JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research interests: the history of written Lithuanian, and the syntax and semantics of Old and Modern Lithuanian.

JANO OTRĘBSKIO GRAMATYKA JĘZYKA LITEWSKIEGO (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): ISTORIJA IR DABARTIS

Jan Otrębski’s Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): History and Today

ABSTRACT

The article discusses the process of writing and publishing Gramatyka języka litewskiego (I, II, III), prepared by Jan Otrębski, the content of its grammatical description, and its mode of presentation. J. Otrębski’s classical grammar of Lithuanian, which focuses on grouping data rather than theoretical questions, impresses with its wealth of illustrative material and the author’s ability to manage it. One of the tasks J. Otrębski had planned for this grammar but did not have time to complete was the preparation of an index of word forms. With today’s technological capabilities, this could be done with a twofold benefit: an electronic register of the word forms used in the grammar, together with their Polish equivalents, would provide both an index of word forms in OGI and an excellent Lithuanian–Polish dictionary.

KEYWORDS: Jan Otrębski, grammar, Lithuanian language, morphology, word formation.

ANNOTATION

The article discusses the process of writing and publishing Gramatyka języka litewskiego (I, II, III) by Jan Otrębski, as well as the content of its grammatical description and its mode

200

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębski Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

of presentation. Otrębski’s classical grammar of the Lithuanian language focusing on data grouping rather than theoretical issues fascinates by the abundance of illustrative material and the ability to handle it. One of the tasks planned but unaccomplished by Otrębski was the compilation of a word-form index. By taking advantage of modern-day technical capacities it could be done with a double-efficiency coefficient: an electronic register of the word forms used in the grammar with their Polish equivalents would enable us to have both a word-form index of Otrębski’s grammar and an excellent Lithuanian-Polish dictionary.

KEYWORDS: Jan Otrębski, grammar, Lithuanian language, morphology, derivational morphology.

0. INTRODUCTORY NOTES

Žymaus lenkų kalbininko Jano Otrębskio (1889–1971) nuopelnus lituanistikai vainikavo trỳs XX a. 6–7 dešimtmetyje pasirodę lietuvių kalbos gramatikos Gramatyka języka litewskiego (toliau – OGJL) tomai. Praėjus 50 metų nuo paskutinio šios gramatikos tomo išleidimo pravartu pažvelgti į J. Otrębskio parengtą lietuvių kalbos gramatiką. Ar ji sietina vien su pagarba mokslo ir kultūros paveldui, ar vis dar yra ir gali būti aktuali? Šie klausimai lemia ir straipsnio struktūrą: OGJL ypatybės aptariamos vertinant J. Otrębskui rūpėjusius gramatinio aprašo klausimus, išnašose pateikiant nuorodų apie OGJL autoriaus gramatinių nuostatų vertinimus ir apie ryškesnius skirtumus bei sąsajas su kitais gramatiniais lietuvių kalbos aprašais¹. Straipsnyje daugiausia dėmesio skiriama trečiajam OGJL tomui Nauka o formach – ne tik dėl neabejotino jo originalumo, bet ir siekiant aktualizuoti turimą šio tomo vertimo į lietuvių kalbą² publikavimo klausimą.

¹ Somewhat more attention is devoted to comparing OGJL with Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereafter DLKG).

² The translation of OGJL3 prepared by Juozas Balčikonis was never published: the translation manuscript, bearing the title “Prof. Jonas Otręmbskis // Grammar of the Lithuanian Language // Volume III // Morphology // authorized translation,” is held in the Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library (shelfmark F178).

Straipsniai / Articles

201

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

1. THE PUBLICATION HISTORY AND WRITING FEATURES OF OGJL

Between 1956 and 1965, the state-owned Warsaw scientific publishing house published three volumes of OGJL: Nauka o formach (1956), Wiadomości wstępne. Nauka o głoskach (1958), and Nauka o budowie wyrazów (1965). The author had also intended to write a fourth volume, devoted to Lithuanian syntax,³ and, in a fifth, to provide subject and word-form indexes for all four grammar volumes. The intended structure of OGJL did not correspond to the order of writing and publication (III, I, II), so the first volume to appear, OGJL3, without any introduction, somewhat surprised readers⁴; explanations of the work’s aims and structure came only with the publication of the first volume of the grammar (see OGJL1 XII).

Having chosen as his addressee a reader with a basic philological education, J. Otrębski could dispense with descriptions of grammatical classes or categories (an exception is made only for grammatical subclasses that indicate the distinctive features of Lithuanian⁵) and concentrate on the expression of the subject under discussion—that is, on classifying the data and features of a linguistic category/class/subclass and presenting as wide-ranging a panorama of examples as possible. OGJL presents Lithuanian data at at least three levels: theoretical matters are illustrated not only with examples from the literary Lithuanian of the period (both written and spoken), but also with examples from dialects and Old Lithuanian. J. Otrębski explains his choice of a broad range of illustrative material by noting that without examining the material provided by Old Lithuanian and the dialects, it would be difficult to understand the enigmas of literary Lithuanian, the fluctuations in phonetics, lexical variants, and syntax (ibid., VIII). The Lithuanian data in OGJL are often compared with data from other Indo-European languages⁶. The Lithuanian illustrative texts are marked for stress and translated into Polish.

³ Cf. references to the planned fuller treatment of certain questions in the future volume on syntax (OGJL3 274) or to the introduction presenting the aims of the work (OGJL1 IX, XI, XII).

⁴ In reviewing OGJL3, Pranas Skardžius linked this presentation without references to the aim of “writing a comprehensive textbook on Lithuanian grammar” (Skardžius 1998a: 702).

⁵ J. Otrębski devotes more attention to Lithuanian phenomena that have no analogous counterparts in other Indo-European languages. Cf. his descriptions of the past frequentative tense (OGJL3 221–224) and pronominal adjectives (ibid., 121).

⁶ Būta nuomonių, kad tie lyginimai nepakankami, plg. Skardžius 1998a: 702.

202

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębskio Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

2. CONTENTS OF OGJL

2.1. 1956: Volume Three The Study of Forms (Nauka o formach)⁷

The writing and publication process for OGJL began with the volume devoted to the study of forms⁸, which presents a working and/or inflectional description of grammatical classes (or parts of speech). OGJL3 describes the following parts of speech: nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals, verbs, adverbs, prepositions and postpositions, conjunctions and particles, and interjections. The chapters and subsections are titled in Polish or Latin⁹.

The chapter on NOUNS begins with brief introductory remarks on how this part of speech is expressed through the grammatical categories of case, number, and gender. The introduction briefly presents the seven cases¹⁰ and the differences between Lithuanian and Polish declension (OGJL3 1). In J. Otrębski’s view, the five-declension model for nouns, which had become established in practical Lithuanian grammars of the time and had been adopted almost unchanged from Danielius Klein’s Grammatica Lithuanica (1653), was superficial and inadequate (ibid., 6); he therefore connects inflectional paradigms with the historical inflectional stems of nouns¹¹: -o- (vyras, svečias); -ā- / -iā- (jūra, giria); -(i)ē- (upė); -i- (ausis); -u- (sūnus); and consonantal (duktė, -ers; akmuo, -ens)¹². In the paradigm of each declension

⁷ For OGJL3, see Skardžius 1998a: 701–708, 741–745.

⁸ In J. Balčikonis’s Lithuanian translation, the term morphology was chosen for the volume’s title.

⁹ The sole exception is the single instrumental case; see OGJL3 244.

¹⁰ In discussing the historical state of the Lithuanian language, J. Otrębski also takes account of the disappearing or already extinct illative, allative, and adessive cases (OGJL3 76–81).

¹¹ A similar description of nouns was also provided by Jānis Endzelīns, according to the –(i)o–, –iā–; –(i)ē–; –i–; –u– and consonant stems (cf. Endzelīnas [translated from the 1948 edition] 1957: 104–130).

¹² DLKG also describes the declension of nominal parts of speech according to inflectional stems, with five declensions, (i)a, (i)u, (i)o, ē, i (and a somewhat more detailed division into 12 paradigms); see DLKG 68–69. In the Lithuanian Language Encyclopedia, Vytautas Ambrazas proposes an even more simplified description of declensional features by inflectional stems; cf. LKE 328–329. The declension model proposed by both DLKG and LKE assigns nouns with old consonantal stems to the i stem; see DLKG 69, LKE 329.

Straipsniai / Articles

203

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

the vocative¹³ form¹⁴ is also given (this is useful for readers seeking complete inflectional paradigms¹⁵); accentual features and the tendency to choose shortened or diminutive forms for the vocative are discussed (ibid., 1–2). OGJL3 offers much practical advice; cf., for example, the note on possible difficulties in determining the gender of i-stem nouns and the singular dative ending (–iai or –iui) that helps in this situation, as well as subtleties in marking shortened forms¹⁶. In J. Otrębski’s view, some i-stem words are a legacy of the old neuter gender—on the basis of comparison with other Indo-European languages, he assigns the nouns akìs and širdìs to this legacy (ibid., 37). In presenting the Lithuanian noun’s gender category, J. Otrębski distinguishes grammatical gender from natural gender (RODZAI NATURALNY), for example, vyras, žmona¹⁷; when discussing the latter, he notes that Lithuanian, like other languages, has nouns that can refer to subjects of either natural gender—these nouns have feminine forms and can denote subjects of either natural / “natural” gender¹⁸, e.g.: bliūva ‘a crybaby’, tvýla ‘someone silent, withdrawn’, nenúopena ‘insatiable’, radvilà ‘foundling’, vėpla ‘simpleton’, and so on (ibid., 3–4, 5, 24, 37). Emphasizing the particular importance of accentuation, J. Otrębski sets out the principles of noun accentuation¹⁹ (ibid.

¹³ On the possibility of treating the pragmatic functions conveyed by vocative forms not as a case but as a separate grammatical category, see Judžentis 2012: 72–73.

¹⁴ Having noted J. Otrębski’s attention to the variety of vocative forms, it should also be observed that a particular variant is sometimes missing from a paradigm (cf. the forms vėji (OGJL3 17) and vėjau (DLKG 71)).

¹⁵ The vocative, which coincides with the plural nominative, is not included in the noun declension paradigms in DLKG (see DLKG 71, 73).

¹⁶ Cf. the note on feminine i-stem nouns marked with the letter f. (femininum) (OGJL3 4, 37), alongside the explanation that this is the only noun group whose principal feature (the stem-final segment) is not a sufficient indicator of grammatical gender—gender is determined by the singular dative ending (ibid., 36–37).

¹⁷ Cf. J. Otrębski’s examples of discrepancies between grammatical (now called morphological) and natural gender, such as Daukšà, dailìdė, tėtė, dėdė, or the form gražùs pamer-gỹs, used only in dialects, and the nouns in old texts pelùs, žmonės in the phrases tomis pelùmis, žmones savàs (OGJL3 4–5). For a different view of “natural gender,” see Skardžius 1998a: 702.

¹⁸ Apie hibridinius (substantiva communia) daiktavardžius daugiau žr. Judžentis 2012: 34–36.

¹⁹ J. Otrębski considered a comprehensive account of the state and development of the Lithuanian noun accentuation system an extremely complex task, beyond the scope of the grammar he was writing (OGJL3 65). In his review of OGJL3, Skardžius mentions having reservations about J. Otrębski’s treatment of accentuation, but does not voice them “because of their specialized nature”; see Skardžius 1998a: 708. Some of the discrepancies in accentuation proposed in OGJL3 may be related to different dialectal accentuation variants; cf., for example, gėiba (OGJL3 23) and the LKŽ entry geibà; or derivatives with different endings (cf. veidmainỹs (OGJL3 70) and the form veidmainis, now more familiar to us), and so on.

204

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębskio Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

ibid., 7–10). Instead of the grouping of accent paradigms by the location of fixed stress and the intonational quality of the syllable that had become established in Lithuanian grammars and dictionaries of the time (ibid., 8), the author of OGJL says he chose the accent-paradigm model proposed by Kazimieras Jaunius, based on phonetic principles (ibid., 9), and, for the reader’s convenience, would provide two or three necessary²⁰ forms, e.g.: jūra, (jūr)-os, ranką, (rañk)-os, rañką (ibid., 10).

It is important to emphasize that OGJL3 discusses the use of Lithuanian nouns not only in terms of the contemporary written standard language (also touching on usage in spoken language²¹), but also from a historical perspective²².

Adjective paradigms are given with forms of both genders²³. In this chapter, J. Otrębski devotes particular attention to the adjective dīdis, dīdi: he discusses its inflection, origin, use in dialects and old texts (ibid., 85; 88; 92; 93–94; 117–118, 119; 120; 142), as well as derivational variants—the inflectional paradigm of dideli s, -ė (ibid., 108)—and provides interesting examples of the use of dual inflection in pronominal adjectives with a postposed numeral, e.g.: kietuojudu, geruojudu; kietiejidvi, geriejidvi (ibid., 122). In describing neuter adjectives—the terms rodzaj nijaki and neutrum are used for them (ibid., 124, 127)—he includes the word pawoiu, used in a sentence from Mikalojaus Daukša’s Postilė (hereafter DP): Regí kaip pawoiu yr būt geriufę DP 272₁₁ (as with every DP example, this sentence is quoted in J. Otrębski’s grammar together with its Polish equivalent from Jakub Wujek’s postil, cf.: Widźiß iako niebiepieczno ieft być w rofkoby.) (ibid., 125). Discussing adjectives with stems -io-, f. -ė-, J. Otrębski notes that compound adjectives may also be used as nouns, and gives minkštaširdis²⁴ as an example of a word that can perform different functions—as an adjective and as a noun (but only the nominal use of such compounds

²⁰ It is interesting that in this respect J. Otrębski does not choose the plural dative and accusative, which are more important for determining the accent paradigm, even though he notes the importance of these cases in locating stress, emphasizing that in doubtful cases Lithuanians themselves use them to check a noun’s accentuation possibilities (OGJL3 9, 64–65). On these cases as a criterion for determining the accent paradigm, see Laigonaitė 1978: 35–36; on the rule for stress placement in the plural dative and/or genitive, useful for learning accentuation, see also Stundžia 1995: 14.

²¹ Cf. the forms of the shortened singular locative (valdžioje: valdžioj, gerklėje: gerklėj) and plural instrumental (valdžiomis: valdžiōms, katėmis: katėms), and similar forms (OGJL3 32, 35).

²² Cf. J. Otrębski’s particular attention to the noun dual (e.g., dvi dukteri, du sūnu), which may already have been unusual in the Lithuanian of his time (OGJL3 2, 81–85).

²³ Plg. J. Endzelīno pateiktą tik vyriškos giminės būdvardžių paradigmą (Endzelynas 1957: 130–136).

²⁴ Cf. the adjectival and nominal paradigms on adjacent pages, which give different options for the singular dative and locative (OGJL3 107, 108).

Straipsniai / Articles

205

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

classifies the vocative²⁵). The author of OGJL regards (OGJL3 129) as close to the absolute use of the comparative degree the so-called adjectives denoting an insufficient or excessive degree of a quality, with the prefixes apý-, pó- and suffixes -ókas, f. -óka²⁶, cf.: apý-dykis, f. apý-dykė ‘almost empty, incomplete’, pó-žalis, pó-žalė ‘a little too raw; underbaked’, gerókas, geróka ‘fairly good; fairly decent’²⁷, and discusses the possibility that degree forms of gradable derivatives not derived from adjectives, such as vyrèsnis, vyríausias, šunèsnis, pirmèsnis, pirmíausias and the like, were formed from adjectives that may have disappeared (ibid., 133)²⁸.

In the section on pronouns, J. Otrębski explains the origin of the pronouns under discussion, devotes considerable attention to the dual, and mentions interesting dialectal forms of it, such as vẽ-du, vẽ-dvi or nuo-du (ibid., 139). This section does not include the word támsta²⁹, which J. Otrębski regards as a noun capable of denoting either natural gender (ibid., 5). Interesting examples illustrate the use of niekas, for example, within the scope of a second negation – niekuo nedėtas ‘innocent; without flaws, impeccable’ – or in the phrase niekai mergaitė ‘a worthless girl’ (ibid., 147). This description includes combinations of indefinite pronouns with the borrowed particle by: by kas; by kuris; by kóks³⁰ (ibid., 158).

²⁵ Volume I of LKG lists the vocative of adjectives with the -ia, -ė stem in both masculine and feminine paradigms, e.g.: auksini, -e; mažuti, -e; apýgeri, -e; baltažiedi, -e (LKG I 486, 487); DLKG presents the paradigms of (i)o-stem adjectives in two ways: with a vocative (but only for some masculine adjectives, e.g.: medinis, apýmažis, baltakāklis) and without a vocative (e.g.: gerèsnis, gerèsnė, medìnė, apýmažė, baltakāklė) (DLKG 180, 184).

²⁶ The use of degree forms without comparative constructions, when a particular quality is simply expressed emphatically, is called the absolute use of degree forms; see Judžentis 2012: 88–89. “Suffix derivatives in -okas and prefix derivatives with apý-, po- are synonymous with adjectives used in the absolute degree” (ibid., 89). See also DLKG 195, 196, 224–226.

²⁷ The meanings of such adjectives are also discussed in DLKG in the section on the grammatical category of degree, cf.: “Qualitative adjectives that, by their very derivational meaning, denote a certain degree of a quality do not have degree forms” (DLKG 173); it is also noted here that the occasional comparative forms of derivatives with the prefixes po-, apy- show that “the meanings of derivatives in this group are close to the meanings of grammatical degree forms” (DLKG 225).

²⁸ Diskusiją šiuo klausimu žr. Skardžius 1997: 433–439; 1998a: 706.

²⁹ DLKG calls tamsta a personal primary/politeness pronoun (DLKG 257, 259), while Albertas Rosinas calls it a participial pronoun expressing subjective evaluation (Rosinas 1996: 38–44). For reasons why the calque tamsta may be perceived as a noun, see ibid., p. 44.

³⁰ These compound pronouns of indefiniteness with bi / by are popular in dialects (cf. LKG I 692–693), and have recently once again become established in colloquial standard language.

206

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębski Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

Some readers of OGJL3 may be surprised by the section on NUMERALS, in which the words abù, abi; abùdu, abìdvi³¹ are classified as cardinal numerals³² (ibid., 164), keleri, kėlerios; abeji, abejos as collective numerals (liczebniki zbiorowe), and keli, kelios as interrogative indefinite collective numerals³³ (ibid., 172, 173). The section on numerals discusses the use of words known as collective nouns, such as penketas, šešetas and the like, as well as keletas³⁴ (ibid., 174). It also describes derivatives formed from numerals and classified as adjectives, with the suffixes -opas, -okas, -eriopas, -gubas, -linkas, -lypas, -ergas, and so on (not only dve-jópas, trejópas, vieneriópas, vienókas, but also tūleriópas, -a ‘variegated, multicolored’, dvigubas, dvilinkas, dvilýpis, ketvérgis and the like (ibid., 175–176), as well as adverbs derived from numerals, such as dviese, añtra, dvėja tiek, antraip, dvėj aip, dùkart, dùsyk and the like (ibid., 177–178).

The description of the VERB is striking for its variety of material: as throughout the grammar, it presents not only data from contemporary Lithuanian, but also interesting facts from Old Lithuanian and the dialects (cf., for example, góti, gója, gójo ‘to walk quickly’ (ibid., 214)), with particular attention to the Tverėčius dialect (for example, the dialect’s tendency to use short verb forms (cf. išėjo: išė) is illustrated by a complete conjugation paradigm of padabójau: padabáu, padėjau: padéu (ibid., 217)). OGJL3 gives, without indicating dialectal usage, the conjugation paradigm of the verb gręsti ‘to threaten, to intimidate’, which is considered intransitive in standard Lithuanian: grėsiau, grėsei, grėsė, grėsėme, grėsėte (ibid., 216). J. Otrębski discusses verb root vowel alternation patterns in detail, cf.: málti: mãla, mãlė and dialectal mãlo, and lėisti: léidžia: léido and dialectal léi-dė (ibid., 208–209)). The author of OGJL offers a distinctive interpretation of contemporary Lithuanian

³¹ DLKG classifies abu, abi, abejì, abejos as positive generalizing pronouns (DLKG 257).

³²Both, both’s classification as a numeral was considered unjustified by A. Rosinas: “the semantic analysis of these words shows that they mean ‘all’, i.e. have a pronominal meaning, and are used when a set consists of two elements” (Rosinas 1995: 47). According to this scholar, few linguists in Lithuanian grammatical descriptions classify both as pronouns; among the few who do, he names K. Būga and P. Skardžius (Rosinas 2001: 101). And indeed, both, both are classified as numerals not only in earlier works (cf., for example, Jonikas 1939: 63, Endzelynas 1957: 142, Senkus 2006: 245, 248, Senn (1966: 214)), but also in current works on Lithuanian linguistics, cf. Smoczyński 2007: 2, Stundžia 2009: 84; 254, Dini 2014: 149.

³³ DLKG considers keleri, kėlerios indefinite pronouns, while keli, kelios are interrogative and relative pronouns (DLKG 257). Rosinas describes the pronouns keli, keletas, keleri, keliolika as definite count pronouns (Rosinas 1996: 120).

³⁴ DLKG calls the pronoun keletas an indefinite, non-specific pronoun (DLKG 257); Rosinas classifies it as a definite pronoun, which “indicates the number of elements selected only very imprecisely” (Rosinas 1996: 119).

Straipsniai / Articles

207

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

the paradigm of the future tense³⁵ (ibid., 205) and the origin of the frequentative past tense³⁶ (ibid., 222–224). OGJL3 provides an extensive account of the variety and origin of the forms of the subjunctive mood (OPTATYVUS)³⁷ and their syntactic expression (CONDITIONALIS) (ibid., 230–234). In describing reflexive constructions (the reflexive particle si is called a pronoun³⁸), OGJL3 focuses on the use of reflexive constructions in Lithuanian and Polish (ibid., 236, 237) and in other Indo-European languages (ibid., 239). J. Otrębski pays close attention to various modifications in the standard language and dialects, as well as to the explanation of word origins (cf. his remarks on the change of –si- into –s- or –z-, e.g. pazbārā, ačigulė, or his observation that similar modifications in Lithuanian literary language are sometimes no longer directly connected, cf. stvėrti alongside tvėrti ‘to seize’, whose etymological connection is with *nu-s(i)-tverti-s(i) and the borderland form nustvėrtis, or susizgribti ‘to catch hold of, to become aware’, which is most likely derived from *su-s(i)-gribti-s(i): griebti ‘to seize’ (ibid., 238)). The author of OGJL stresses that the supine (SUPINUM) is used only in dialects (ibid., 243–244), and chooses a Lithuanian term for the description of the BŪDINIAI, explaining its meaning (and noting that another label, INFINITIVUS II, is no longer in use), highlighting the form’s verbal expression (noting that it does not occur fused with a prefix, negation, or reflexive marker) and its adverbial functions³⁹ (ibid., 244–245). In the chapter on the verb, J. Otrębski discusses PARTICIPIUM NECESSITATIS, calling them passive participles⁴⁰ and pointing out that certain formations in the suffix –inas have lost their participial meaning and acquired an adjectival meaning (cf. būtinas, dirbtinas) (ibid., 273–274). In describing neuter participles—PARTICIPIA W FORMACH NEUTRUM—the author of OGJL also pauses to note the alleged particle meaning ‘supposedly, as if, seemingly’⁴¹, cf. Ji, esą, to nežinanti. ‘Ona jakoby tego nie wie.’ (ibid., 274).

³⁵ For Jonas Kazlauskas’s view that J. Otrębski considers it “a mixture of several different Indo-European categories,” see Kazlauskas 1968: 366.

³⁶ Aldona Paulauskienė disagrees with J. Otrębski, who derived the frequentative past-tense suffix -dav “from derivational past iterative forms with the suffix -av and the infixed consonant d” (see Paulauskienė 2006: 61–62, 84).

³⁷ Šį aiškinimą Kazlauskas pavadino neįtikinėtinu (žr. Kazlauskas 1968: 399).

³⁸ This is common in works on the history of language, cf. “In form, the reflexive pronoun [...] had two variants: s(i) and se” (Palionis 1967: 140).

³⁹ Būdiniai are discussed in DLKG in much the same way (with emphasis on their characteristically adverbial functions and the verbal expression of the form), but in the chapter on adverbs rather than verbs (DLKG 413–414).

⁴⁰ At the beginning of the chapter devoted to the participle in DLKG, we find a note that grammars classify the verbal necessity form among passive participles, although, in meaning, such forms “stand in opposition to all participles” (DLKG 354–355).

⁴¹ For discussion of esą(s), which has become a sentence adverb (particle) marking the rendering of another person’s words, see Holvoet 2004: 113–114.

208

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębski Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

Adverbs are discussed compactly and concisely, in derivational or etymological groups; examples of less common usage are provided, and meaning is often illustrated not merely with a single-word translation (cf. the pronominal-origin vis ‘here’; vis dėlto ‘however’, konè, kuonè ‘hardly (ever)’), but also with an illustrative phrase or sentence (see ibid., 297–298).

Prepositions and prefixes are described together⁴² (ibid., 308–357). J. Otrębski gives different Polish equivalents for the same preposition, e.g. Kaip dur-nius su̇ grandele ‘Jak dureń z kółeczkiem (ogniwiem)’; Gimė eriukai su̇ šešiomis kojomis ‘Urodziły się jagnięta o sześciu nogach’ (ibid., 340). More interesting cases of reduplication found in dialects are also discussed here (e.g. papanurińko, papa-grįžo) (ibid., 357); the use of prepositions in Baltic and Slavic, and in Lithuanian and Polish, is compared; the tendency in Lithuanian to avoid prepositional combinations is noted, with only iš po, iš už, iš anapus mentioned (ibid., 356); and it is suggested that the less frequent use of prepositions than in Slavic languages may be due to the non-prepositional Lithuanian dative and locative (ibid., 357).

Conjunctions and particles are discussed in the chapter SPÓJNIKI I PARTYKUŁY (ibid., 358–370), while interjections and onomatopoeic words⁴³ are covered in the chapter WYKRZYKNIKI (see ibid., 371–377).

2.2. 1958: The First Volume Introductory Remarks. Phonetics (Wiadomości wstępne. Nauka o głoskach)

In the Preface to this volume, readers are told not only about the aims behind the structure and conception of OGJL1, but also those of the entire Grammar; explanations are also provided about the previously published OGJL3 volume, the main linguistic sources used in OGJL are identified⁴⁴, thanks are extended to those who encouraged and assisted with the writing of the grammar (including his wife, Helena Otrębska), as well as to those who reviewed the OGJL3 volume (OGJL1 XI–XII). Lithuanian is described as providing important data for research on Indo-European languages and the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, and as being, in terms of its significance for Indo-European studies, on a par with Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, and Gothic (ibid., VII). Discussing up to that point

⁴² The introductory remarks to OGJL2 discuss the reasons for this choice—the functional similarity, both current and historical, between prepositions and prefixes, and between adverbs and prepositions (see OGJL2 IX).

⁴³ The now customary distinction in descriptions of Lithuanian between two parts of speech (rather than just one, i.e. interjections alone) can be linked to the influence of Jonas Jablonskis’s grammar; compare its observation on the past imitative forms—imitative words (Jablonskis 1997: 189).

⁴⁴ J. Otrębski expressly singles out J. Endzelīns’s Ievads baltu filoloģijā (Riga, 1945) and E. Fraenkel’s Die baltischen Sprachen [...] (Heidelberg, 1950), which are close to his own in purpose.

Straipsniai / Articles

209

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

Having reviewed the Lithuanian grammars published up to that time (the descriptive grammars of Friedrich Kurschat, Kazimieras Jaunius, and Jonas Jablonskis; and those devoted to the Prussian variety of the language by August Schleicher, Oskar Wiedemann, and August Leskien), J. Otrębski emphasizes the need for a scholarly grammar of Lithuanian and mentions that his original plan had also been to write a descriptive grammar of modern Lithuanian, but that in the course of his work he came to understand that data from Lithuanian dialects and old Lithuanian writings also had to be included.

This volume consists of two parts: “Introductory Remarks” and “Phonetics.”

The “Introductory Remarks” describe the origin of the name Lithuania; provide essential information about the dialects (discussing their principal features, giving literary-language equivalents for some dialect words⁴⁵, and forecasting trends in the development of the dialects and literary language (ibid., 25–27)); and discuss the most important old Lithuanian writings, from Martynas Mažvydas’s catechism (1547) to Daniel Klein’s hymnbook and prayer books (1666) (ibid., 28–38). They also examine the relationship of Lithuanian to other languages (ibid., 39–71) and present the most important works on Lithuanian (grammars, dictionaries, and other significant general and specialized works) (ibid., 72–100).

In the “Phonetics” section, J. Otrębski discusses letters and spelling (ibid., 101–110), the pronunciation of vowels and consonants, including pitch accents and stress (ibid., 110–148); this section also presents substantial, wide-ranging chapters of the grammar devoted to vocalism (ibid., 149–255) and consonantism (ibid., 256–394). They reveal the author’s exceptional ability to notice variation. The illustrative material is presented on at least three levels—literary language, dialects, and the old language—and is often accompanied by parallel examples from other Indo-European languages.

2.3. 1965: Volume Two Word Formation (Nauka o budowie wyrazów)⁴⁶

The most recently published volume of OGJL2 is devoted to word formation. In the introduction to this volume, the author again expresses his gratitude to H. Otrębska for her substantial assistance in writing the grammar and emphasizes the importance of the factual Lithuanian-language data she provided (OGJL2 VII)). Here J. Otrębski admits that the extensive scope of the material under study, work with sources, and other commitments required as many as ten years

⁴⁵ Cf. comparisons of Samogitian and literary-language lexical equivalents: apgerbti – aptvarkyti, vėpūtinis – pusnis, kampas – lankas, and so on (OGJL1 13–15).

⁴⁶ On OGJL2, see Skardžius 1998a: 843–851.

210

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębskio Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

for the preparation of OGJL2. Emphasizing that while writing OGJL2 he constantly drew on two earlier descriptions of Lithuanian word formation—A. Leskien’s Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen (1891) and, especially, P. Skardžius’s Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba (1943)—J. Otrębski notes that in this presentation of word formation he sought to focus on the state of the matters discussed in contemporary literary Lithuanian, while the many illustrations from old texts (especially from DP) show the relationship between facts of the present-day literary language and earlier linguistic data. In the preface to OGJL2, the author expresses the hope that readers will understand for themselves how his work differs from P. Skardžius’s study, on which it draws (ibid., VII).

Indeed, even a cursory comparison of P. Skardžius’s and J. Otrębski’s works shows that, although most of the factual material in the two studies overlaps, OGJL2’s overall structure, additional interpretations, and hypotheses allow readers to recognize the superiority of J. Otrębski’s work. OGJL2 consists of three parts: the first discusses reduplicative formations (e.g., pilpinỹtėlis, saussausỹtėlis, gergeris, mažmožis, skan(s)konis, kryžkryžiais, priešpriešais), coalescences, and compounds (ibid., 1–28); the second, suffixal formation of nouns and adjectives (ibid., 29–306); and the third, verb formation (ibid., 307–416). P. Skardžius’s study divides its material somewhat differently: General Matters (see Skardžius 1996: 13–25), Formation of Nominal Stems (ibid., 26–392), Formation of Nominal Compounds (ibid., 393–456), Formation of Verbal Infinitive Stems (ibid., 457–555), and Natural Word Formation and Neologisms (ibid., 556–606). J. Otrębski’s exposition is more rational and informative, and places less of a burden on readers with dialectal references transferred from the LKŽ card index. Examples from old texts are also carried over from P. Skardžius’s work into OGJL2⁴⁷, but new ones are often included alongside them. P. Skardžius sought to group factual material on word-formation patterns alphabetically, whereas J. Otrębski used a thematic principle that brings out semantic nuances⁴⁸. Most of the formations in both authors’ works

⁴⁷ For example, references to K. Sirvydas’s dictionary, and occasionally even examples from DP (OGJL2 231, 233; cf. also the entry for akmenyčia in J. Otrębski (ibid., 258) and P. Skardžius (Skardžius 1996: 357)). Data from old texts noted by J. Otrębski himself are most often drawn from DP; the intensity with which examples from this source are used is reflected even in a change in their source notation: halfway through the OGJL2 volume, instead of the full source reference, the abbreviation “w PD” is used. Other old texts also provide examples not requested by P. Skardžius; cf. the note on the word pl. atū́oriečiai ‘pszenica jara’, already recorded in K. Sirvydas’s dictionary (OGJL2 19).

⁴⁸ Cf., for example, the description in OGJL2 (177–178) of derivatives with the suffix –ena denoting a fallen creature (dvėsena, gaišena, puolena, stipena), or with this suffix plus the additional morpheme –el- (dvėselena, stipelena, merlena), as well as words denoting the separation of parts from an actual object—lūženos, pjūvenos, sviltenos—and compare it with P. Skardžius’s description of the corresponding derivatives (Skardžius 1996: 228, 232). J. Otrębski brings semantic features more clearly to the fore. A similar presentation of noun formation organized according to groups of objects can also be found in LKG and DLKG.

Straipsniai / Articles

211

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

In these works, they are evaluated and described similarly; some are developed further by J. Otrębski⁴⁹ (for example, prefixal derivation⁵⁰), often supplemented with new data and interpreted in their own way⁵¹.

3. FEATURES OF OGJL’S GRAMMATICAL DESCRIPTION

3.1. Terminology

The impression of simplicity and universality of the grammatical description in OGJL is enhanced by Latin terminology denoting the most general concepts, e.g.: neutra, dat. sg., passivum, participium necessitatis, futurum, futurum exactum, genetivus auctoris (only Latin terminology is used to designate cases), and so on (OGJL3 37, 234, 235, 273, 275, 281). Naturally, this grammar also uses Polish designations for grammatical phenomena (for example, parts of speech: rzeczownik, przymiotnik, zaimek, and so on), which are sometimes used interchangeably with Latin ones (cf. rodzaju żeńskiego,go, replaced by the Latin feminina or its abbreviation f.). The distinctiveness of some Lithuanian grammatical phenomena is emphasized even by the Lithuanian term chosen for a section heading; cf. the previously mentioned BŪDINĮ (ibid., 244). J. Otrębski replaces some terms used in Lithuanian grammatical descriptions with ones he prefers; for example, the term desiderative mood, corresponding to ‘tryb życzenia’, is replaced by PERMISSIVUS, the subjunctive mood ‘coniunctivus’ by CONDITIONALIS, and so on (ibid., 263). In describing word formation, J. Otrębski draws on the terminology for word compounds used in the Indo-Europeanist tradition, briefly describing it (cf. the treatment of the dwandwa-m bahuvrīhi type (OGJL2 8–9, 23)), or includes an illustration of the Lithuanian formation pattern in the heading (cf. word formations of the aki-pleša type (NOMINA AGENTIS), word formations of the aki-mirka type (NOMINA ACTIONIS) (ibid., 11, 13)).

⁴⁹ For example, keršas is described in both authors’ works as an adjective with the suffix -š- (cf. Skardžius 1996: 315; OGJL2 223), but J. Otrębski discusses it alongside reduplicative formations, as consisting of two primary words of similar meaning. Some items are assigned to different derivational types; cf. geležis, dialectal gelžis, which J. Otrębski discusses alongside reduplicative formations as interesting forms composed of two primary words of similar meaning (OGJL2 4), whereas P. Skardžius discusses them in his account of -is derivatives (Skardžius 1996: 51).

⁵⁰ Most of this type of formation, found in OGJL2, is absent from P. Skardžius’s work; cf. derivatives formed from prepositional phrases, e.g. įnamys, ančtelis ‘brzeg drogi’ and so on (OGJL2 19).

⁵¹ Cf., for example, the additional discussion included with the derivatives in -bas, -ba concerning šlubas (:klubas) (OGJL2 230).

212

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębskio Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

3.2. Nature of the Illustrations

OGJL’s distinctive character is due to its wide range of examples: examples from spoken language showing differences from the official literary Lithuanian of the period and its usage are often presented side by side⁵². Illustrations also draw on dialect data⁵³ that show language variation⁵⁴ (from Tverečius and Pagramantis⁵⁵, and less often from elsewhere⁵⁶) and data from early Lithuanian writings (OGJL can also be called a grammar describing the language of Daukša’s Postilė (1599)), usually accompanied by precise source references⁵⁷. J. Otrębski does not hesitate to survey phenomena of Lithuanian grammatical expression against the broader background of the Indo-European languages⁵⁸.

3.3. Relationship to the tradition of grammatical description of Lithuanian

OGJL3, which appeared first, provided no information about the general principles of this grammar and, unsurprisingly, was striking for its sparse references to earlier grammatical works

⁵² Cf. the full and shortened forms—the vocative brālau and brā (OGJL3 1), or the locative kelyjė / kelý, rugiuosė / rugiuõs (ibid., 21).

⁵³ Cf. the double variants of adjectives: lipnus / lipus, prašnūs / prašūs, kalbnus / kalbus, skaudrus / skaudus, skubrus / skubus; or the threefold expression of the present tense of the verb kosėti: kosti, kosi, kosėja (OGJL2 61, 363).

⁵⁴ Cf. the discussion of vocative forms in OGJL3 (p. 15), explanations concerning the pronunciation of māmā (ibid., 25), or the variants of the noun velnias in the literary-language vocative forms—velnė, vel’ne—and the dialectal form velnỹ (ibid., 21).

⁵⁵ Apie šį žemaičių dūnininkų tarmės plotą žr. Jonikas (1939: 2–7). Kad Pagramančio tarmės duomenų šaltiniu J. Otrębškiui buvo P. Joniko Pagramančio tarmė, rodo joje ir OGJL3 aptariamų kalbos vartojimo faktų sutapt ys, pavyzdžiui, sangrąžos dalelytės nukėlimą į žodžio galą konstrukcijose su neiginiu demonstruojantis nemuškias ‘nesimušk’, žr. Jonikas 1939: 66 ir OGJL3 237. Vėliau pasirodžiusiame OGJL1 J. Otrębskis nurodo, kad žemaičių tarmės pavyzdžius (tik kiek supaprastinęs rašybą) teikia remdamasis minėtuoju P. Joniko darbu (OGJL1 13).

⁵⁶ Cf., for example, the dialect data cited from the Alytus and Seinai counties (OGJL2 61), Dieveniškės, Ramygala, Debeikiai, and so on (OGJL3 14).

⁵⁷ OGJL also contains abstract references (for example, from Knygos nobāžnystės, Margarita theologica and Bretkūnas’s translation of the Bible (OGJL3 181, 224, 236)), as well as specific references to data from old writings (for example, from Knygos nobāžnystės (OGJL2 156), the 1600 postil (ibid., 176), the anonymous 1605 catechism (OGJL3 181), Chylinski’s New Testament (ibid., 187), Mažvydas’s catechism, Daukša’s catechism (ibid., 231), Sirvydas’s Dictionarium (ibid., 357, 361), and Sirvydas’s Punktų sakymų (ibid., 361)).

⁵⁸ Cf. the remark that Lithuanian comparative forms in -esnis, f. -esnė have no exact equivalent in other Indo-European languages (OGJL3 127), or the remark on the reciprocal genetic relationship between Slavic languages, in the discussion of the subjunctive forms butumbi, dotumbi (ibid., 231).

Straipsniai / Articles

213

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

mention⁵⁹. In the prefaces written for the later volumes, J. Otrębski names his preferred authors—A. Leskien, P. Skardžius, J. Endzelīns, and E. Fraenkel—but mentions them very rarely in the text itself⁶⁰. This pattern is fairly common in grammars of a classical kind, which provide only a general list of the literature used. Admittedly, J. Otrębski did not live to prepare such a list for his readers, but much of it can be inferred from the survey of Lithuanian studies in OGJL1 and the notes in the prefaces to OGJL1 and OGJL2.

4. EVALUATIONS OF OGJL AND POSSIBLE FUTURE WORK

OGJL can be described as a fairly modern grammar in the classical style, in which a wide range of Lithuanian-language data is represented both comprehensively and judiciously. Its rational, uncluttered style of grammatical description, along with its hypothetical and cautious approach, has allowed OGJL to remain readable and relevant. J. Otrębski and his OGJL received praise⁶¹ and criticism⁶², and its broad scope was probably what kept it from ever receiving a serious review. OGJL has been, is, and will be read as needed. J. Otrębski’s data on Old and Modern Lithuanian, and his description of them, served in the preparation of later works⁶³; the ideas and insights he put forward

⁵⁹ There are only a few such mentions in volume OGJL3: references to the works of D. Klein, K. Jaunius, and J. Jablonskis (OGJL3 6, 9, 253).

⁶⁰ Cf. the reference to A. Leskien found in OGJL2 (OGJL2 387).

⁶¹ Antanas Salys described J. Otrębski as “a good, distinguished specialist in the Lithuanian language” (see Salys 1985: 29 [opinion expressed before 1965]); Jonas Kazlauskas called him one of the most prominent Balticists of the twentieth century (alongside K. Būga, J. Endzelīns, E. Fraenkel, and Ch. Stang), cf. Kazlauskas (1968: 108); Algirdas Sabaliauskas called OGJL a truly impressive study of the structure of the Lithuanian language (see Sabaliauskas 1982: 150).

⁶² P. Skardžius, one of the opponents who had the most criticisms (albeit rather scattered and petty ones) of J. Otrębski and his grammar, was not always able to suppress his personal grievances (cf. Skardžius 1998a: 701–708, 741–745, 851) and bitterness, which were most clearly revealed in the conclusion of his 1972 review of volume I of Gramatika lietuvių kalbos, published in the journal Draugas: “Thus, this entire grammar (i.e., volume I of LKG—J. P.), though not a historical study, is a very important grammatical contribution to the study of the Lithuanian language and, at the same time, to Baltic studies and comparative Indo-European linguistics; by comparison, even the three-volume Gramatyka języka litewskiego. published by J. Otrębski pales considerably” (Skardžius 1998: 540–541).

⁶³ Cf. the frequent references to OGJL in Zigmas Zinkevičius’s Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (Zinkevičius 1980, 1981).

214

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębskio Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

discussed⁶⁴, disputed⁶⁵, and pointed out not only in earlier but also in the most recent⁶⁶ grammatical studies of the Lithuanian language and/or reviews of them.

Fifty years after the publication of the latest OGJL volume, it would be desirable to have indexes of the word forms in OGJL. Modern technological possibilities make it possible to make better use of the wealth of the Lithuanian language presented in OGJL than J. Otrębski himself envisaged. An electronic bilingual (Lithuanian–Polish), or even bidirectional (with reverse searches for Lithuanian word forms using Polish equivalents), word-form index would enable efficient use of the description offered by OGJL⁶⁷ and would also constitute a comprehensive bilingual dictionary⁶⁸, bringing together various word forms⁶⁹ and meanings⁷⁰, and highlighting synonymous and/or antonymous lexical relations⁷¹.

Alongside the activation of the full OGJL word index, there is another possibility—publishing OGJL3 in Lithuanian: the electronic publication could also become the Lithuanian translation of OGJL3, authorized by J. Balčikonis and held at Vilnius University Library. It is true that the illustrative examples in the Lithuanian version of OGJL3 prepared by J. Balčikonis have no Polish equivalents. This sometimes encouraged the translator to be creative, but, on the other hand, those Polish equivalents are sorely missed in describing some (especially less common) meanings of Lithuanian words.

⁶⁴ Cf. LKG I 487, Mažiulis 1970: 132, 185, Kazlauskas 1968: 127, 176, 198, Paulauskienė 1979: 141, 159.

⁶⁵ Cf. Kazlauskas 1968: 399, Mažiulis 1970: 54, 210, 220, 228.

⁶⁶ E.g.: Ambrazas 2006: 105, 283, 314, 353, 445, 481; Judžentis 2012: 36, 169; Arkadiev, Holvoet, Wiemer 2015: 21, 36.

⁶⁷ As an example, one may cite the index to P. Skardžius’s Collected Works, which greatly facilitates engagement with this author’s works (see Skardžius 2013).

⁶⁸ An example and prototype of such a project is the Thesaurus Latino-Lituanicus: A Unified Latin–Lithuanian Dictionary from the Seventeenth to the Twenty-First Century, prepared at the Center for Digital Philology of the Faculty of Philology, Vilnius University; for more, see http://www.thesaurus.flf.vu.lt/

⁶⁹ For example, J. Otrębski gives the word vienintelis with the meaning ‘samiutki’. He further emphasizes this vienintelis meaning ‘solitary’ with other derivatives of the root vien-: vienui vienas ‘samiuteńki’, vienintėlis, vienėtėlis, vienūtis, vienutėlis, vienutūkas, vienužis, vičvienas, vičvienaitis (OGJL3 131, 132). And cf. the equivalent for vienintelis given in the Lithuanian–Polish Dictionary: ‘jedyny’ (LLKŽ 540).

⁷⁰ OGJL provides detailed Polish equivalents for Lithuanian examples, e.g.: graudūs, -i ‘kruchy, tkliwy, rzewny, gorzki’ (OGJL3 95); tuščias, -ia ‘próżny, pusty, bezużyteczny’ (ibid., 93); not only common but also rarer meanings are given (e.g. bėrnas ‘młodzieniec; kawaler; parobek’ (ibid., 11), pusėtinas, -a ‘porządny, przyzwoity’ (ibid., 102)), as well as faded meanings (e.g. šokis, meaning not only ‘tanec’ but also ‘skok’ = ‘jump’ (ibid., 19)), and meanings of words that are disappearing, e.g.: eidinėti ‘chodzić’, eidinińkas ‘dobry piechur’ (ibid., 272); dialectal pagáulūs, -i ‘pojętny’ (ibid., 110); negeróji ‘nieszczęście’, kreivóji ‘linia krzywa’, and the like (ibid., 111).

⁷¹ Cf., for example, the antonymy between opus <->rambus that emerges from the OGJL description: opùs, -i ‘wrażliwy, czuły; trudny do gojenia’; [...] rambùs, -i ‘nieczuły, niewrażliwy na bicie’ (OGJL3 97).

Straipsniai / Articles

215

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

SUMMARY

OGJL can be regarded as retaining its scholarly value. For those studying contemporary language, and especially those codifying it, this grammar demonstrates the necessity of relying on the whole of the living language and of not forgetting a general understanding of language history. Reading J. Otrębski’s “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” is continually accompanied by the impression that it was written with the aim of sharing knowledge, and that this was done with pleasure. OGJL may therefore be called a grammar that is both interesting and enjoyable to read.

Models of linguistic description are constantly changing, and over longer periods approaches to the material being described also change considerably. This article therefore seeks to draw attention to the distinctive features of the work prepared by J. Otrębski at the time it was written, and to discuss the more notable similarities and differences observed between this and later published grammatical descriptions in their modeling or grouping and classification of material.

Grammars are not linear reading matter. The ordinary reader usually consults grammars only for material on a question that interests them. Accordingly, subject, word-form, and proper-name indexes facilitate the search for the content presented in a grammar, and especially for its factual material. OGJL particularly needs indexes because of the variety and extent of its illustrative material; the parallel Polish equivalents accompanying the examples also invite the idea of an online bilingual dictionary, which would at the same time bring J. Otrębski’s grammatical thought back to life. Such an index, accompanied by a facsimile excerpt from the relevant page of J. Otrębski’s grammar, could also resolve the problem of access to the text of OGJL, which is becoming a bibliographic rarity.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Ambrazas Vytautas 2006: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Arkadiev Peter, Holvoet Axel, Wiemer Björn 2015: Introduction Baltic Linguistics: State of the Art. – Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs), ed. by Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1–109. Prieiga internete: http://www.academia.edu/5617002/Baltic_linguistics_State_of_the_art

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281175671_Introduction._Baltic_linguistics_state_of_the_art

Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas 2011: šeštas (trečias elektroninis) leidimas. Kompaktinė plokštelė / redaktorių kolegija: Stasys Keinys (vyr. redaktorius), Laimutis Bilkis, Jonas Paulauskas, Vytautas Vitkauskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2006; internetinė versija http://dz.lki.lt

216

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębskio Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

Dini Pietro Umberto 2014: Foundations of Baltic Languages. Vilnius: Vilnius University.

DLKG – Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, fourth revised edition, ed. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2006 (1994).

Endzelīnas Jānis 1957 [1948]: Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Holvoet Axel 2004: Evidencialumo kategorija. – Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai, red. Axel Holvoet, Loreta Semėnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 105–120, 168–169. (= Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2.)

Jablonskis Jonas (Rygiškių Jonas) 1997 [1922]: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, trečiasis fotografuotinis leidimas. Vilnius: Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Jonikas Petras 1939: Pagramančio tarmė. Kaunas: Spindulio bendrovės spaustuvė.

Judžentis Artūras 2014: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinės kategorijos. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Kazlauskas Jonas 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Mintis.

Laigonaitė Adelė 1978: Lietuvių kalbos akcentologija. Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKE – Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, 2nd revised and expanded edition, compiled by Kazys Morkūnas, ed. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2008.

LKG I – Grammar of the Lithuanian Language. Phonetics and Morphology, editor-in-chief Kazys Ulvydas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1965.

LLKŽ – Lithuanian–Polish Dictionary, compiled by Algis Kalėda, Barbara Kalėdienė, Marija Niedzviecka. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991.

Mažiulis Vytautas 1970: Baltų ir kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų santykiai (Deklinacija). Vilnius: Mintis.

OGJL1 – Otrębsk Jan. Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1: Introductory Matters. The Study of Sounds. Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1958.

OGJL2 – Otrębsk Jan. Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 2: The Study of Word Structure. Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1965.

OGJL3 – Otrębsk Jan. Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 3: The Study of Forms. Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1956.

Palionis Jonas 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a. Vilnius: Mintis.

Paulauskienė Aldona 1979: Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio kategorijos, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Straipsniai / Articles

217

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

Paulauskienė Aldona 2006: Pirmosios lietuvių kalbos gramatikos. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.

Rosinas Albertas 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Rosinas Albertas 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Rosinas Albertas 2001: Mikalojau(s) Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1982: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija. 1940–1980 m. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Salys Antanas 1985: Baltų kalbos, tautos ir kiltys. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Senkus Juozas 2006: Kalbotyros darbai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Senn Alfred 1966: Handbuch der litauischen Sprache 1: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag.

Skardžius Pranas 1996 [1943]: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Skardžius Pranas 1997: Rinktiniai raštai 2. Bendrinės kalbos dalykai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Skardžius Pranas 1998: Rinktiniai raštai 3. Bendrinės kalbos kultūra. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Skardžius Pranas 1998: Rinktiniai raštai 4. Moksliniai straipsniai ir studijos. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Skardžius Pranas 2013: Rinktiniai raštai 7. Rodyklės ir bibliografija, par. Eglė Žilinskaitė-Šinkūnienė, Mindaugas Šinkūnas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Smoczyński Wojciech 2007: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas.

Stundžia Bonifacas 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Stundžia Bonifacas 2009: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos akcentologija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 1. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1981: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 2. Vilnius: Mokslas.

218

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Jano Otrębskio Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): istorija ir dabartis

Jan Otrębski’s Gramatyka języka litewskiego (III – 1956, I – 1958, II – 1965): History and Today

SUMMARY

The article discusses the process of publishing of a three-volume Lithuanian grammar by a famous Polish linguist Jan Otrębski (1889–1971), the composition of grammatical description, its peculiarities and evaluations. The type of this grammar enables us to create both an index of word forms used in the grammar and an index of their parallel Polish equivalents. A modern electronic word-form index-dictionary would add to the viability of J. Otrębski’s grammatical thought and would be an excellent lexicographical source of Lithuanian-Polish languages and a teaching aid. Such an index with a facsimile segment of a relevant page from J. Otrębski’s grammar would also contribute to the solution of the problem of accessibility of the text of this grammar.

Received on 22 May 2015.

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania

[email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

219