„Lauryno Ivinskio lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas“

JONAS PALIONIS Vilniaus universitetas Research interests: the history of the Lithuanian written language, onomastics. LAURYNAS IVINSKIS’S POLISH-LITHUANIAN DICTIONARY Prepared by Ona Kažukauskaitė Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2010, 524 p. + kompaktinis diskas. ISBN 978-609-411-052-8 Until now, the publication of Lithuanian dictionaries (more precisely, trilingual and bilingual dictionaries with Lithuanian headwords or explanatory words) has been largely confined to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the territory of Lithuania Minor. Vincentas Drotvinas has contributed the most in this area: he prepared for publication no fewer than three substantial manuscript dictionaries: the anonymous Lexicon Lithuanicum (1987), the Clavis Germanico-Lithwana attributed to Friedrich Pretorius (1995–1997), and the first, German–Lithuanian part of Jokūbas Brodovskis’s Lexicon Germanico-Lithvanicum et Lithvanico-Germanicum (2009). In the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, apart from the facsimile editions of two trilingual dictionaries by Konstantinas Sirvydas (1979 and 1997), prepared by Kazys Pakalka, no other dictionaries appeared, because there were none there. Only from the beginning of the nineteenth century, with the rise of the Lithuanian national movement, did people begin compiling bilingual and trilingual dictionaries; a considerable number of their manuscripts have disappeared, ended up in foreign countries, or are still awaiting publication in our libraries. The first to have its turn was Simonas Daukantas’s three-volume Polish-Lithuanian manuscript dictionary, written around 1856 and prepared for publication by Giedrius Subačius (published in 1993–1996). Recently, a second Polish-Lithuanian manuscript dictionary from that period also appeared, written by the distinguished popular educator, pedagogue, and author of the famous calendars (“metskaitliai”), Laurynas Ivinskis (1811–1881). The manuscript of this dictionary is held in Kraków, at the Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences (shelfmark 2232). It was therefore inaccessible to a wider circle of Lithuanian researchers, although it is a very interesting and valuable monument of Lithuanian lexicography (hereafter abbreviated as IŽ). IŽ was prepared for publication by Ona Kažukauskaitė, a member of staff at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. From her foreword, entitled with the dictionary author’s not particularly felicitous neologism “Pagar- 180 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Lauryno Ivinskio lenkų-lietuvių kalbų žodynas From “old woman,” it can be seen that, among other things, certain sentiments toward her fellow countryman must also have prompted her to prepare the dictionary for publication: the dictionary’s author and its editor are said to have been baptized in the same church in Šilalė. This motive was undoubtedly not the most important, but it contributed to our now having access to a deciphered text of Ivinskis’s dictionary, accompanied by a compact disc that makes it possible to verify the authenticity of the text transcribed by computer. The in folio format was chosen for the publication, in which (apparently for reasons of economy) four pages of the original in quarto format are reproduced. In addition to “Pagarsenė,” the publication contains two articles (one by the editor, the other by the Polish linguist Małgorzata Kilar (Margarita Kiliarė)), with summaries in Lithuanian and Polish and bibliographies (pp. IX–XLI); a section entitled “Principles for Preparing the Manuscript” (pp. XLIII–XLIV); a list of abbreviations used by Ivinskis (pp. XLV–XLVI); a transcribed text of IŽ, with digital facsimiles of individual pages or parts of pages inserted here and there (pp. 1–523); and the aforementioned disc, attached to the inside of the back cover. In her introductory article, “Laurynas Ivinskis’s Polish–Lithuanian Dictionary” (pp. IX–XXV), Kažukauskaitė first discusses the dictionary author’s lexicographic tendencies, and then the surviving part of the dictionary (its structure, the source of the Polish headword list, the spelling of Lithuanian words, its dialectal basis, and its lexicon). The article is interesting and informative, and draws on research into Ivinskis’s work conducted to date. Its very first sentence advances the original hypothesis that “Laurynas Ivinskis may have conceived the idea of compiling dictionaries before [he compiled] his famous Lithuanian-language calendars” (p. IX). The basis for this hypothesis is said to be the thought expressed in his manuscript O Pisowni języka Litewskiego, written after 1843, that he would write a dictionary. Perhaps for the first time, the history of how the IŽ manuscript came to be in the Kraków Library and its structure are described in such detail. The IŽ manuscript entered the Kraków Library as a gift from Maria Potulicka-Oginskienė, wife of Bogdan Oginski, Prince of Rietavas, in the hope that it would be published. A record from the Academy’s chancellery in the archives of the Kraków Academy, dated September 8, 1918, shows that a Polish–Samogitian grammar notebook was also submitted along with the dictionary (p. XI). But the article’s author says nothing about whether it was present in the Academy’s library, while providing information that after Ivinskis’s death, Aleksandras Moras, a landowner in the Tryškiai area, took care of preserving his writings, and that Kajetonas Gadliauskas, Ivinskis’s friend from his gymnasium days, may have given the dictionary and grammar to Princess Oginskienė; Gadliauskas had passed some of Ivinskis’s manuscripts to Petras Kriaučiūnas, a teacher at the Marijampolė Gymnasium (among them was the dictionary’s A, B, C ir S letters). In describing the structure of IŽ, Kažukauskaitė notes that it consists of three parts: the first runs from page 1 to 1018, the second from 1019 to 1767, and the third from 1768 to 2060. It would have been good if these parts had been graphically distinguished in the transcribed text. The dictionary covers only the letters A–R. The section of the dictionary under the letter S, which had come into the hands of Kazio Grinius, disappeared somewhere Recenzijos / Reviews 181 JONAS PALIONIS (with it, the dictionary would have had 2,688 pages)1. The fact that there may have been manuscripts containing words beginning with later letters is suggested by a small entry I noticed on p. 2003, with a reference to a word under the letter W: “Rudopiór, jeszkok Waruga.” K. Grinius had already established that Ivinskis used for the Polish part of his dictionary the two-volume Polish dictionary by the so-called Maurycy Orgelbrand (sometimes referred to as “Słownik wileński,” abbreviated as SWil in the edition under review), published in Vilnius in 1861. In her article, Kažukauskaitė presented information about this dictionary that helps us better understand the structure and purpose of IŽ. The linguist Jonas Karlavičius (Jan Karłowicz), who came from Lithuania (Merkinė), did not think highly of it: supposedly, it was written by people who were not linguists, and therefore “praca ich pozostała za wymaganiami nauki” (p. XV). There were, however, also favorable opinions. Ivinskis apparently liked it because it was intended “do podręcznego użytku” (as stated on its title page) and covered vocabulary from various fields, especially an extensive terminology “z obcych języków polskiemu przyswojonych” (ibid.). Having compared the so-called Olgebrand dictionary with the IŽ manuscript, the article’s author described their structural similarities and differences in considerable detail. She determined that in the Polish section of his dictionary Ivinskis did not consistently follow SWil: deviations occur in the ordering of headword forms (lemmas), the structure of entries, the system of grammatical labels, the way word meanings are explained, and certain other respects. In my view, however, a particularly important difference is that IŽ contains far fewer words under each letter: Ivinskis took from SWil only those words that he considered most necessary for a Lithuanian reader of the time who knew Polish and wanted to learn or improve their Lithuanian (although, for some reason, the article’s author does not discuss this—that is, the purpose of IŽ). To serve this purpose, Ivinskis may have drawn words for the Polish section not only from SWil but also from the speech of local Polish speakers (the szlachta and landowners); the author lists ten such words, though there may have been more. Without discussing in detail the differences between SWil and IŽ listed in Kažukauskaitė’s article, one can say in summary that it identifies a considerable number of differences of various kinds. The article’s author, it seems to me, has rightly noted that Ivinskis chose a simpler structure for his dictionary, one more accessible to Lithuanians (introducing over a hundred labels different from those in SWil, not numbering word meanings, etc., although this naturally came at the expense of the scholarly character of his dictionary). After comparing the presentation of Polish words in SWil and IŽ, Kažukauskaitė’s article devotes considerable space to characterizing the Lithuanian section. The author discusses the spelling of IŽ (pp. XVIII–XIX), its dialectal basis, and the composition of its vocabulary (pp. XIX–XXII). 1 Jonas Kruopas. L. Ivinskio leksikografiniai darbai. – Jonas Kruopas. Rinktiniai raštai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998, 231. 182 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Lauryno Ivinskio lenkų-lietuvių kalbų žodynas The orthographic features of IŽ are linked in the article to the author’s views, set out in his manuscripts “O pisowni języka Litewskiego” and “O pisowni i iloczasie języka Litewskiego,” written after 18402. The author translates the title of the latter article as “On the Orthography and Accentuation of the Lithuanian Language,” but in Polish of that period iloczas meant length3. This translation of the linguistic term was apparently influenced by the fact that IŽ uses as many as six signs: −, ˆ, `, ´, ˘, ˇ (the last very rarely). Some of these signs were probably used to mark not only vowel quantity and stress position but also the pitch accents of the author’s native dialect. Vytautas Vitkauskas writes that in IŽ “the long vowels i, ū are clearly marked differently, making it possible to trace the stress pattern of the Varniškiai subdialect. We see particularly well the impact of the circumflex accent on the first syllable: gārsas p. 1937 (dial. gãːrsas, standard gar̃sas) [...], dẽiwe p. 2012 (dial. dẽːivė, standard deĩvė) [...]”4. However, matters of accentology, like those of orthography, are not examined in greater detail in the article, but are left to other researchers of IŽ. Regarding the dialect, the article’s author adheres to the traditional view that IŽ reflects features of Ivinskis’s native Samogitian dūnininkai subdialect, although these are not consistently maintained and are often replaced by Aukštaitian forms. Indeed, in the dictionary the West Aukštaitian diphthongs [ie], [uo] are frequently used in place of the monophthongs [ī], [ū] characteristic of the dūnininkai, for example: Piènas 5925, Wiènas 379, Dùotė 161, Kluònas 350, and so on. Yet alongside these, forms characteristic of the dūnininkai also occur frequently, for example: Prìs žingas 967, Prìžadas 350, Dùbie 373, Kariùmėnė 20 (the preposition and prefix pri, pri- are especially frequent). In general, Ivinskis, like other Samogitian writers and public figures of the period, wrote in a certain mixture of dialect forms, analyzed in detail in the aforementioned study by Petras Jonikas, which the article’s author did not consult. In discussing the dialectal basis of IŽ, one must not forget Ivinskis’s conception of the dialectal basis for the written language. He was convinced that a single dialect should be selected for the written language, rather than wandering through a labyrinth of different dialects. In his view, the “central dialect” (środkowy prowincjalizm) would be appropriate for written Lithuanian. However, he did not define this “provincialism” more precisely, and he more often used western forms not only for the diphthongs [ie], [uo], but also for the diphthong [ai], voc. + n, and so on.6 That Ivinskis did not adhere strictly to a single dialect in his dictionary is shown by the presentation of various dialectal forms for some Polish words, for example: Dąb, dębu m. Ąžuolas, -a, uòžuolas, 2 Petras Jonikas. The Formation of the Lithuanian Standard Written Language in the Second Half of the 19th Century. Chicago, 1972, 65. 3 See Samuel Bogumił Linde. Słownik języka Polskiego 2. Lwów, 1855, 200. 4 Vytautas Vitkauskas. Lexicographic Principles of Laurynas Ivinskis. – For the 150th Anniversary of Laurynas Ivinskis’s Calendar. Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, 1997, 30. 5 Here and elsewhere, the numeral indicates the page of the original. 6 For more, see Petras Jonikas, cited work, pp. 65–67. Recenzijos / Reviews 183 JONAS PALIONIS oak, -ła 160; Chleb, -a. Duòna (dùna and douna) 111; Gnoić v. a. Pùd’ité, pùd’inté 121; Krosta, -ty f. Niežas, Nìžas 480; Dwakroć adv. dù kàrtù, dù žìgiù 229. By making the forms of words in the dūnininkai dialect more Aukštaitian (westernizing them), Ivinskis, as Kažukauskaitė rightly points out, “created artificial, hypercorrect words” (p. XIX). One may add to this assertion the words many indeed, especially those with the prefix nuo- in place of nu-, e.g.: adv. nenuokrāt̄omaj 745, nuōnesztas 1251, inf. nuoprausté 781, Nuoszukuoté 1765, Nuopùlimas 813, nuosidawìmas 166. On the other hand, in his dictionary he also used quite regularly the accented Samogitian genitive plural ending -un (e.g.: Łajwun 2, Linun 929, žiedun 1567, Žmoniun 152); he also often retained reflexes of nasal vowels both in word roots and endings (e.g.: Dransa 885, kan 135, miegāns 1024, Rānstas 63, kėnstė 130, Sugrinzté 1263, Apskūnstas 1013, etc.). However, a more thorough investigation of the features of IŽ terminology still awaits the attention of linguists. A considerable portion of Kažukauskaitė’s article is devoted to the characterization of IŽ’s Lithuanian lexicon. It highlights the great abundance and variety of diminutive nouns found in it and discusses the creation of neologisms, lexical sources, and so on. IŽ is indeed replete with words taken from the Samogitian dialect, from earlier dictionaries—especially Sirvydas’s—and coined by the author himself. In one of his articles, Vitkauskas wrote that Ivinskis had supposedly coined only a word or two7. But this assertion is inaccurate, since a great many neologisms were “coined” in IŽ; in my view, they would make up a sizable dictionary. Ivinskis tried to provide a Lithuanian equivalent for almost every Polish word and, when he could not find one in his dialect or in the dictionaries available to him, he coined a neologism. In this respect, IŽ differs from the Polish–Lithuanian dictionary of his contemporary Daukantas, in which such cases often leave a blank space. Writing about the creation of neologisms, Kažukauskaitė notes that they were most often coined as equivalents for words of international character included in the so-called Orgelbrand dictionary. By way of illustration, she gives ten examples of such neologisms: Bank – Šàndietis 36, Geometrija – Matinìsté 306, Historija – Wējksmas, wèjksmié 364, Instinkt – Ìstigis 392, Kolega – Wiendràugis 447, Parlament – kalbiétiné 1072, Reakcja – Priśzingėné 1638, Relikwja – Ātlajkas 1661, Rezvdencija – pabu wėné 1683. To these examples one may add the following more interesting IŽ neologisms, unrecorded in the comprehensive LKŽ: Aspirant – Bendrā̃noris, bendrāgeidis 22, Dyalekt – Kalboskieris (= Kalboskyris?) 235, Filolog – Datirėjas, pàrwejzdėtojas 276, genealog – Gimínrašzis, gimìnsekis 305, Imaginacija – Pavejkslinė 387, Onanizm – Sątepis 966, Pseudo-nim – Skirstwardis 1550, Racionalizm – Protinibė 1608, Raketa – Ugnièlakis 1621, Rotacja – àpsukmis 1728, Realizacija – Pawejkslojimas 1639, Rotman – Łajwòwadis 1729, Ruszczyzna – Rusibė, Rusinibė, Gūdìszkybė 2015. 7 Vytautas Vitkauskas, cited work, p. 199. 184 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Lauryno Ivinskio lenkų-lietuvių kalbų žodynas The examples given already show that sometimes IŽ provides two or more neologisms for a single Polish (or international) word. This too is one indication of their neologistic character. Moreover, the Lithuanian entry often gives a loanword alongside the neologism, e.g.: Kalend arz – Kalendorius, Metskajtlus 402, Parlament – Parlamentas, kalbėtinė 1072. For Ivinskis, perhaps the most important motive for coining neologisms—especially new terms to denote specialized concepts—was the desire to purify and enrich the lexicon of the written language of his time, which was contaminated by numerous foreign words. However, lacking linguistic training, he found it difficult to create neologisms that were sound in terms of formation and/or meaning. The article’s author gives as an example one of his neologisms, pagarsenė, which Daukantas had already criticized and which occurs in IŽ in as many as nine entries as an equivalent for different Polish words, yet for some reason appealed to Kažukauskaitė, who used it (apparently for originality’s sake) in the publication in the sense of ‘preface.’ Although Ivinskis coined few good neologisms, one or another of his neologisms recorded in IŽ found its way into later writings and newspapers of the late nineteenth century, and survived right up to our times (e.g.: žodinystė was used in 1883 in Aušra in the sense of ‘etymology’; see LKŽ XX 936, while ūkininkystė, with a somewhat different meaning, probably reached present-day usage through later dictionaries; cf. LKŽ XVII 407–408). Kažukauskaitė’s article lists a considerable group of neologisms taken into IŽ from Sirvydas’s dictionary. However, it has not been established whether any were taken from the dictionaries of Kristijonas Gotlibas Milkus and Ferdinandas Nesselm thousands, which Ivinskis also used when writing his own dictionary. This question is left to future researchers. Apart from neologisms, another—and even more significant—layer of IŽ’s Lithuanian lexicon consists of vernacular words, mostly taken from Ivinskis’s native dialect, about which Kažukauskaitė’s article says little. Yet there are many such words. Often, for a Polish word, or one that had entered the Polish language of that period, IŽ gives not one but several vernacular equivalents, usually synonyms, e.g.: Flejtuch – Mūlkis, lūrbis, lūjbis, wėbra, lėjbis 280; Guducha – Sznekis, plėpis, plėszkis 295; Gapiowa-ty – Pālūrbis, pāwiebrīs, awiklākjis, apiklākjis, paklākjes 299; Gawędzić – Sznekietė, plepietė, ziawernotė, tāužitė, plėszkietė 303; Narywać – Prískabinietė, prīlasinietė, užmilžtė 655; Obszerпy – Ērtas, plātus, āpstūs, zārgūs 798; Ozdobnie – Grāžej, pūk(ej), szwėlnaj, skajstej, świesej 1053; Rozbestwiać się – Ibīngtė, ikīrštė, idūkėtė, isisžielotė, Ing giwoli wīrstė 1744; Rozważać – sàmpr(o)t(a)utė, minietė, galwotė, iszkloštitė 1981. Kažukauskaitė’s article does not discuss the quantity of the vernacular lexical layer in IŽ, but it was undoubtedly more extensive than the neologistic layer. Glancing through the dictionary, I have noticed the following Samogitian forms (one or another has already been mentioned in discussing synonymous Lithuanian equivalents): ātkala (ranka) ‘backwards’ (Naodlew) 644; Àsiauxa ‘water inlet’ (Odnoga) 847; būdinė [= budynės] ‘burial in a grave’ (Kondukt) 454; Kānduotas ‘core’ (Jądro) 371; Krieklė ‘pa- Recenzijos / Reviews 185 JONAS PALIONIS ‘poor little thing, ragamuffin’ (Galganica) 298; Nioižentė ‘to scale a fish’ (Odłuskać) 840; pà-pautìs ‘callus’ (Mozol) 604; plūdūnkis ‘vagabond’ (Gamrat) 298; Sidōklis ‘plaster’ (Gips) 309; Snūczas ‘snotty-nosed fellow’ (Gnuśnik) 322; Tràkus ‘annoying person’ (Pokraka) 118; Ukėlis (= ūkelis) ‘little tongue’ (Języczek) 385; Wìženas pl. ‘bast shoes’ (Postoły) 1241; Žiògspìras pl. ‘sawdust’ (Opiłki) 982. These are only a small sample of the Samogitian vocabulary in IŽ, which, like its other lexical strata, will hopefully be examined in greater detail by the dictionary’s editor. IŽ contains not only Lithuanian folk vocabulary, but also some folk phraseology, for example: akės pèr pakàušzi istràuktė (nastraszyć kogo) 931; Ing lankàs (pièwas) išzėjté (Odstąpić od rzeczy) 2042; ing szūnes dienàs iszdeté (–) 356; Kad tu parsprogtumej (Bodajé rozpękł) 1873; kiaules akes pasiimtė (newstydzić się) 931; Kiètas kaip miètas (–) 449; Liežuwiùs isznesžiòtė (plotki porobić, rozpleść) 1964; Pramuszta ràkta (Rozkwaszony łeb) 1834; Sudrumstame wandenieje žwejòtė (W mętnej wodę ryby łowić) 2019; Sùkàs man ànt šzirdìes (–) 1453. More phraseological expressions are found in the entries Oko, Ręka, Rząd, Rzecz and some others, although in this respect IŽ does not equal SWil. Of particular interest, especially to Polish linguists, is the article by Polish linguist Małgorzata Kilar, “Słownik polsko-litewski Wawrzynca Iwińskiego jako źródło badań nad polszczyzną litewską” (pp. XXVI–XLII), included in IŽ. The title already makes clear that its author was primarily concerned with the features of the Polish spoken in Lithuania recorded in IŽ, especially lexical ones. At the beginning, however, her article discusses the spelling of the Polish section of IŽ and the phonetic and morphological features associated with it, followed by matters of word formation and then vocabulary, especially regionalisms. Some of the latter are examined individually and in considerable detail, with reference to the dictionaries of Aleksander Brückner, Witold Doroszewski, Jan Karłowicz, Aleksandras Kuršaitis and other linguistic works. Since regionalisms may be of greatest interest to Lithuanian scholars, I will list them all: Barysz 59, Kul 496, Odliga 839, Pokurstać 1189, Pundel 1577, Rogojsz // Rogajsz 1698, Rojsto8 // Rojst 1704, Rupieć 2010. Besides these, the following “unusual” (osobliwy) forms are listed separately: Pogrobek 1176, Pokurć 1188, Porcjunkuł 1223, Prasowidełko; and the names of deities (Nazwy bóstw): Radon 1613, Ragana 1617, Ragon 1618, Raupùža 1632, Reidyn 1649, Reig 1649, Rungis 2009. In describing the regionalisms, the article’s author meticulously presents the opinions of prominent Polish and other linguists regarding their origins (for some reason, Ernesto Fraenkel’s Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch is not mentioned) and offers her own summary view on the matter, except in the case of Barysz, which Doroszewski considers a borrowing from Turkish baris ‘peace’, entering Polish through Belarusian and Ukrainian (p. XXXII). As for 8 in the text transcribed in IŽ it is mistakenly printed as Roj sko. 186 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV Lauryno Ivinskio lenkų-lietuvių kalbų žodynas in a footnote to this word, Kažukauskaitė added the comment that it “does not occur in SWil.” Thus it is unclear where this word, in this form, came from in IŽ. In Lithuanian dialects, the plural form baryšiai is generally used, meaning “a gratuity” (LKŽ I 639). In the section on regionalisms, the views of various linguists on the meaning, origin and use of the word Kul are set out at particular length, including its earliest appearance in the 1476 Latin source Codex diplomaticus ecclesiae cathedralis necnon dioeceseos Vilnensis. This is like a short dictionary entry describing the word. Having reviewed the various views, the author agrees with those who consider it a Lithuanian borrowing derived from kūlys ‘a bundle of straw’, borrowed from Belarusian or directly from Lithuanian (p. XXXIV). Kilar expressed a somewhat different opinion regarding the word odliga ‘thaw’. Apparently influenced by some Belarusian linguists, she regards this word as a Lithuanianism borrowed from Belarusian: “Biorąc pod uwagę zasięg geograficzny tych słów [t. y. odliga // otliga – J. P.], nie może być mowy o bezpośredniej pożyczce z litewskiego” (p. XXXV). Neither the evidence presented by the author herself nor the minimally Polonized form justifies such a conclusion; compare Lithuanian atlygà ‘thaw’ (LKŽ I 397). Similar mistaken conclusions are drawn about the words Pundel (p. XXXVI), Rojsto // Rojst (p. XXXVIII), and Rupieć (p. XXXIX). It is good that such conclusions are avoided in summarizing the origins of the words Rogojsz // Rogajsz, Pokurć, which are considered “directly borrowed.” The article says little about the aforementioned “unusual” forms, since they are clear Polonisms adapted to Lithuanian in IŽ (cf. SWil: Porcjunkuła, IŽ: Por-cjunkul 1223, which the article’s author for some reason calls “zapożyczeniem z języka litewskiego” (p. XXXIX)). The article also does not discuss the origins of the names of deities listed in IŽ, being content with the descriptions of these deities given in the dictionary. At the end of the article, the author quite justifiably emphasizes the significance of IŽ for Polish studies: it is said to be an important source showing the differences between standard Polish (“polszczyzną ogólnopolską”) and the Polish used in the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania (“polszczyzną używaną na terenach byłego Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego,” pp. XXXIX–XL). Through her substantial article, Kilar has considerably enhanced the value of the IŽ edition and deserves the gratitude not only of Polish scholars but also of Lithuanian scholars. However, I would not like to end this review here. While acknowledging IŽ as an important source not only for the history of Polish, but especially for the history of Lithuanian, Lithuanian historical dialectology and the history of Lithuanian lexicography, objectivity requires us to say that it nevertheless cannot equal either its source, SWil, on which its index is based, or many other printed bilingual dictionaries of that period. This is not merely because it had not yet been prepared for publication and was therefore unfinished; most importantly, it was written by someone without specialized philological training, who lacked both a theoretical understanding of lexicographic work and practical experience in it. It is therefore unsurprising that SWil surpasses IŽ in the more detailed (numbered) classification of word meanings, the abundance of illustrative examples, and the quality of its lexicographic descriptions of words (the structure of entries and grammatical labels). This has been discussed Recenzijos / Reviews 187 JONAS PALIONIS As can quickly be observed by comparing the texts of these two dictionaries, as discussed in Kažukauskaitė’s article. Thus the similarity to SWil is entirely understandable. First, several authors wrote this dictionary; second, although they too were not linguists, some of them were nevertheless more broadly educated in philology9. Moreover, Polish lexicography had older traditions, which the compilers of SWil could have followed. However, as Vitkauskas has noted, IŽ is more important to linguists than Daukantas’s three-volume Polish–Lithuanian dictionary, in which Lithuanian equivalents are not provided for quite a few Polish words10. In concluding this review, it is also worth drawing attention to the inaccuracies and typographical errors noticed here and there in the publication. Page XIX states that “the dictionary contains only illative forms characteristic of Eastern Aukštaitians,” but, as is known, the illative is characteristic not only of Eastern, but also of Central and Southern Aukštaitians. On the same page, the forms kalnop and biesop are treated as adesive rather than illative. In the footnote on page X, Renavo is printed instead of Rietavo. But I have noticed few such things in the publication. Its editor, Kažukauskaitė, carried out with great care a task requiring extraordinary attentiveness and perseverance, for which she deserves high praise and thanks. One may debate whether her chosen method of publishing the IŽ manuscript—a transcription accompanied by a CD—is preferable to the traditional facsimile edition, or not (for members of the older generation who do not use computers, the latter may seem better and more convenient); what is gratifying, however, is that IŽ has now become readily accessible to researchers. At the end of her introductory article, Kažukauskaitė promises that “an index to this dictionary will be published” (p. XXII). We will eagerly await such an index and hope that it will be compiled by none other than the editor of the dictionary under review herself, who has gained the deepest understanding of Laurynas Ivinskis’s lexicographic legacy. Received 20 April 2011. JONAS PALIONIS Vilniaus universitetas J. Tumo-Vaižganto g. 9–27, Vilnius, Lietuva 9 For example, Januarijus Pilipavičius (Filipowicz), one of the seven compilers of SWil, had graduated from Vilnius University and wrote on Polish chemical terminology; see Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. VI, fasc. 26, p. 454. 10 Cf. Vytautas Vitkauskas, cited work, p. 32. 188 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIV–LXV