Prahos vokiečių–lietuvių rankraštinio žodyno autorystės klausimu

269 pages of articles by Borum Littwhaniorum, East Prussian esMiniai ŽodŽiai: autorystė, vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Observatio de origine VerLexicography, edited by Friedrich Wilhelmas Haackas, Baumgarten. KeyWords: authorship, germanLithuanian dictionary, Observatio de origine Verborum Littwhaniorum, lexicography of eastern Prussia, by friedrich Wilhelm haack, baumgarten. This is the first time that the dictionary has been used in Lithuania. iLja LeMeŠkin Charles University in Prague The directions of scientific research are: old Baltic literature and writing, comparative folklore, lexicography, history of the Baltic. Prahos VokieČių–LietuVių rankraŠtinio Žodyno on the issue of authorship of the Prague manuscript germanLithuanian dictionary annotation The lexicographic work dated to the third to fourth decades of the thirteenth century, called the Prague Dictionary, is currently kept in the Clementine, in the Department of Manuscripts and Old Publications of the National Library of the Czech Republic (Národní knihovna Oddělení rukopisů a starých tisků), signature XV.f. It was presented to the Lithuanian community for the first time at the seminar "Actual directions of research in the languages of Northern and Eastern Europe" organized by the Association of Researchers of European Languages and Cultures on 27 January 2011. The report "Lithuanian Lexicography Monuments in the Czech Republic: a Prague manuscript dictionary of German Lithuanian languages attributed to Friedrich Wilhelm Haack" with a hitherto unknown Lithuanian monument was mainly presented from an archaeological point of view, as well as a discussion of the book market, a textual connection with the so-called Krauzės dictionary. In 2012, the third volume of the Languages and Cultures Archives volume published by the Association of European Language and Culture Dialogue Researchers featured the first article (Lemeškin 2012) dedicated to this East Prussian lexicographic work. it covered two aspects: 1) the lexicographic monument in the surroundings of the workshop and its location in the Lithuanian Czech Republic in the 19th century; and 2) a general archaeographic glossary. The article concluded by stating that the dictionary knowledge is only an article prepared under a project funded by the State Commission for the Lithuanian Language to study and prepare for the press the manuscript dictionary of German-speaking languages (XVIII century) attributed to Friedrich Wilhelm Haacke (Treaty no. k-42012, dated 2012-02-01). 270 acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX begins and many questions can only be answered preliminarily iLja LeMeŠkin for the time being. Among the topical issues of the future was the problem of the authorship of the word, which is closely related to the interpretation of a single provenance. The aim of this article is to go as far as possible in these directions. An article is devoted to the lexicographical heritage of the third and fourth decades of the eighteenth century, in particular to the question of authorship. Main emphasis is put on the structure of the codex including two independent parts which […] from the point of the authorship […] should be considered separately. as for the German-Lithuanian dictionary we cannot speak about the authorship because it is only another copy of an older document. but Observatio de origine Verborum Littwhaniorum can be described as creative and original. it is assumed that the rewriter author of […]observation of origins of Lithuanian words[…] is the same person having deep of *PrPk (i.e. protograph of the german–Lithuanian dictionary found in Prague) and the linguistic knowledge. It is quite possible that it was the reason why in the eighteenth century Friedrich Wilhelm Haecke was recognized as the author. However, the closer analysis of the oldest works suggests that the above conclusion was not correct. for that reason the title Hacke. Lexicon Lithuanicum written on the back of the codex should be verified too. Let's start with the definition of the word Prague. The title immediately requires clarification and specification, because first of all it is necessary to clarify who and what kind of linguistic work is the author talking about? The Lithuanian monument of lexicography is preserved in Prague from the point of view of the genre. In fact, it's a deck of cards made up of two independent lexicographic parts. The first and largest part (2r[…]344v) is a dictionary of Germanic languages, closely related to the modern-day Lexicon Lithuanicum2, the Krause dictionary3, the Richter (or Klaipėda) dictionary4, Clavis Germanico[…]Lithvana5. It doesn't have an authentic name, one that we know for sure was given during or shortly after the dictionary's creation. This section begins with the usual label formula Su Diewo Pagalba, followed by the first articles of the dictionary. the paper used (sans. 143) dated 1683-1712 (Lemeškin 2012: 5253). the second part, for which not so little space was carefully provided in the compilation of the codex (sąs. 44[…]46), has the title: […]observatio de origine Verborum Littwhaniorum[…]. "Observations on the origin of Lithuanian words" consists of a pair of lexicographical works from the second half of the 15th century; Protected by LMab rs: f. 137[…]10; facsimile: Lexicon Lithuanicum 1987. 3rd to 15th centuries, third to fourth decades; The security of LLtib r: f. 15792. for the dating of the manuscript, see the fourth quarter of 1984. 4 is dated 1728. stored in the archives of the French institutions in the hall: afst j 84. 5 preserved LMab rs: f. 137 1314; published by Vincento Drotvino in 1995[…]1997 […] Clavis Lithuania from 1995 to 1997. 271 articles by articles Prahos vokiečių–lietuvių rankraštinio žodyno autorystės klausimu Germanico[…] articles, which combine the lexicon of Lithuanian and Greek languages. In the past, contrary to the first part, perhaps, we would have searched in vain for the source of the related works that served as the basis. The counties that make up this part have a water supply of li, dated to an unknown later period (from 1701 m.) (Lemeškin 2012: 53). So the first part can be considered complete and complete, the other part is fragmentary. The first […] is a collective, in a sense mechanical linguistic work, while the second comparative linguistic concept is innovative (compared to the first part of the code) and authentic. the authorship of this and the listed constituent parts of the Code is far from equivalent and must be discussed separately. applying the concept of the Prague dictionary to the entire code, we should not forget the independent "observations" which, although of small scope, attract the attention of the contemporary researcher as an advanced study of the science of his time. In 1987, Vincas Urbutis very cautiously commented on the authorship of the word richterio (or klaipėdiškių) in the family: […]1728 the word is closely related to the tradition of the Lithuanian written lexicography of the Prussian region, [...] almost everything is taken from elsewhere, and the original layer is not contained in it, and [...] because of this this manuscript may even be more likely to be derived from the former word savaranki, but only from one correction and addition. [...] even the author's problem, when it turns out that it affects not only the whole vocabulary, but only a relatively small part of it, should be solved somewhat differently and not seem so important" (urbutis 1987: 58 […] 59). The same can be said of the Prague Dictionary, the first part of the codex. Indeed, when it comes to later manuscripts, which more or less perfectly replicate the prototype, it is usually necessary to consider the transcribers, that is, not the dictionary itself, but the author of its individual manuscripts. However, it is also clear that the layer of existing modifications in each of the manuscripts is different and that its size and nature (the papillomas included in the original manuscript are the competence of the author or have been compiled from some third source) eliminates the problem of authorship. Naturally, the more verbal and authentic the layer, the greater the right of the transcribed and supplemented person to perceive the characteristics of the co-author. The family of inscriptions consisting of the aforementioned words richterio, Prahos, krauzė, Clavis Germanico[…]Lithvana and the word signatūra Msc is considered to have not survived. The name "Karl" is derived from the German word "Karl" meaning "king" or "king" in the German language, and the abbreviation "Karl" is derived from the German word "Karl" meaning "king" or "king" in the German language. - "Karl," This abbreviation, when extended, makes sense to follow the reference to the Prague dictionary […] *PrPk (Prä-Richter Prager Krause) […]. The Linguistic Dictionary of East Prussia, which was returned to the circulation of Lithuanian science in 2011, occupies an important place in the chain of dictionaries of East Prussian dialects. its existence was probably foreseen by urbutis, who in his detailed textual study calls it […]ankstėlesniu (neišlikusiu) Q variant[…] (urbutis 1987: 65). The description used for the urbutius has not been carried out, since the texts or the manuscript derived from the common source can be considered as variants with regard to its original. The relationship between the Prague and Krause dictionaries seems to be 272 acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX otherwise known. Well, it's the ratio of the iLja LeMeŠkin original to the manuscript, so looking at it from the original, that is. The variant of the Prague dictionary, half, can only be called the lexicographic monument stored in the library of the Lithuanian Institute of Literature and Ethnology. that the Krauzé dictionary is written from the Prague dictionary, showing cases where the original appendices, the colour and graphics that stand out on the pages of the Prague dictionary (written between the lines, in parentheses, in other ink, in another corner, etc.), the Krauzé dictionary falls into the main text. Here are a few examples: This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. P3v k7 273 articles by article Prahos vokiečių–lietuvių rankraštinio žodyno autorystės klausimu PZ 61 kZ 134 from this video explains the strategy of the transcriber of the […]baili[…] Krause dictionary: he relies on the source of the text in the main text, but does so (perhaps because of his low competence) in his own way. He presents the inputs in the Prague dictionary as if he were writing between lines, but the exaggerated stylization of the original becomes apparent when comparing the distances between lines (common and when recording the suffixes of the Prague dictionary). Thus, the Prague dictionary helps to better understand the nature of the Krause dictionary and its place in the aforementioned chain of manuscript dictionaries, especially in the author's aspect. explains that the fluctuation between the roles of transcriber and co-author tends to the former. It would hardly be possible to talk about any innovative layer here without adding almost nothing of one's own (in the part of the written replies) and, unfortunately, by distorting this or that, the author of the article blindly considers the original of the article. Because of that prototype, the Krause dictionary is probably not very useful for the reconstruction of the PrPk. It seems that the author of the Richter scale worked in a similar way. and he had little to enrich and expand the original, i.e. not survived the *PrPk. At the moment, while Schiller has not yet appeared in the press, there is no statement by specialists who have not expressed their serious opinion on this issue, carefully studied the monuments of the Lesser Lithuanian lexicography, rather than drawing strict conclusions about the relationship between the writers. However, if the relationship between the original and the translation between the Prague and Croatian dictionaries is well-founded, it is possible to speak of a greater authoritative origin of the Prague dictionary. it seems that the transcriber will have made an effort to understand the lexicon and will try to improve and expand the existing older source. This effort undermined the multi-layered nature of the first part of the Prague Code (which 274 acta iLja LeMeŠkin Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX 1 of V. The title page of the Prague Codex reveals a copy of the title page reproduced here. This effort, in turn, is well suited and corresponds to the nature of the second part of the code. is the author of the German-Lithuanian language dictionary and of the […]Observations[…] of the same code the same person? The answer to that question is probably yes. The second "observation" of the codex in the codex came before the daliai naudotas rytų Prūsijoje maždaug tuo pačiu laiku pagamintas popierius. antra, binding of the book, and the binding itself does not seem to be later. It can be assumed that the man, after transcribing and supplementing an older lexicographic source, added 275 articles by article Prahos vokiečių–lietuvių rankraštinio žodyno autorystės klausimu an empty part of the three manuscripts to his manuscript (from the point of view of the second codex), bound the entire block of the book and began to write his […]Pastebėjimus[…]. The fragmentation and incompleteness of the "observations" could be explained by pragmatic convenience. Developing a study on the origin of Lithuanian words in a thick, already bound book turned out to be impractical, perhaps because the writing had to be interrupted constantly in search of new explanatory texts. In addition, the spelling of "observations" in the Lithuanian register of lemmas is reminiscent of the main part of the dictionary's Lithuanian footnotes. The reasoning that the author of the "Observations" and the first part of the code is the same person, of course, raises the authority of the person who wrote the dictionary. the neighborhood with Pastebėjimais would prove that the author of the Prague manuscript could really be the author. This distinguishes him from the random copywriter, that is, the man far removed from the science of language who, for a fee, merely copies the source given to him. Urbutis was right when he said that the problem of authorship is not so important in the case of manuscripts that are not very far from the prototype. However, the question of the authorship of the Prague dictionary is certainly worth considering. Well, you should look for someone who has really exceptional language skills. The shortage of clerks in East Prussia in the first half of the 13th century was probably not real; There were very few free lexicographers; and even fewer authors who could and would write a Lithuanian etymological study. And it's probably the kind of person who reworked it into the Prague dictionary. Was it not this circumstance that prompted one of the contemporaries to attribute the book to the personality of Friedrich Wilhelm Haack? But let's go back to the kų tekstą nėra lengva patikimai perskaityti, ypač įvadinį autoriaus pasvarstymą second part of the Prague Code. The fragment "Observations on the origin of Lithuanian words" is of small size. small German language. I was able to decipher this text (345r): 345 PŽr observed: de origine Verborum Littwhaniorum it will be of the most learned d. littausche sprache vor ein Misch Masch gehalten: da soll nur eine collection von Wörter[n] angestellet werd[en], d. aus frembden sprache[n] genoen: It's time. Heist. What is it? year: derivative: e. Luke the 8th This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal. It's the same thing. the annus. […] the […]τος: […]es can[…] easy to M. hin[…]ugeset[…]t see. You are lying. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not sure what you're talking about. 276 acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX I am very sorry that the study has been iLja LeMeŠkin interrupted shortly after it began. We could say more if we had a pair or at least one full sheet. Unfortunately, we have two laconic articles. But it's clear from them that the study had to have signs of lexicographic work. On the left is a register of selected Lithuanian words, on the right it corresponds to Greek language material, which, judging by the title of the study, was supposed to reveal and explain the origin of Lithuanian lexemes. In his laconic articles, the author explains little, does not indicate why the Lithuanian lemma coincides precisely with these Greek lemmas, and this again encourages interpretation. The examples given give the impression that the author is working in a qualitatively different way than we would expect. It would be natural to expect a comparative study based on the atomic method. the external, formal similarity (resp. tapatus leksemų fonetinis sąskambis) promoted the gr. μέθυ ‘alcoholic beverage to be combined with lie. honey and mead. The author of the "observations" apparently does not indicate parallels to him. Apparently, he's trying to show that the other Greek word for honey, honeycomb, also has a reflection in Lithuanian, hence the Greek word for honey, lo. She's lying to me. They love it. in the next article next to lie. the year is provided by the Greek year […]metai[…]. Such a juxtaposition of lexemes can be considered a reasonable subject from the point of view of modern linguistics. Oswald Szemerényi, examining the white material, writes about two appellatives, meaning […]metai[…] (*em[…]tos and *wetos), contamination, and healthy appellative randa gr. […]μητος […]derlius, one-off harvesting […] and gr. ([…])έτος […]metai[…] (szemerényi 1962: 198[…]199). If the "observations" had not stopped and continued with similar subjects, we would now have a significant and extraordinary work. the author operates mainly on the resources of Greek and Latin languages. Unfortunately, due to the fragmentation of the text, it remains unclear how competent the author was with regard to other languages. The end remains to be discussed the 15th century middle provenance, which aims to identify the authors of the Prague dictionary. We're talking about the 277 articles by Prahos vokiečių–lietuvių rankraštinio žodyno autorystės klausimu donation entry at the beginning of the book (1r): auctor hacke War Preacher in Lithuania. I'm going to study in the hall. It's printed on the Weisenhaus. Don't give it to me. [d] the kindergarten We could translate the provenance: the author hacke was a preacher in Lithuania. You studied in the hall. his linguistic work must have been published in the Weisenhause printing house. He donated the Baumgarten. The confusion is mainly caused by the end of the recording and its interpretation. The letter next to the surname Baumgarten can be interpreted differently as J or D. In the first case, it would mark the name of the owner. In the case of the letter D, there are several possibilities. It can be understood as the completion of a constant Latin donation record: Dono dedit dedicavit. in that case, if the Latin entry donacinis is used in a shortened form (and such examples as […] Dono dedit […]dovanai davė[…] […] are sufficient), the letter D could have been written by the baumgarten's own title: Doctor. Finally, D can also be interpreted as dominus […]ponas[…]. then it would mean that the record was left not by Baumgarten himself, but by some third person who considered it his duty to shed light on the history of the book's presentation. In addition, there is either an unreadable word or a silent pencil drop in the lines above the name Baumgarten. So with an attractive witness who identifies the authors of the Prague dictionary with Friedrich Wilhelm Haack, it seems that caution should be exercised. We can't be sure, even because it was left to the owner of the dictionary, S.J. Baumgarten, a man who might have had a better understanding of the subjects involved in the book's inception. christiane schiller and birutė triškaitė were pleased to share valuable observations that are important for interpreting and dating the provenance under discussion. I dare you to mention them briefly. Schiller pointed out that when he said soll auf dem Weisenhause gedruckt seyn schriftsteller, it was not really true that Haacko's linguistic work had actually been published in the printing house in Halle. He's only guessing. The researcher also pointed to the use of wartime mapping, which indicates that the record was made after Haacko's death. Triškaitė, for her part, could observe that the duties of a preacher (Prediger) were probably to be performed only after studying in the hall. This supports the assumption that the inscription was made after the return to East Prussia and, apparently, after 1754. The later dating of the inscription encourages the verification of the name Hacke written on the back of the book. The Lithuanian Lexicon. it turns out that this name is secondary, linked not to the emergence of the code, but to the time of the recording of the provenance. Therefore, the attribution of authorship to Haack by the Code must be considered unjustified. So the question of whether the Prague dictionary can be attributed to the hacc (assigned to the eternal), must be answered in the negative. The provenance, which includes the name of the owner of the book, Baumgarten, raises a lot of doubts. It's also unreliable in terms of the dating and the definition of the person who left this record. The analysis of the donation record also encourages caution with the Hacke Code. Lexicon Lithuanicum by name. it is most likely