ALDONAS PUPKIS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: history of linguistics, prescriptive linguistics, dialectology, lexicography.

ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF JUOZAS BALČIKONIS AND JAN OTRĘBSKI

About the Relationship Between Juozas Balčikonis and Jan Otrębski

ANNOTATION

The article discusses the scholarly collaboration between two well-known Lithuanian linguists, Juozas Balčikonis and Jan Otrębski. Based on documentary sources, it seeks to establish the beginning of this collaboration and how it developed thereafter. It reveals how the two linguists assessed each other’s work and the extent to which their relationship influenced the study and practical use of the Lithuanian language; it also makes it possible to shed further light on some of their linguistic views.

KEYWORDS: Balčikonis, Otręmbskis (Otrębski), lexicography, grammar, standard language.

ANNOTATION

The article discusses the scientific cooperation of two prominent linguists of the Lithuanian language, Juozas Balčikonis and Jan Otrębski. Based on documentary sources, it attempts to trace the beginning of their cooperation and their further communication. It becomes clear how the two linguists evaluated the works of each other; how much influence their relationship had on the science and practice of the Lithuanian language; the article also creates conditions to reveal certain linguistic positions followed by them in a broader way.

KEYWORDS: Balčikonis, Otrębski, lexicography, grammar, standard language.

Straipsniai / Articles

41

ALDONAS PUPKIS

One of the questions in the history of science concerns collaboration among scholars in the same field. Each case is specific: a teacher collaborates differently with a student, a student with a teacher, and specialists in the same field with one another. Yet in every case, scholarly relations, friendship, or fellowship have their own character; they allow us to take a broader view of the history of that field, reveal unexpected aspects, and refine certain theoretical views or personal traits of those who collaborated.

A reading of Juozas Balčikonis’s writings and correspondence shows that, in terms of scholarly interests, the professor appears to have communicated chiefly with the Russian linguist Mikhail Peterson (1885–1962) and the Polish linguist Jan Otrębski (Jan Otrębski, 1889–1971). Balčikonis held his younger colleague Otrębski in exceptionally high regard, at times trusting his opinion perhaps too unreservedly; he even resolved to translate into Lithuanian the “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” written by the Polish linguist.

It has not yet been established when Balčikonis became acquainted with Otrębski. It may be surmised that their first, indirect acquaintance began through Elena Samaniūtė (Horodničūtė). As is known, while completing her studies at Vilnius University, Samaniūtė wrote her diploma thesis on the language of Konstantinas Sirvydas’s writings. The work was supervised by the university professor Otrębski, and the graduate successfully defended it in 1934. The professor’s acquaintance with his graduate student did not end with that work, and they continued to communicate.

It was probably the work of compiling the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language that brought Samaniūtė together with Balčikonis. Having taken on the duties of editor of that dictionary, Balčikonis began working to supplement the card file left by Kazimieras Būga with material from dialects and from books and manuscripts Būga had not collected. He was also interested in the archives of Vilnius University and the Lithuanian Scientific Society in the territory then occupied by Poland. It is known that before the war Balčikonis himself travelled to Vilnius on dictionary-related business more than once; there he may have met Samaniūtė and perhaps Otrębski as well, but no documents confirming this have been found.

Otrębski may have encouraged Samaniūtė not to abandon her study of the language of Sirvydas’s writings, and so she resolved to discuss it with Balčikonis, whom she already knew. Her correspondence with Balčikonis may well have begun precisely over Sirvydas, no later than 1938. For instance, in a letter to her dated March 28 of that year, Balčikonis wrote that there were no plans to publish Sirvydas’s dictionary in Kaunas. But if it were to be published for her (at her own expense), its intended purpose would have to be taken into account: whether it was intended for scholarship or practical use. “If you should ever be in Kaunas, we could talk at greater length about the purpose of the edition and the work involved” (Balčikonis 1982: 274). These matters were probably also discussed at greater length during Samaniūtė’s visit to Kaunas in late 1938 or early 1939. In a letter dated March 15, 1938, Balčikonis wrote to her: “Please do not be afraid of imposing: on the contrary, I am very pleased if I can be of service to you in any way. I am enclosing separately an extract concerning the words ‘žmonės’, ‘gimti’, ‘praminti’ that interest Prof. Otrębski” (Balčikonis 1982:

42

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Apie Juozo Balčikonio ir Jano Otrembskio santykius

278). These words confirm that Samaniūtė was undoubtedly an intermediary between the two linguists and, through Balčikonis, also attended to Otrębski’s affairs. The two linguists probably met in person only later, in Vilnius, when the Institute of the Lithuanian Language moved there from Kaunas in November 1940. In the autumn of 1942, Otrębski, as a representative of Vilnius University, was invited to join the Academic Advisory Commission established at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language for the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (for more on it, see Pupkis 2013: 172).

At this point, it may be worth briefly recalling that after the Institute of Lithuanian Studies was founded in 1939 and the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language editorial office was incorporated into the Institute, the younger linguists Antanas Salys and, especially, Pranas Skardžius tried to take the dictionary’s affairs under their wing. Accustomed to working independently and without outside supervision, Balčikonis wanted to preserve the autonomy of the dictionary’s preparation and resisted interference in his work. He was particularly irritated by the constant talk of changing the spelling, proposed mainly by Skardžius. When it proved impossible to influence the dictionary editor otherwise, an Academic Advisory Commission was formed at the Institute in the autumn of 1942 to advise those preparing the dictionary. Balčikonis did not object to substantive advice, but when the text of Volume II of the dictionary was already well into typesetting, he categorically opposed the demand that its spelling be changed. Archival documents show that Otrębski, a member of the commission, tried to reconcile the two sides; he went to consult Salys and Skardžius with the intention of making peace, but the excessive ambitions of both sides made this impossible.

Balčikonis trusted Otrębski greatly; the latter’s opinion was beyond question for him. For example, it is known that, on Otrębski’s advice, the dictionary editor was prepared to indicate the origin of loanwords from Volume II onward not with the abbreviations sl., germ., but by giving the word in the other language from which the foreign word derived (Lyberis 2009: 272). He followed Otrębski’s advice in several other instances as well. Kostas Vosylius, one of the dictionary editorial office’s employees, later acknowledged that “the urgency of the dictionary was largely due to the acquaintance between Prof. B[a]čikonis] and Otr[embskis]” (Lyberis 2009: 381).

Because of disagreements with the Scientific Editorial Commission, Balčikonis withdrew from the dictionary project and left for his homeland. In the autumn, as the Russians reoccupied Vilnius, Balčikonis returned from his homeland. Of the well-known linguists, he found only Otrębski there; the others had gone west. Balčikonis had to organize academic affairs at Vilnius University and work to revive the dictionary project at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. As documents show, a considerable number of Otrębski’s proposals were also incorporated into the Institute’s work plans. For example, in the 1944–1945 academic work plan, Balčikonis included the publication of Part II of Otrębski’s description of the Tverečius dialect—the dictionary and texts. In addition, a dictionary of Lithuanian etymology and studies of the language of Mikalojaus Daukša’s “Postilė” were listed as joint projects of the two linguists. Unfortunately, these works were not published, because a year later Otrębski decided to return to Poland. There is no doubt that Balčikonis tried to dissuade his friend from taking that step. Here is an excerpt from a letter by Balčikonis from 1945.

Straipsniai / Articles

43

ALDONAS PUPKIS

From the letter of November 12 to Otrembski in Poland, it is clear that in Vilnius hope had not yet been abandoned that Otrembski would remain in Lithuania. Balčikonis wrote: “The faculty is waiting for you, as are cigars, cigarettes, and other good things. I am sending a little for your journey to Vilnius. Have a safe return” (VUB RS, f. 124–365). The letter also contains a postscript by Juozas Senkus about the grammar by Janis Endzelīns that had been received for Otrembski, as well as the words: “We are all waiting for you. I would like to consult with you on the topic ‘Two-syllable Lithuanian personal names’” (VUB RS, f. 124–365), about which Senkus thought he would write a dissertation. Unfortunately, they failed to persuade Otrembski to remain in Vilnius.

A considerable number of handwritten and published documents have survived from the two linguists’ correspondence. One such unpublished text is an article handwritten by Otrembski on March 18, 1945 (which also demonstrates his excellent command of Lithuanian) for the celebration of Balčikonis’s 60th birthday (BNA). From later years it is known that Balčikonis disliked celebrations of his anniversaries and firmly opposed them. Otrembski’s text therefore raises many questions: why did Balčikonis agree—perhaps Otrembski persuaded him? And, finally, did the event actually take place?

There can be no doubt about the latter question; clear testimony exists. Discussing Balčikonis’s translation work, Dominykas Urbas (1966) writes that Prof. Otrembski spoke very beautifully about it during the celebration of Balčikonis’s sixtieth birthday. Urbas quotes (rather than paraphrases) precisely the passage in question from Otrembski’s text (pp. 2–3) about Balčikonis’s translations. It would hardly have been physically possible to take down this long quotation during the celebration itself, so one can only suppose that it may have been copied from a manuscript at Balčikonis’s home. Or perhaps there was a photographed text, although that would hardly have been possible in those days.

Whatever the case, this text (see the facsimile of the manuscript in Fig. 1), which had already begun to circulate in scholarly circles, is important both for shedding light on the two linguists’ relationship and, more broadly, for supplementing the history of Lithuanian linguistics; it therefore merits fuller discussion.

The text begins: “Today’s celebration is also a festival of the Lithuanian language. Only those who truly understand the significance of the Lithuanian language [...] can understand this celebration. It is significant above all for the Lithuanian nation” (p. 1). Otrembskis goes on to write that, several centuries earlier, the father of written and standard Lithuanian, Daukša, had spoken wisely and beautifully about that significance. Moreover, owing to geographical and historical circumstances, Lithuanians “preserved their language in an archaic form.” Because of the forested terrain, the language split into dialects long ago and managed to preserve their diversity. “Hence the great importance of the Lithuanian language for linguistics. It is specifically the sounds, declension, and word formation of Lithuanian that in many cases help scholars reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language and better understand the appearance of Indo-European historical languages” (ibid.; emphasis by J. O.). This antiquity and significance require the language to be cultivated and studied wisely. Cultivating and studying it are two different tasks. Only someone who knows the language well can cultivate it wisely, and

44

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Apie Juozo Balčikonio ir Jano Otrembskio santykius

Straipsniai / Articles

45

ALDONAS PUPKIS

¹ FIG. Facsimiles of pages 1 and 4 of the text of Jan Otrembski’s congratulatory speech.

46

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Apie Juozo Balčikonio ir Jano Otrembskio santykius

and understands it. Balčikonis is precisely such a person, deserving of recognition for both studying and cultivating the language.

The fact that Balčikonis was born and raised in a village was a great advantage, a prerogative for his later life and work. From an early age, Balčikonis absorbed his native language, and knowledge of a dialect is useful to anyone who later uses the written language. Indeed, “a certain language’s so-called spirit—and therefore the spirit of the nation—resides in the dialect, whereas the written language is always more or less cosmopolitan and further removed from its fundamental type” (ibid., p. 2).

He briefly mentions where Balčikonis studied and how he began his teaching career. He writes that a large number of Lithuanian-language teachers graduated from Balčikonis’s teacher-training school. From their teacher, they absorbed an example of the Lithuanian language and a love for it. “Through his students, Balčikonis was able to spread his ideal of the Lithuanian language further” (ibid.). Otrembskis also points to Balčikonis’s inclination toward literary work. “There is no writer who would not pay attention to the instrument of his work, language, and wish to improve it” (ibid.). This concern was best expressed in Balčikonis’s translations of fairy tales. They show how he came to love not only the language of the people but also its life, spirit, and ideals. This is why he can understand the people of other nations, their spirit and literature: “for the people are much the same almost everywhere.” Balčikonis senses that the fairy tales of other nations will appeal to his own people too and may “enrich their soul.” The translation of the popular fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm “is a true masterpiece in terms of style and language” (ibid., p. 3). Every Lithuanian scholar, Lithuanian or foreign, wishing to admire the Lithuanian language will always return to the translation of the Grimm fairy tales, because “Balčikonis’s language is a stylized language of the people, one shaped over centuries: whether good or bad, it is authentic, popular, Lithuanian” (ibid.).

Turning to Balčikonis’s scholarly work, Otrembskis recalls Jonas Jablonskis’s aim of “recreating the written language” by making the fullest possible use of the wealth of the dialects. Balčikonis wanted to contribute to this work and became a collector of Lithuanian words: a collector of old words, not a creator of new ones. “As a creator of new words, Balčikonis would have no place at all in the hearts of Lithuanian scholars: an abundance of new words, of neologisms, only distorts the true Lithuanian language” (ibid., p. 3). Fate decreed that Balčikonis should inherit the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno editorial office. “The new editor brought to the editorial office all his knowledge of and love for the language of the people” (ibid., p. 4). In his conception, the dictionary was to be above all a collection of living language, although the editor was also familiar with old Lithuanian writings (as demonstrated by his edition and publication of Merkelis Petkevičius’s “Kate kizmas”).

Although only Volume I of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno had been published at the time, Otrembskis argued that even it showed the abundance of Lithuanian words, with all their forms and meanings. The words are given in sentences, thereby demonstrating their vitality and usage. This principle of compiling the dictionary is entirely sound and beyond question. “On the whole, the Dictionary is the result of great effort and an example of meticulous care”

Straipsniai / Articles

47

ALDONAS PUPKIS

(ibid.). Otrembski emphasizes that the dictionary is the treasure of the entire Lithuanian nation, one of which the nation can be proud. Over time, that pride will grow, and in Indo-European linguistics the Lithuanian language will occupy an increasingly prominent place, more so than any other living Indo-European language. “At any rate, Balčikonis laid a firm foundation for an enduring monument to the Lithuanian language” (ibid.). He devoted all his strength to the Lithuanian language. “In this way he bound his name for all time to the history of Lithuanian national culture” (ibid.).

Otrembski writes that, having published five volumes of Jablonskis’s writings, Balčikonis also became the executor of Jablonskis’s will. What is undoubtedly meant here is Balčikonis’s practical work on language. The lecture does not discuss it at length, but the descriptions of that work intended for Jablonskis are entirely applicable. In the Otrembski collection in the Manuscripts Department of Vilnius University Library (VUB RS, f. 124–80) is an article by Otrembski translated into Lithuanian by Samaniūtė, “Jonas Jablonskis – the Standardizer of the Lithuanian Standard Language” (date unspecified). In it, the author writes that “the literary language is a refined dialect” (ibid., p. 1), “one of the first and most important bonds holding the nation together as a unified whole” (ibid.), and “everywhere and always the strongest social bond” (ibid., p. 7). In its creation, “the whole nation participates, represented by people who create universal cultural values” (ibid., p. 1).

According to Otrembski, the development of the Lithuanian written language lacks continuity; it was created differently from the standard languages of other nations. Because of the circumstances, the formation of the Lithuanian standard language had to proceed very quickly: what other nations created over centuries had to be accomplished in Lithuania by a single generation. It is therefore imperfect and far from complete, and its development continues to this day.

The author also expresses an original opinion about Jablonskis’s work. Jablonskis’s legacy “does not consist of theoretical scientific matters explaining and examining the origins of facts of the Lithuanian language. Jablonskis’s reasoning is prescriptive in nature” (ibid., p. 8). Jablonskis’s works on syntax are of greatest value to scholarship. Otrembski believes it is inaccurate to call Jablonskis “the creator of the Lithuanian literary language,” since “the whole educated society participated in creating the language, even as it monitored the work of Rygiškių Jonas: it accepted what accorded with society’s linguistic intuition, and corrected or rejected what did not fit entirely” (ibid., p. 11). Jablonskis’s merit lies in having indicated the direction for the development of the standard language—“not to detach it from the vernacular” (ibid.). Thus, Otrembski pointed out only the general areas of convergence between Jablonskis and Balčikonis in creating and cultivating the standard language, but did not elaborate on them or examine the different contributions the two linguists made to its development.

What conclusions can we draw from these two writings by Otrembski?

Otrembski’s idea that the primary, true form of language existence is the dialect is important to linguistics, dialectology, and lexicography: in it, everything is natural,

48

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Apie Juozo Balčikonio ir Jano Otrembskio santykius

innate. For Otrembski, a Neogrammarian, this fact was intrinsically valuable. The scholar regarded the dialect as an ideal for creating and improving standard languages as well: the merit of both Jablonskis and Balčikonis was that, in the development of the standard language, they both encouraged maintaining close ties with dialects. Here he does not mention that dialects contain all sorts of elements that are not characteristic of them, but this was probably self-evident to him. Balčikonis mentioned this fact several times in his writings.

Otrembski points out that Jablonskis contributed to the creation of the standard language not by copying dialects, but by striving to make the greatest possible use of their resources. “This was [...] the only correct path” (ibid., p. 3). For scholarship, however, and for Indo-European studies, what matters more are not facts of the Lithuanian (standard) language in general, but usage in the dialects. The reason is that the standard language is cosmopolitan (perhaps this also refers to international words and various other borrowings); it contains many neologisms which, in Otrembski’s opinion, only distort the standard language. Therefore, in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, reliance on the living (dialect) language is not only justified, but should also be fully supported.

In the commemorative article—the lecture, as he calls it at the end—the work on Balčikonis’s dictionary is regarded as scholarly, and this is said to be the most important reason why Balčikonis will endure in Lithuanian cultural history. In this respect, Otrembski’s assessment differed greatly from Skardžius’s (see Pupkis 2012: 126), since Skardžius did not consider Balčikonis (or Jablonskis) a scholar, but only a practitioner. The Polish scholar’s views also differ from the opinion of present-day academic administrators that compiling a dictionary is merely applied work. The Polish linguist understood the particular nature of lexicographic work far better, especially the significance and importance of compiling such publications as the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, and unequivocally classified it as scholarly work.

In nearly every word of the commemorative lecture, one senses profound respect for Balčikonis. The subsequent relationship between the two linguists shows that the words written in 1945 were not merely ceremonial expressions of respect. Throughout their careers, that great mutual respect not only did not diminish, but grew stronger year by year.

After Otrembski moved to Poland, the two linguists corresponded regularly and met several times. More of Otrembski’s letters and postcards have survived from their correspondence (BNA). They invited each other to conferences and planned meetings, but not everything worked out. Otrembski kept Balčikonis informed about linguistic life in Poland and asked him about facts of the Lithuanian language (accentuation, the use of forms, and so on); the two also corresponded about the translation of the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (sometimes Elena Otrembskienė wrote). On December 18, 1956, Otrembskienė invited Balčikonis to come to Poznań, shared other news, and expressed her pleasure that the translation of Volume III of the grammar had been started or was about to begin: “You translate that volume, and I’ll do Volume I, and then you could edit it” (ibid.). In a letter dated August 5, 1959, Otrembski wrote: “We are even more delighted that you have already finished translating Volume III of the Grammar—there could never be a better translation than yours.”

Straipsniai / Articles

49

ALDONAS PUPKIS

(ibid.). The author adds that he will also look forward to the translation of Volume I of the grammar. On November 5, 1959, after receiving the typescript of the translation of Volume III, he writes: “The translation seems wonderfully accurate and beautiful to us” (ibid.).

Otręmbski made a fine gesture in 1955 by publishing Balčikonis’s notes on the origin of the verb veizdėti in the journal he edited, Lingua Posnaniensis (see Balčikonis 1978: 259–260). In a letter to Otręmbski dated December 15, 1953, Balčikonis had set out his thoughts on the alternation of Lithuanian preplosives d: zd discussed in his article in Lingua Posnaniensis. Otręmbski prepared these thoughts as a separate article and published it in the journal.

In Balčikonis’s home archive there is information in his own handwriting about the conference on onomastics held in Kraków on October 22–24, 1959 (Balčikonis 1978: 352), whose program or abstracts he must have received from his Polish friend. Among other things, it highlights Otręmbski’s paper on research into the hydronyms and other place names of Lithuania.

Otręmbski wrote about Balčikonis and his work in the press on several occasions. Although he had already expressed his opinion on Volume I of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno in the jubilee lecture mentioned above, he did not publish an extensive review until 1947, owing to a combination of circumstances. It was one of the most comprehensive pieces written about this volume. The review praises the dictionary’s wealth of phraseology and the extraordinary purity of the Lithuanian language, and points out certain aspects of the dictionary’s structure that merit consideration. The work itself is assessed very positively and described as monumental. At the end, the editor is wished to live to see the dictionary completed: “Exegi monumentum aere perennius” (Otrębski 1947: 404).

Po metų Otręmbskis paskelbė II tomo recenziją (Otrębski 1948). Joje taip pat labai palankiai vertinamas Balčikonio ir jo vadovaujamos redakcijos darbas, pateikiama kritinių pastabų. Tas lenkų kalbininko rašinys buvo didelė išimtis iš to meto sovietinės valdžios ir jos atstovų neigiamų recenzijų, kuriose Balčikonis buvo kaltinamas buržuazinės ir klerikalinės leksikos propagavimu ir kitomis ideologinėmis klaidomis. Nėra žinoma, kokį poveikį ta recenzija turėjo Lietuvoje, apie ją niekur nebuvo viešai kalbėta. Balčikonis buvo užėmęs kitokią poziciją valdžios atžvilgiu: jis nuolankiai pripažindavo savo „ideologines klaidas“ ir niekad nemėgino gintis remdamasis kitų autoritetais.

For the 80th anniversary of Balčikonis’s birth, Otręmbski (1967) published a commemorative article in the 1966 issue of Acta Baltico-Slavica (which also includes a photograph of the jubilarian). It draws on many ideas from the text of the lecture mentioned above, delivered in 1945, but does not repeat them verbatim. It discusses in greater detail certain periods of Balčikonis’s life and work and says more about his work on language practice, but identifies the preparation of the great Lietuvių kalbos žodyno as his most important contribution.

50

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Apie Juozo Balčikonio ir Jano Otrembskio santykius

For his part, Balčikonis endeavored to report in the press on Otrembski’s more important works on Lithuanian studies. For example, in the October 27, 1956 issue of the newspaper Literatūros ir meno, he published an extensive account (which may also be called a review) of the Lietuvių kalbos gramatiką that Otrembski was writing (Balčikonis 1978: 273–275). It reports on the five-volume grammar being prepared by the Polish linguist and presents its first volume, on morphology, published in 1956. It notes that the author gives the forms of all inflecting parts of speech used in written language, their formation, and their historical development. It also describes how the indeclinable parts of speech were formed and how their meanings are distributed. All the words included in the grammar are marked for stress. Contemporary forms are compared with forms found in old writings, taken mainly from Daukša’s “Postilė,” as well as with forms in Latvian, Prussian, and other Indo-European languages. Thus, Balčikonis emphasizes, what we have here is a h i s t o r i c a l g r a m m a r o f t h e L i t h u a n i a n l a n g u a g e. It will be of great use to Lithuanian language teachers and students of Lithuanian studies. It should be translated into Lithuanian as soon as possible.

Balčikonis writes that the entire science of grammar is presented here with great subject knowledge, consistency, and clarity, and is written with talent. “Prof. Otrembski’s grammar will mark an epoch in the study of the Lithuanian language” (ibid., p. 274). Balčikonis says he has no criticisms of the author, pointing only to one or two examples not taken from living speech and to several forms used in living speech but not mentioned in the grammar.

Balčikonis published a proper review of Volume III of that grammar in French in 1957 in the journal Lingua Posnaniensis (Balčikonis 1978: 283–287). The work is also assessed positively there; more examples from living speech that are not included in the grammar are highlighted, and debatable cases and instances requiring correction are presented. In the summer of 1958, Volume I of Otrembski’s Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos, on phonetics and with an extensive introduction, came off the press. On August 8 of that year, Balčikonis had already published a review of the book (Balčikonis 1978: 322–323). It recounts the grammar’s contents and notes that the introduction proposes a new etymology for the name Lietuvos. The review states that this is at once a phonetics of contemporary Lithuanian, a historical phonetics, and a comparative phonetics. “In general, the entire science of our language’s phonetics is presented here with great precision and extensive knowledge of the subject. What Prof. Otrembskis says has a solid foundation throughout” (ibid., p. 323).

Balčikonis also published reports for the Lithuanian public on other works on Lithuanian studies by Otrembski: in 1957, on a collection of old Lithuanian texts he had compiled (Balčikonis 1978: 278–279); in 1960, on older Lithuanian texts prepared by Otrembski and E. Otrembskienė (ibid., pp. 349–352); and in 1958, on the text of Chylinski’s Bible translation, prepared by Otrembski and published that same year. These are not merely informative articles, but also reviews of the publications discussed (especially those on the older texts). All of them contain valuable reflections by Balčikonis on certain current issues in Lithuanian language scholarship and practice.

Straipsniai / Articles

51

ALDONAS PUPKIS

Probably Balčikonis’s last piece about Otrembski is the commemorative article “A Distinguished Linguist,” dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Polish linguist’s birth (Balčikonis 1982: 220–222). It is not an exhaustive biography of the honoree or an overview of his scholarly works, but it is nevertheless a fairly informative publication that conveys great respect for his friend. From this article, we can note that in 1921 Otrembski came to Vilnius to take up a professorship, “all the while keeping in view a greater understanding of the Lithuanian language” (ibid., pp. 220–221). From 1940, he taught comparative linguistics and Sanskrit at the university, and gave a course in the historical grammar of Lithuanian. Balčikonis emphasizes that Otrembski’s major works are devoted to the Lithuanian language. Recently, the scholar had become interested in the problem of the Yotvingians: “[h]e sees their influence not only on Lithuanian, Polish, and Belarusian, but also on the formation of those nations” (ibid., p. 221).

On November 28, 2014, the 125th anniversary of Otrembski’s birth was commemorated with distinction in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. The presentations spoke at length about the Polish linguist’s work in Lithuanian studies, especially about his Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, research in onomastics, and other work. The occasion also recalled Otrembski’s friendship with Balčikonis. Their warm friendship may be called one of the brightest episodes in the history of Lithuanian linguistics. As a symbol of that friendship—the grammar by Otrembski translated into Lithuanian by Balčikonis—it should nevertheless be published without further delay. This would be another fitting tribute to the fruitful collaboration between Lithuanian and Polish scholars. On the other hand, Otrembski’s Grammar of the Lithuanian Language is not outdated; it contains not only many rare facts about the Lithuanian language, but also interesting interpretations of numerous Lithuanian linguistic phenomena. It therefore remains useful for the study and scholarship of the Lithuanian language.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Balčikonis Juozas 1978–1982: Rinktiniai raštai 1–2, sud. Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslas.

BNA – Juozas Balčikonis House Archive.

Lyberis Antanas 2009: Leksikografijos teorija ir praktika, sud. Zita Šimėnaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Otrębski Jan 1947: [Rec.:] Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (‘Słownik języka litewskiego’). t. I. Redagował Balčikonis, Str. XXIV + 1008. – Wydawnictwo Institutu języka litewskiego Litewskiej Akademiji Nauk. – Wilno 1941. – Slavia occidentalis 18, 395 – 404.

52

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Apie Juozo Balčikonio ir Jano Otręmbskio santykius

Otrębski Jan 1948: [Rec.:] Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (‘Słownik języka litewskiego’), tom II, C–F. Redaktor prof. J. Balčykonis, rzeczywisty członek Akademii Nauk Litewskiej Radzieckiej Socjalistycznej Republiki. Podpisano do druku 23. VI. 1947. Nakład 5000 egzemplarzy. Str. 851. – Slavia occidentalis 19, 482–486.

Otrębski Jan 1967: Jubileusz Józefa Balčikonisa w Wilnie. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 5, 466–469.

Pupkis Aldonas 2012: Pranas Skardžius ir didysis „Lietuvių kalbos žodynas“. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 67, 101–129.

Pupkis Aldonas 2013: Juozas Balčikonis ir didysis „Lietuvių kalbos žodynas“. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Urbas Dominykas 1966: Apie Balčikonio vertimus. – Kalbotyra 14, 37–43.

VUB RS – Manuscripts Department of Vilnius University Library.

On the Relationship between Balčikonis and Otrębski

SUMMARY

The article argues that the communication between Juozas Balčikonis and Jan Otrębski could begin in the late 1930s. Afterwards, their communication evolved into a deep friendship, even camaraderie, of the two linguists. Otrębski considered the compilation of the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” Balčikonis’ principal work; he supported its type and composition and expressed his positive feedback on volumes I and II of the dictionary in the press. What is more, when speaking about Balčikonis, Otrębski evaluated his translation works, the published writings of Jonas Jablonskis in a highly positive way and indicated that the way of development of the standard language chosen by Jablonskis and Balčikonis was the only right way in the history of the Lithuanian language and the nation. It is the development of a single dialect, continuous reference to the treasuries of dialects and the maintenance of a close relationship with the folk language.

Balčikonis was probably the only in Lithuania to spread the word on Otrębski’s works in the broadest way. He wrote about Otrębski’s principal works on Lithuanian linguistics in the press, highlighting that the studies on Lithuanian linguistics are a highly valuable field of his research work. “The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” translated by

Straipsniai / Articles

53

ALDONAS PUPKIS

Balčikonis is considered a sign of a strong friendship. It is a good occasion to remind that no other anniversaries should be waited for and Balčikonis’ Lithuanian translation should be published without delay. Otrębski’s grammar has not become outdated to this day: it is still a rich source of rare facts of the Lithuanian language; it is noteworthy for numerous original interpretations of the phenomena of the Lithuanian language.

Received on March 12, 2015.

ALDONAS PUPKIS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

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

[email protected]

54

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII