Dėl „Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatijos“ recenzijos

Notes The form of the main Word. The following definition brings up the,,form selection according to the main ne The fact that the word is connected does not distinguish fusion from harmonization, because This criterion applies to both connection types. Thus, although the connection tipy definitions, compared to su previous DLKG permits, significantly changed, the total number of internal PriStaravimy remained more or less the same, or even notSignificantly increased. Ir in the future we will watch closely In this grammar, which is so important for university studies, the development of the concept of conjunction is applied. [wondering how connection types will be defined in other Current editions of Lithuanian grammar, which will undoubtedly be more in the future. Amrazas, V. 2005: [Rec.] Axel Bolvoet, Artiras Judzentis, red., Sintaksiniy rySiy tyrimai, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2003. Acta Linguistics Lithuanica 52, 167-170. Hotvoer, A., and Juozevns, A. 2003: Types of syntax relations. In: A. Howoer, A. Juvzenns, ed., Syntax Relationship Studies, Vilnius: Howvoer, A., Jupzevnis, 11-35, A., 2005a: The Lithuanian Language Institute. Types of syntax dependencies: additions ir clarifications. In: A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas, ed., Gramatiniy funky tyrimai, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 11-38. DLKG' = Vytautas Ambrazas, red., Modern Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Science ir encyclopedia publishing 1994, house, DLKG* = Vytautas Ambrazas, red., Dabartinés lietuviy kalbos gramatika. Fourth revised edition. Vilnius: Science ir encyclopedia publishing institute, 2006. Axel Bolvoet Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileigio g. 5 LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania South Lietuviy kalbos tarmiy chrestomatijos recenzijos! Obviously, every book is only alive when it has a reader. su All authors and editors want to ar hear as much — feedback as possible about the prepared publication. Lithuanian language tarmiy chrestomatijos (Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2004, 328, * Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 52, 170-174. 107 Notes p., [16] ISBN continue 9986-668-56-5; - Chrestomatija) also welcome every opinion about their work. One of i the first publishers rated the honourable essay of V. Vitkauskas. In the overall review, a number of inaccuracies and errors in mo ir the transposition were noted. Uz all comments organiséji very décazi. However, I do not want to agree with some of the thoughts of the respected reviewer, on some of the issues discussed, the opinion of the author of Chrestomatija is %iek tick different. Therefore, we would like to discuss some of our positions in more detail. First of all in the review incorrect is that ,,all the silence may be the same 1970 chrestomatia“. The creators realized that the new Chrestomatija tesia earlier panaThis series of works, which is undoubtedly i§ the most important for dialectologists Siol is Lietuviy pronunciation of Lietuviy (Vilnius: Thought, 1970). Nesinoréty meet ir su in that mety chrestomatija 1970 is equal Siam Publications. The only similarity between the two books is that both contain texts in all Lithuanian dialects. Naujoviy Chrestomatiya is much more: it is based on another, i8 acceptable to the current dialectology, Girdenio-Z. Zinkevicius created dialectal division?, are presented different aprafai, illustrative A. Earthlings, another jraSy selection principle. The publication is adapted to the modern user, allowing to use the possibilities of computer technology to reflect, as the author of the review states, ir the postZitrj j tarmes. All These issues and the relationship with previous publications are su discussed extensively in the Chrestomatias (p. 13, 14). So it can be ar said that the previous chrestomaty is completely silenced? The author of the review is not very convinced about the position of the language,,corruption“ by radio, television and, as it is said, by various schools. Ar tokyo In Vitkauskas’ V. opinion, »damaged« texts should not be ir submitted for analysis in publications. The time has come for dialectologists to abandon the narrow concept of dialect, that only the ir speaker who speaks like a dialectology textbook is good. To investigate i§ Modern ne situation, we must recognize that it is rapidly changing (do not fade, o biitent fade!), ir 1960-1970 Special frequencies reported in 2004 né su We wouldn't find a spark. We should understand that dél poky¢iy dialect does not become less, o changing dialect 2 In the chrestomaty presented ir K. Jauniaus-A. Sal's Distribution. For some adverbs, for example, the present yesterday aukStaitiy, it is even more appropriate. By the way, in the current classification, the adverbial names used, such as ryty aukstaidiai panevėziškieji kiti, are probably created ir i& A. The Sound of Silence. This is acknowledged ir by the co-author of the distribution Z. Zinkevitius (1994: 19). It is certainly not appropriate to accuse the organizers of concealing the authorship. 108 Note: Language is — less valuable*. The changing relationship ir of dialectal common language, the dialectal properties of the border, dialectal distinctive ir features and other characteristic changes also require a careful study of the ir development. Perhaps this, the ka reviewer calls »in violation of the digestive system*, there are facts of jy uninterrupted evolution? ir Really ne everywhere reviews author deréty rely on observations of the own lankyty i8 jo $nekty or linguistic opinions of the middle i§ of the last century. The chrestomaty contains many texts written at the end of the century, during XX this time only the presentation has o changed, but some features of the language or sounds ne ir jy Traditions of the day. In the publication, the texts are presented to the reader perhaps for the first time in an attempt to translate the narrator’s phonetic pronunciation. True, ji significantly simplified dél raimeny trakumo specifiniy book ir goaly. In the past, it was often transcribed according to a system, t. y. phonetic transcription, provided only in summary Snect view. Unfortunately, dialects often cannot be translated into any j pre-determi3 ined language. Aigku, transcribe according to the principle "It must be pronounced so" is incomparably easier. Trying to write as it is supposed, it is not easy to avoid error, but such a text is more valuable to the researcher. Todél In the chrestomaty, as the author of the mini-review, it certainly happens i8 in one place that in ne the same text, sometimes in the same sentence, the word is used in different ways. ir Of course, it is possible to consider such inequalities 'damaged', but hardly permissible ar not to be jy recorded. The principles of transcription in chrestomatia ivade are clearly described (p. 12), todél autoriy nuomoné giuo klausimu turéty biti ai8ki. One can only agree with the su reviewers that the i§ short, 15-20 minute-long, interviews are of little su use. Modern technical means allow us to record They are quite long texts, sometimes even 4-5 an hour long. All The ira8ai in the chrestomaty are at least an hour — long narratives. i§ Igesniy texty was not possible to present, duration jy lémé compactinés plokstelés capacity. I would like to discuss some transcription issues. One of the i§ most frequently criticized cases by the — reviewer of consonant minkStumo Zyméjimas in samples, where the consonant's n gummy variants are used 7 (solid) ir 9’ (minkStasis). V. In ko Vitkauskas’ opinion, the soft variant is used only for the soft k’, g’, the hard only for the hard ones. o — $i the author's position is defended ne only in the review, a separate MaZmodis in the same Minutes Linguistica Lithuanica issue (Vitkauskas 2005: * Another phenomenon, by the way, much more painful, is the declining prestige of ~ dialectal speaking among young people ir in society as a whole. This is exactly what dialectologists and all linguists need to focus on. ir ir 109 Notes In real 161). I8 samples of Lithuanian common language consonants are almost always either all soft, or hard according to the regressive assimilative softening désni (plg. Girdenis 2003: 242, Pakerys 2003: 181). In dialects, the variety of assimilatory softening is greater, but in this case it is necessary to discuss the degree of softening of dél gomuriniy alophones, dél vowels in the ne samples. n Differences in the hardness-softness o of the palatal sonant* heard by k, g comparison Zodiius laykstis : lan'ks'ti®, denkta : den'kti, dif.ktu. : Difj'kti ir kt. Only the hardness of the sonant softness depends on ar the posterior vocalism of ne the subsequent syllable, it ar differs in the quality ir of the entire preceding syllable. IS iOnly the consonants k, gdecrease. ne These consonants soften very little in samples or remain quite hard, so they do not prevent the sounds next to them from softening, e.g.: al'ks'n'iis, smul'kmé:, ver". Others, — Siuose In the words, the soft sonanty is clearly heard. The reviewer notes prof. A. Girdenis's article...is (2000: 165-167) dedicated to ne the whole problem of the softness of o the gomuriniy sonanty, consonant k, g softening degree. It states that in previous years lietuviy linguists (J. Gerulis, P. Jonikas, Baléikonis, J. MikalauskaitE. é, etc.) ir believes that in samples k, g neminkstéja (Girdenis 2000: 165). Only a few decades ago it was assumed that in common language the prefix samples undergoing complete assimilation process (Pakerys 1986: 286). Unfortunately, this newer view is not supported by dialectal facts or experimental studies. In this article Prof. A. Girdenio concludes that consonants in samples k, g are closer to hard ones, even when ir surrounded by soft ones. Thus, such compounds are al'ks'n'us, praviF'.gdi's, cirk3ts etc. ir Adhering Transcribe this position all Chrestomatia texts, then how can it be argued that in it ,going even to the book consultant prof. habil. Dr. A. Girdenj* (Vitkauskas 2005: 161)? In the review it is su accused that in many of the advice texts the voice of the Sake is translated e ,,Zemaitiskuoju“ e. Zemaitiskasis e < i is definitely different from e< e, tatiau tuo patiu Zenklu zymimi keliy patarmiy different sounds. Triikstant i’samaus * During the preparation of the article, I had to discuss the issue of sample softness with doc. Dr. Z. Markevigiene. In her opinion, the palatal nasal sonates in the samples remain very insignificant, due to the fact that they go to the neminStéjanéius k, g. This problem was solved by experimental research. ® Directly before the vowels of the next syllable, the softness of the vowels is nowhere marked. 110 Notes Zenkly set, dialectologists have to do it quite often, for example, equally Zymimas rytietiy katé.s aigkiai differs from Zemaictiy vé.sa. The short unreleased e subjunctive soft in many dialects is pronounced very sharply, so it is impossible to ignore such a distinct qualitative variant. Phonemes /e/ we still use allophones Zenkly eiluted texts look like this: ‘e — much more pronounced uz e, very tense diphthong vowel, most commonly used in pietiniy vakary aukStai¢iy kauniskiy suvalkietiy, The — pronunciatijo on in publications varies; e—8slightly higher uz e a vowel, most often pronounced in a soft, unheard consonant or in a strong, unheard diphthong ei; ir e — the primary ‘neutral’ allophone; ¢—8slightly more open uz e votes; @ ~ very open diphthong vowel, used before S hard consonants. Probably mostly ,,pylos“ from the reviewer hit yesterday the auk&tai¢iy kauniskiy section. Whereas: The author of this article, who is from Kaunas Ski area, mostly had to contribute to the preparation of the section, but she also wanted to discuss some of the issues. First of all, the quality of the dél strong-vowel double-vowel duration. i, u ir IS two of clubs So it has traditionally been believed that Narrow part of the beauty (Jurbarko, Sakiy S$nektos) ir Our jy southern neighbors, the Zanavyks (Grikabiidzio, Janky apylinkés) are probably the only i8 ones in the whole Lithuanian language area who do not miss the syllable dvigarsiy démeny® (Zinkevicius 1966: He's on the ground. No. 70, 72; LKT 1970: 180-192; LKA 1982: 38, He's on the ground. No. 20)’. This is stated in almost all earlier works of dialectologists from the time mentioned in the review F. Where's Saié? Unfortunately, based solely on Klaus, no be experimental research. Zemélapia in Chrestomatia, by the way, are prepared according to Lietuviy language atlasq, it is indicated Jvade (p. 14), so they left the Saltini depicted paddies. In recent years, hypothetical ideas have been raised that ir Sios &néktos negaléty biti iSimtis of i the whole Lithuanian language area. Different prosodic structure (short vowel diphthongs) ir containéiy syllable meanings must undoubtedly differ. It is known that the Lithuanian language's strong-primary diphthong is one of the most important ig post- — \ Notes that LKA veliuoniskiy plote cirkumfleksiniy (testiniy) dvigarsiy first démenys i, u 2ymimi half-lengths (1982: He's on the ground. No. 21). By toki It appears that they are longer than the solid root, which is hardly probable. ” Beside esandiame piety Zemaitiy raseiniskiy area more authors It has semi-long ir even long solid-vowel double-vowels i, u (Zinkevidius 1966: He's on the ground. No. 70, 72; Grinaveckis 1973: 130-132; LKT 1970: 102-128). So different advice analogi8ky sounds Signing traditions up to Siol skyrési. 111 Notes on the duration of the first dementia (see Pakerys 1982: 159). Todél began to think that and The two-vowel démens i, u discussed in this area may not be short (cf. Girdenis 1996: 111). This opinion is difficult to confirm, if only because, as the author of the review states, if the hypothesis is confirmed, there will no longer be any places in Lithuania where démenys are pronounced shortly, and the norms of common language pronunciation require that they should be pronounced exactly that way. After listening more carefully to the texts of Naauriniy kauniskiy Snekty, without any experimental study, first of all, the qualitative and not quantitative difference between the long and short vowels of the diphthongs was clearly heard. The diftongs appear open, slightly stretched, so throughout the Chrestomatia everywhere Zyméti Signs i, u (in fact the underline, which the reviewer did not notice, Zymi openness). In more expressive speaking and spelling of Zodj, sometimes these sounds become even wider and turn into vowels e, 0, panaphic j Zemaitiskus. In this area there are many common features with the Zemaites, but they did not always manifest themselves systematically. Todél is a strong-origin double-vowel démenu i, u platéjimas — frequently repeated. It is a pity that the reviewer, not looking closely at the transcription of Zenkl, accused the authors of the Chrestomatia of nonsense. The book certainly did not state that the Snektos of Siaurinés kauni8kiy speak the same as the kapsai of Marijampole, Prienus and elsewhere. The pronunciation of the words pi.rmas: pi.rmas, dii.nda: dti.nda is completely different in terms of quality, firstly, neither in one text i8 Narrow kauniskiy area, you system such elongation is foreign. By the way, the author mentions that when listening to the discussed Snekty diftongs, i, u plasticization is heard, thus it is recognized that i8 hearing they differ from short vowels. In some experimental quantitative studies (Baceviéitité 2001; BaceviGitité, Leskauskaité 2004; Bacevitiiité 2004, 88-94; Vai’niené, Baceviciiite 2005, 292-303), the following ratios of sound lengths were determined by measurements: + two-vowels i, u and short vowels —1: 0.63; + two-vowels i, u and long vowels —1: 1.23. Thus, in length, the strong-origin diphthongs i, u differ from both short and long vowels, but are closer to long ones®. Here it is worth noting that when studying sounds, there was a discrepancy between real experience and auditory perception, auditory, auditory. Since the qualitative Sie in longitudinal diphthongs is very different from the longy-itemptujui, w, if in auditory, they are quite often perceived as short. However, when measured in length, they cannot be considered short. In Todél and Chrestomatía they are everywhere marked as pusil- ® The greater length leads to the fact that in the mentioned Snektos there are cases of diftongation. Top intermediate variants between i, u and e, 9, Slightly diphthongated fe, *0. 112 Notes are open. By the i way, the difference between short vowels and ir diftongs is clearly audible, e.g.: spire s‘pi.r'ti, kiiras kiir'ti. : The reviewer is surprised that In the chrestomaty, Jurbarko Snekta is attributed to the old Kaunas people. However, according to the current dialectal division jurbarkiSkiai are the true ir kauniskiai, not diverting the kiry i8 That's it. You are right. Jurbarkas Snekta Slightly different from the southern one On the Nemunas side, there is a beautiful snekty, biadama area. Zemaicéiy area, has more Zemaitisky characteristics, but why dél laikysime to ja Fuckers? Narrow evening auk8taitiai (perhaps you need to understand — A. The West Indies Division, pp. 10. Country 1992: 102) in the current division, after all, are not distinguished. Be of, the statement that In Jurbarkas Snekta, 0, ¢ unrepeated open finals are pronounced only with vowels a, e, no longer corresponds to reality. Latest observations made 2003 this summer In the ir smalininkuose later in the surrounding points, indicates that the i, u short ones are used for interjection su e, a much further j west of LKA (1982: 49, 56, He's on the ground. No. 32, 38) the limits specified at A divorce. In simple texts, the reviewer will see fewer ir major errors, and most of the comments are about transpositional inconsistencies in the transcription. ir [say discussional thoughts norétysi dél keliy muhimesniy remarks. Reviewer doubts dél Siauliskiy shaped hair. According to him, there must be a raSoma pldukai®, in syllables t. y. containing a diphthong, without a temporary difference. It has been observed for a long time that the prepositions of the ne Siaurés ZemaiGay kretingi8kiai, but other ir zemaitis and east auktai¢iai panevezyskiai (Salys 1992: 124-125; Gar'va 1977: 83; KaeiuSkiené 2006: 56; Girdenis, Zidonyté 1994: 119 4 ign. ir kt.), Currently Siauliskiy Snekty (true, only southern) prosody is very iStyrusi R. Kazlauskaite. Experimental studies have shown that PaSuSvio snektoje, probably all the ir south In the Siauliskiy part, the preposition of the deductive in diphthong ir diphthong syllables differs. They are most distinctly differentiated by the quality of the first démen: neoakitiniy bivolar initial démen is less reduced, purer than the corresponding neocirkumfleksiniy syllable démen. (Kazlauskaité 2005: 322). Organizers of Chrestomatia You'll stick to ir this position. Discuss possible dél Siauliskiy tvirtagalés prietempés pirmojo sando trukmés. The author of the review states that Siauliskiy prefixes are only musical, depending t. y. on the tone movement. Tvirtagalés provisional first sando pabrézimas esa neilginamas, taigi turéty biti jo Zymima Isein, Sdugdava, i8é.in, [email protected]. o ne Shit- ° Zymejimas In this case there is a contractual matter. It can be called a plump, but ir gravis : shows a more pronounced temporary difference. 113 Notes riniy Siauliskiy prefrontal isamiai experimentally studied A. Timeline. It certainly claims that ,,in long diphthongs, the first component concentrates the greatest i voice strength, but the latter is about the same length as the second component of the diphthong“ ir (1958: 91). The study is one of the first experimental i8 work. Drink At the moment, with the change of experimental methodology, ir blind trust is not possible. Lietuviy kalbos priegaidziy poZymiai for a long time were defined, F. KurSaitio musical preludes (described by a change in pitch) ir K. The traditions of young dynamic anticipation (described by changes in intensity). In the works of the last 6-7to century These terms were popular. However, po prof. A. In Packer's study (1982) all phonetic specialists unanimously agree that the Lithuanian language's accent, like the accent, is a phenomenon of a complex nature that cannot be described by any single ir subsign, but only by a complex. jy Vargu ar galéty Narrow Siauliskiy angle i8differ i§ from the general system. If the solid premonition is concentrated in the first dimension, then all the signs (purer quality, higher tone, greater intensity, longer duration), any jo one of them, are more pronounced. o ne Be to, SiauliSkiy strong syllables even ir i8 auditory aiS markedly different from the contentéiy distracting kirti tvirtagalés nature syllables, pairs GZusra 'atiSra' : ausra ,austra‘ differentiates the quantity of the first démens. South Sakyni8kiy ir Zagari8kiy kirgiuoty balsiy i, u elongation —jau minéta, when In chrestomaty, the sounds were tried to be transcribed as they were pronounced. Listening to the text, one can hear that the prolongation in Zagaré is not systematic: somewhere it is pronounced one way, somewhere else it is pronounced differently. — That's ir how we tried to find it. By the way, speaking su with iS ty younger locals Zmoneémis- ", to hear that lately even more Elongate these vowels. Apparently summarizes the situation in the neighbouring Snektos. Not very aigku, kodél reviewer apra’ymo i§ (p. 78) ir Zemélapio (after p. 76) neaigkiis piety auk&taitiy balsiy e / ¢ ir o- / 9 areas of consumption. It is clearly stated that the uddarian vowels are used in the eastern southern part of the Nemunas, ii at dinner. The same opinion is held by ir Z. Markeviéiené, who, having listened to and ir deciphered many of the texts of Piety aukStai¢iy, claims that ,,uZdari o-, e tariami Narrowing ir of the eye Snektose — or Traky, Kai8iadoriy districts, eastern part of Varena district. <...> Kitur (in the districts of Alytus, Lazdijai, in the western part of Varena district, about Druskininkus) are said to be open 9-, ¢, often even more open uz uteni8kiy* (1999: 10 18 JoniSkio risen well ir Narrow SiauliSkiy Snektas distance colleagues A. According to Kaikarytés, at present Zagariskiai ir The sentences tend to lengthen the vowels in question to half-longy, but not always systematically. 114 Notes 27-28). In accordance with this position, the Chrestomatia provides all examples and texts, except in those cases where Starta is incorrect. I'd like to make a couple of comments to the building department today. First of all, dél is the preposition of the iliative and inessive forms Ziy. In previous works Siy linksniy priegaidziy Zyméjimas was inconsistent. Most likely, both linksniy forms Zzyméta strongly pre-existing. Only in recent years it has been suggested that in those eastern Snektos where the abbreviated forms of the iliative and inessive are used, they are separated by a preposition, e.g.: aind pe.v5s and arkli.s gd.na.s pe.vss (Rinkauskiené 1999: 5). It is thought that the forms of the substantive number iliativ were crossed by J. Jablonskis —Siauliuésna, darzudsna, darzudsen, Saldsna, Salésen (1957: 72). True, his spelling has been criticized, as being a victim of yesterday, he could not properly translate forms not available in the native dialect"™ (Zinkevitius 1966: 214). To confirm (or refute) this hypothesis, an experimental study must be carried out, but the forms of hearing loss are different. In the opinion of the author of the review, in the eastern part of the turéty is used to form strong roots, e.g. mer'gé-tes, sukntte, nabag颒u, etc. It is not clear why such a claim is supported, because the SirvintiSkiai belongs to the area of Snekty, and all the forms that can be identified by catching are cut in the trunk. IS hearing This type of form seems to be quite uncommon in the solid state. By the way, such prepositional vowels in other studies are also referred to as middle prepositional consonants, e.g.: smalt-te, martte (Markevitiené’* 1999: 100-109). Many of the remarks about Zemai¢y can be agreed, but some of them are also questionable. The statement that,,the areas of presence of afrikaty ¢, dz are not properly cultivated“ is quite unclear. In addition to the description on p. 198, the areas of use and the extent of the distribution of the Afrikaty are indicated in the table of the characteristics of the Zemai¢iy dialect (after p. 200) and illustrated in the map of each dialect. The reader can definitely find the necessary information. The word April is now perhaps known to all of Lithuania, i8 learned in books, especially after so many years of intensive use of April, but earlier April and Pigeon 4 In the opinion of many dialectologists, i8 ally aukStaiéiy precisely yesterday aukStaiai kauunitkiai understand the temporary differences best. It is used in all long vowel syllables that are kiréiated, e.g.: pasakl's'u, viena, mé:tera, pd-sakava, cigé-ne. 2. Markevitiene and V. MarkeviciSirvintiskiy region the suffix -yté us (1995: 69-72) show that the long vowels of the Sirvinti8kiy kirGiuoti are significantly (more than twice!) shorter than those of the common language, and at such a short length, it is simply impossible to pronounce the prepositions clearly. 115