists on Lithuanian do not compare it with the unrelated language Livonian, separated from the Lithuanian area by Latvian.
Nevertheless, with respect to the lengthening of the first component, Livonian shows similarity to Aukštaitian Lithuanian. Livonian places no restriction on the quality of vowels that are subject to lengthening, but this feature is less impor- tant, as it probably only reflects the less advanced stage of the development in Lithuanian. The main similarity with Lithuanian is that, in accordance with my understanding of the process outlined in Section 3.8, Livonian only induces lengthening under one of the reconstructed accents (the one comparable to the light accent/“normal” length in Estonian). In this regard, Livonian groups together with East Latvian and Aukštaitian Lithuanian as opposed to West Latvian and Žemaitian where lengthening is universal. But Livonian and Lithuanian, either Žemaitian or Aukštaitian, crucially differ from Latvian, in that in Latvian, the lengthening was triggered by some individual properties of r that prevented this
sound from being moraic. This is obviously not the case in Lithuanian (46a) and Livonian (46b) where lengthening involved diphthongs and diphthongal sequen- ces as whole classes.
(46) a. Livonian
*aiga>āiga [ˈɑːigɑ(ː)] ‘time’
*lauda>*lāuda>lǭda [ˈlɔːdɑ(ː)] ‘table’
*jalga>jālga [ˈjɑːlgɑ(ː)] ‘leg; foot’
*randa>rānda [ˈrɑːndɑ(ː)] ‘shore’
b. Lithuanian
káilis [ˈkɑˑɪlʲɪs] or [ˈkɑːɪlʲɪs] ‘hide; fur’
áukštas [ˈɑˑʊkʃtas] or [ˈɑːʊkʃtas] ‘high’
káltas [ˈkɑˑltas] or [ˈkɑːltas] ‘chisel’
kánda [ˈkɑˑnda] or [ˈkɑːnda] ‘bit’ (prs.3)
The similarity between Lithuanian and Livonian is made more striking by the fact that the alternation between the acute and the circumflex (known as meta- tony), which often accompanies Lithuanian word formation, clearly resembles one of the types of the Livonian gradation (Table 34).
As I already said in Section 3.7, I do not consider the lengthening of the first components in Livonian as resulting from the loss of moraicity on the second components, and the same pertains to Lithuanian. (Although the second compo- nents must have indeed lost the moraic status, it happened as a consequence of the change rather as its cause.) While the properties of r made it difficult to main- tain the tonal contrast, as well as syllable weight, on the relevant diphthongal sequences in Latvian, it was the problems with the suprasegmental contrast itself that forced the change in Livonian and Lithuanian.
I mentioned in connection with the Latvian change (see Section 2.7) that I view the two types of lengthening (both the one which is sensitive to the suprasegmental
Tab. 34: Alternation in Lithuanian and Livonian Lithuanian adj
sveĩkas [ˈsʲvʲɛiˑkas] ‘well; whole’
kal̃t as [ˈkǝlˑtas] ‘guilty’
infsvộikinti [ˈsʲvʲổˑɪkʲɪnʲtʲɪ] ‘greet’
káltinti [ˈkɑˑiʲtʲɪnʲtʲɪ] ‘blame’
Livonian part.sg
aigõ [ˈɑiˑgə] ‘time’
jalgõ [ˈjɑlˑgə] ‘leg; foot’
nom.sg
āiga [ˈɑːigɑ(ː)] ‘time’
jālga [ˈjɑːlgɑ(ː)] ‘leg; foot’
contrast and the one which is not) as two ways of intensifying the contrast between the tones on diphthongs and diphthongal sequences. One solution is to substitute the diphthong or diphthongal sequence with a long vowel, created by lengthening the first component and transferring the tonal contrast to the long vowel, which, in some cases, may be better suited for expressing the contrast. This is what has happe- ned in Žemaitian Lithuanian and West Latvian (Kurzeme) where the first components of diphthongs and diphthongal sequences were lengthened under all accents/tones.
Another solution is to replace the suprasegmental contrast with contrasting sequen- ces of different phonemes. In this case, the first component is only lengthened under one of the tones/accents in order to distinguish it from the contrasting tone/accent.
This scenario is found in Aukštaitian Lithuanian, East Latvian, and Livonian.
It is not always easy to explain why the former or the latter course is chosen, even though one may refer to differences in either phonological status or phonetic parameters of the contrast. In case of Aukštaitian Lithuanian, however, the direc- tion of the choice is obviously linked to the fact that the acute-circumflex contrast on long monophthongs tends to disappear in the major part of this dialect, which is also reflected in colloquial style of the standard language.