Pastabos

the form of the headword. However, the definition’s emphasis on “choosing a form not on the basis of the headword’s valency” does not in fact distinguish adjoinment from agreement, since this criterion applies to both types of attachment.

Thus, although the definitions of the types of attachment have changed considerably compared with earlier DLKG editions, the total number of internal contradictions has remained more or less the same, or has even increased slightly. We will continue to follow closely the development of the concept of attachment applied in this grammar, which is so important for university teaching. It will be interesting to see how the types of attachment are defined in future editions of The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, of which we will undoubtedly see many more.

AMBRAZAS, V. 2005: [Rec.] Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, red., Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2003. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 167–170.

HOLVOET, A., JUDŽENTIS, A. 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. In: A. HOLVOET, A. JUDŽENTIS, red., Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–35.

HOLVOET, A., JUDŽENTIS, A., 2005a: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildymai ir patikslinimai. In: A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas, red., Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–38.

DLKG¹ = Vytautas Ambrazas, ed., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1994.

DLKG⁴ = Vytautas Ambrazas, ed., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Ketvirtoji pataisyta laida. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2006.

Axel Holvoet

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5

LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania

On the review of The Anthology of Lithuanian Dialects¹

It is clear that every book is alive only when it has a connection with its readers. Every author or editor hopes to hear as many responses as possible about the publication they have prepared. The Anthology of Lithuanian Dialects (Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2004, 328,

¹ Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 170–174.

107

Pastabos

[16] pp., ISBN 9986-668-56-5; hereafter, the Anthology) are also pleased by every opinion about their work. One of the first to assess the publication was our esteemed dialect researcher V. Vitkauskas. His detailed review points out numerous inaccuracies in transposition and transcription, as well as errors that arose in editing the complex text. The editors are very grateful for all the comments.

However, we are reluctant to agree with some of the thoughts expressed by the respected reviewer; on some of the issues under discussion, the authors of the Anthology hold somewhat different views. We would therefore like to discuss several of our positions in greater detail.

First, the review is unfair in claiming that “the comparable 1970 anthology is completely ignored.” The editors understood that the new Anthology continues a series of similar earlier works, of which the most important for dialectologists to this day is undoubtedly The Dialects of the Lithuanian Language (Vilnius: Mintis, 1970). We would also disagree with the claim that the 1970 anthology is equivalent to this publication. The only similarity between the two books is that both contain texts from all Lithuanian dialects. The Anthology introduces many more innovations: it draws on a different classification of dialects, developed by A. Girdenis and Z. Zinkevičius and accepted in contemporary dialectology²; it provides different kinds of descriptions and illustrative maps, and uses a different principle for selecting recordings. The publication is designed for the modern user, enabling them to make use of computer technology and reflecting, as the reviewer puts it, the younger generation of dialectologists’ perspective on dialects. All these matters, as well as the relationship to earlier publications, are discussed at length in the introduction to the Anthology (pp. 13–14). So can it really be claimed that the earlier anthology is completely ignored?

The reviewer’s position on the “corruption” of dialects by radio, television and, as he claims, various kinds of schools is not very clear. In V. Vitkauskas’s opinion, should such “corrupted” texts not be included in publications and analyzed at all? The time has come for dialectologists to abandon a narrow understanding of dialect and the assumption that only an informant who speaks as if from a dialectology textbook is a good one. To study the contemporary situation of dialects, we must acknowledge that they are changing rapidly (not disappearing, but changing!), and that the features recorded in the 1960s and 1970s would often now be impossible to find even with a searchlight. We should understand that change does not make dialects inferior, and that changing dialect speech

² In the Chrestomathy, K. Jaunius–A. Salys’s classification is also presented. For some subdialects, for example those of today’s Western Highlanders, it is even more suitable. Incidentally, the subdialect names used in the current classification, such as Eastern Highlanders of Panevėžys and others, were in fact coined at A. Girdenis’s suggestion. This is acknowledged even by the co-author of the classification himself, Z. Zinkevičius (1994: 19). The editors certainly should not be accused of concealing authorship.

108

Pastabos

speech is less valuable³. The changing relationship between dialects and the standard language, the interaction of borderland dialects, and changes in the distinguishing and other features of dialects also call for careful observation and study. Perhaps what the reviewer calls “disruptions of the dialect system” are merely facts of their continuous change and development? The author of the review should certainly not rely everywhere on observations from the local varieties he himself visited, or on linguists’ opinions dating from the middle of the last century. In the Chrestomathy, quite a few texts recorded at the end of the twentieth century are presented, and over that time not only have the informants changed, but some features of their speech and the conventions for representing sounds have changed as well.

In this publication, the texts are presented to readers, perhaps for the first time, in an effort to record the narrator’s actual pronunciation using phonetic transcription. It is considerably simplified, however, because of the limited range of characters and the book’s specific aims. In the past, transcription often followed a system—that is, phonological transcription—which conveyed only a generalized picture of a local variety. Unfortunately, dialect speech often cannot be forced into any pre-established framework. Clearly, transcribing according to the principle “this must be pronounced this way” is incomparably easier. Trying to record speech as it is pronounced makes it difficult to avoid errors, but such a text is more valuable to the researcher. Thus, as the author of the review notes, in the ChrestomathyChrestomathy there are indeed quite a few instances where a word is written inconsistently within the same text, sometimes even in the same sentence. Of course, such inconsistencies can be regarded as “corrupt,” but it is hardly permissible not to record them. The principles of transcription are clearly set out in the introduction to the ChrestomathyChrestomathy (p. 12), so the authors’ position on this matter should be clear.

One can only agree with the reviewer that a short conversation with an informant, lasting just 15–20 minutes, is of little benefit. Modern technology makes it possible to record fairly long texts, sometimes even lasting 4–5 hours. All the recordings in the ChrestomathyChrestomathy are excerpts from narratives lasting at least an hour. It was impossible to include longer texts; their duration was limited by the capacity of the compact disc.

It would be worthwhile to discuss some aspects of the transcription. One of the cases most frequently criticized by the reviewer is the marking of consonant palatalization in clusters, where velar variants of the consonant n are used: ŋ (hard) and ŋ’ (palatalized). According to V. Vitkauskas, the palatalized variant is possible only before palatalized k’, g’, while the hard variant is possible only before hard consonants. This author’s position is defended not only in the review; a separate Mažmožis is devoted to it in the same issue of Acta Linguistica Lithuanica (Vitkauskas 2005:

³ Another phenomenon, incidentally, and a much more troubling one, is the declining prestige of dialect and dialect speech among young people and throughout society. This is precisely what dialectologists and all linguists should be especially concerned about.

109

Pastabos

161). In fact, in clusters, the consonants of Standard Lithuanian are almost always either all soft or all hard, in accordance with the rules of regressive assimilatory palatalization (cf. Girdenis 2003: 242, Pakerys 2003: 181).

Assimilatory palatalization varies more widely in dialects, but in this case the issue to discuss is not the velar allophones n, but the degree of palatalization of the consonants k, g in clusters. The hard–soft distinction of the velar sonant⁴ can be heard by comparing the words laŋkštùs: laŋ'kšti⁵, dæŋktà: deŋkti, diŋ.ktu.: diŋ'.kti, and so on. The front or back quality of the vowel in the following syllable determines not only the sonant’s hardness or softness; the quality of the entire preceding syllable also differs. Only the consonants k, g fall out of the regressive chain of sound assimilation. Phonologists have repeatedly noted that these consonants undergo very little palatalization in clusters or remain entirely hard, yet they do not prevent the sounds preceding them from palatalizing, e.g.: al'ks'n'ùs, smul'kmẽ, vẽr'.kti—in these words, the softness of the sonants is clearly audible.

Recenzento minimas prof. A. Girdenio straipsnis (2000: 165–167) skirtas visai ne gomurinių sonantų minkštumo problemai, o priebalsių k, g minkštėjimo laipsniui. Jame teigiama, kad ankstesniais metais lietuvių kalbininkai (J. Gerulis, P. Jonikas, J. Balčikonis, E. Mikalauskaitė ir kt.) laikėsi nuomonės, jog samplaikose k, g neminkštėja (Girdenis 2000: 165). Tik prieš keliolika metų imta manyti, kad bendrinėje kalboje priebalsių samplaikos ištisai patiriančios asimiliacinį minkštinimą (Pakerys 1986: 286). Deja, šio naujesnio požiūrio neparemė nei tarmių faktai, nei eksperimentiniai tyrimai. Minimame straipsnyje prof. A. Girdenio daroma išvada, kad priebalsiai k, g samplaikose artimesni kietiesiems, net ir būdami minkštųjų apsuptyje. Taigi tokio tipo junginiai tartini al'ks'n'ùs, pravir'.gdi·s, č'ir'kšl'ìs ir kt. Laikantis šio požiūrio transkribuoti visi Chrestomatijos tekstai, tai kaip galima teigti, kad joje „einama net prieš knygos konsultantą prof. habil. dr. A. Girdenį“ (Vitkauskas 2005: 161)?

The review seems to reproachfully claim that in the texts of many informants the fronted vowel e turns into the “Samogitian” ė. Samogitian ė < i certainly differs from ė < e, but the same symbol is used to represent different sounds in several informants’ speech. In the absence of a detailed

⁴ In preparing the article, I had occasion to discuss the palatalization of consonants in clusters with Associate Professor Dr. Ž. Markevičienė. In her view, velar nasal sonants undergo only very slight palatalization in clusters, precisely because they occur before k, g, which do not palatalize. Experimental research would be needed to resolve this problem.

⁵ Consonant palatalization is not marked anywhere directly before front vowels.

110

Pastabos

Given the set of symbols, dialectologists often have to do this quite frequently; for example, the eastern Lithuanian katė.s, marked uniformly, is clearly distinct from the Samogitian vė.sa. In many subdialects, the short unstressed e before a palatal consonant is pronounced very close; such a marked qualitative variant cannot be left unnoted. The series of symbols for all the allophones of the phoneme /e/ used in the texts looks like this:

ę – a much closer, very tense diphthongal vowel than e, used most often by the southern western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai—Suvalkijai; its notation varies across publications;

ę – a vowel somewhat closer than e, most often pronounced unstressed before a palatal consonant or in a circumflex and unstressed diphthong ei;

e – the main “neutral” allophone;

ė – a vowel somewhat more open than e;

æ – a very open diphthongal vowel, used before a non-palatal consonant.

Perhaps the western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai section received the most “flak” from the reviewer. Since the author of this article, who comes from the Kauniškiai area, was chiefly responsible for preparing the section, she would also like to discuss some of the points raised. First, the duration and quality of the first components i, u in acute-initial diphthongs. In fact, it has traditionally been thought until now that the northern part of the Kauniškiai area (the Jurbarkas and Šakiai dialects) and their southern neighbors, the Zanavykai (the areas around Griškabūdis and Jankai), are perhaps the only varieties across the entire Lithuanian language area that do not lengthen the components of these diphthongs⁶ (Zinkevičius 1966: map no. 70, 72; LKT 1970: 180–192; LKA 1982: 38, map no. 20)⁷. This is stated in almost all the works of dialectologists from earlier years, going back to the time of F. Kurschat, mentioned in the review. Unfortunately, these claims were based solely on listening, without any experimental studies. The maps in the Chrestomatijoje, incidentally, were prepared on the basis of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, as stated in the Introduction (p. 14); they therefore retain the situation represented in the source.

In recent years, the hypothesis has been put forward that these dialects, too, might not be exceptions within the Lithuanian language area as a whole. Syllables with different prosodic structures (short vowels and diphthongs) should undoubtedly differ in their characteristics. It is well known that one of the most important characteristics of Lithuanian acute-initial diphthongs is the di-

⁶ It should be noted that in the Veliuona area shown in LKA, the first components i, u of circumflex (continuous) diphthongs are marked as half-long (1982: map no. 21). According to this notation, they appear to be longer than those in acute-initial diphthongs, which is hardly likely.

⁷ In the adjacent area of the southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect, more authors mark the components i, u of acute-initial diphthongs as half-long or even long (Zinkevičius 1966: map no. 70, 72; Grinaveckis 1973: 130–132; LKT 1970: 102–128). Thus, conventions for transcribing analogous sounds in different subdialects have differed up to the present.

111

Pastabos

desnė pirmojo dėmens trukmė (plg. Pakerys 1982: 159). Todėl imta galvoti, kad ir šiame plote aptariamųjų dvigarsių dėmenys i, u galbūt nėra trumpieji (plg. Girdenis 1996: 111). Įtvirtinti šią nuomonę kol kas sekasi sunkiai, jau vien dėlto, kad, kaip teigia recenzijos autorius, pasitvirtinus hipotezei, Lietuvoje nebeliktų vietų, kur dėmenys tariami trumpai, o bendrinės kalbos tarties normos reikalauja tarti būtent taip. Atidžiau pasiklausius daugiau šiaurinių kauniškių šnektų tekstų, be jokių eksperimentinių tyrimų pirmiausia aiškiai išgirstas ne kiekybinis, o kokybinis dvigarsių dėmenų skirtumas nuo ilgųjų ir nuo trumpųjų balsių. Dvigarsių dėmenys atrodo atviri, mažai įtempti, todėl Chrestomatijoje visur žymėti ženklais i, u (būtent pabraukimas, kurio recenzentas nepastebėjo, žymi atvirumą). Ekspresyviau kalbant ir pabrėžiant žodį, kartais šie garsai dar labiau paplatėja ir virsta balsiais ẹ, ọ, panašiais į žemaitiškus. Šiame plote pasitaiko daug bendrų su žemaičiais ypatybių, tik ne visada pasireiškiančių sistemingai. Todėl ir tvirtapradžių dvigarsių dėmenų i, u platėjimas – dažnas reiškinys. Gaila, kad recenzentas, atidžiau nepasigilinęs į transkripcijos ženklus, apkaltino Chrestomatijos rengėjus nesamais dalykais. Knygoje tikrai nebuvo teigiama, kad šiaurinės kauniškių šnektos taria taip pat, kaip kapsai apie Marijampolę, Prienus ir kitur. Užrašymai pí.rmas: pí.rmas, dú.nda: dú.nda žymi visiškai skirtingą kokybinį tarimą, pirmųjų nėra nė viename tekste iš šiaurinio kauniškių ploto, jų sistemai toks ilginimas svetimas. Beje, autorius mini, kad klausantis aptariamųjų šnektų dvigarsių, girdimas i, u plastelėjimas, taigi pripažįstama, kad iš klausos jie skiriasi nuo trumpųjų balsių.

After conducting numerous experimental studies of quantity (Bacevičiūtė 2001; Bacevičiūtė, Leskauskaitė 2004; Bacevičiūtė 2004, 88–94; Vaišnienė, Bacevičiūtė 2005, 292–303), measurements established the following duration ratios for sounds:

the components of diphthongs i, u and short vowels – 1: 0.63;

the components of diphthongs i, u and long vowels – 1: 1.23.

Thus, in terms of duration, the components i, u of acute diphthongs differ from both short and long vowels, but are closer to the long ones⁸. It is worth noting here that the study of sounds revealed a discrepancy between their actual properties and the auditory impression perceived by the ear. Since these lengthened diphthong components differ greatly in quality from long, tense i-, u-, they are quite often perceived by ear as short vowels. However, measurements of their duration show that they cannot be considered short. Therefore, in the Chrestomatijoje they are consistently marked as half-long—

⁸ Greater duration means that these diphthong components are sometimes diphthongized in the dialects mentioned. Intermediate variants between i, u and ẹ, ọ are frequent, as are slightly diphthongized ʹe, ʹo.

112

Pastabos

fully open. Incidentally, the difference between short vowels and diphthong components is clearly audible, e.g.: spìre: sp.r, kùras: kù.r.

The reviewer is surprised that the Chrestomatijoje classifies the Jurbarkas dialect as belonging to the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect. However, according to the current classification of dialects, Jurbarkas speakers are indeed the quintessential Kaunas speakers, who do not retract stress from the end of the word. It is true that the Jurbarkas dialect differs somewhat from the Kaunas subdialects south of the Nemunas, being closer to the Samogitian area and displaying more Samogitian features; but surely that is no reason to consider it Samogitian? The Northwestern Aukštaitians (presumably meaning—according to A. Salys’s classification—the western northern Aukštaitians; cf. Salys 1992: 102) are not distinguished in the current classification. Moreover, the claim that unstressed o, e in open endings in the Jurbarkas dialect are reflected only by the vowels a, e no longer corresponds to reality. Recent observations, made in the summer of 2003 in Smalininkai and later at nearby sites, show that short i, u are used interchangeably with e, a much farther west than the boundary near Skirsnemunė indicated in LKA (1982: 49, 56, map nos. 32, 38).

The reviewer identified fewer major errors in the descriptions and texts of the other dialects; most of the comments concern discrepancies in transcription and transposition. A few of the more important comments invite discussion.

The reviewer questions the Šiauliai form plàukai. In his view, it should be written pláukai⁹, that is, there are no differences in pitch accent in syllables with retracted stress. It has long been observed that not only the Kretinga subdialect of Northern Samogitian distinguishes the pitch accents of retracted stress, but other Samogitians and the Panevėžys subdialect of Eastern Aukštaitian do so as well (Salys 1992: 124–125; Garšva 1977: 83; Kačiūskienė 2006: 56; Girdenis, Židonytė 1994: 119 n. 4, etc.). R. Kazlauskaitė has recently carried out a comprehensive study of the prosody of the Šiauliai subdialects (though only the southern ones). Her experimental studies demonstrate that in the Pašūsvys dialect, and probably throughout the southern Šiauliai area, pitch accents under retracted stress differ in diphthongal and diphthong-containing syllables. The quality of the first component distinguishes them most clearly: the initial component of neoacute diphthongs is less reduced and purer than the corresponding component of neocircumflex syllables (Kazlauskaitė 2005: 322). The editors of the Chrestomatijos followed this view.

The duration of the first component of the circumflex pitch accent in the Šiauliai subdialect is open to discussion. The reviewer claims that pitch accents in this subdialect are purely musical, that is, dependent on tonal movement. He considers the emphasis on the first component of the circumflex accent unjustified; therefore, the forms should be marked išein, šauǧdava rather than išè.in, šà.ugdava. Šiau-

⁹ In this case, the notation is a matter of convention. One could also write plàukai: làukai, but the grave accent makes the difference between the pitch accents more apparent.

113

Pastabos

A. Laigonaitė conducted a detailed experimental study of the pitch accents of the Rininiai Šiauliškiai. She states unequivocally that “in circumflex diphthongs the greatest vocal force is concentrated on the first component, but the latter is approximately as long as the second component of the diphthong” (1958: 91). This is one of the first experimental studies. Given the changes in experimental methods and tools, it cannot now be relied on blindly. For a long time, the features of Lithuanian pitch accents were described by continuing the traditions of F. Kuršaitis’s musical pitch accent (described in terms of changes in pitch) and K. Jaunius’s dynamic pitch accent (described in terms of changes in intensity). These terms were popular in works from the 1950s and 1960s. However, following A. Pakerys’s studies (1982), all phonetics specialists now unanimously acknowledge that Lithuanian pitch accent, like stress, is a phenomenon of mixed nature and cannot be described by any single feature, but only by a combination of them. It is unlikely that the northern Šiauliškiai area would diverge from the overall system. If the circumflex pitch accent is concentrated on the first component, then all its features are more prominent (purer quality, higher pitch, greater intensity, longer duration), rather than just one of them. Moreover, even by ear, Šiauliškiai circumflex syllables are clearly distinct from syllables of circumflex origin that bear retracted stress; the pairs ā.ušra ‘dawn’: aušra ‘dawn’ are distinguished precisely by the quantity of the first component.

As for the lengthening of stressed vowels i, u among the Šakynişkiai and Žagariškiai, it has already been noted that in the Chrestomatija sounds are transcribed as they are pronounced. Listening to the recordings, one can hear that lengthening in Žagarė is irregular: in some places the vowels are pronounced one way, elsewhere another. The transcription reflects this. Incidentally, when speaking with younger people from those places¹⁰, one can hear that recently there has been an even stronger tendency to lengthen these vowels. The situation found in neighboring dialects is apparently being generalized.

It is not very clear why the reviewer finds the distribution areas of the South Aukštaitian vowels ę / ęː and oː / ɔː unclear from the description (p. 78) and map (after p. 76). It is stated clearly that the close vowels are used in the eastern part of South Aukštaitian, roughly as far as the Nemunas, and the open vowels in the west. Ž. Markevičienė holds the same view. Having listened to and transcribed numerous South Aukštaitian texts, she states that “close oː, ęː are pronounced in the northern and eastern dialects—that is, in the Trakai and Kaišiadorys districts and the eastern part of Varėna district. <…> Elsewhere (in the Alytus and Lazdijai districts, in the western part of Varėna district, and around Druskininkai), open ɔː, ęː are pronounced, often even more open than in the Utena dialect” (1999:

¹⁰ According to our colleague A. Kaikarytė, who is from Joniškis and well acquainted with the northern Šiauliškiai dialects, nowadays Žagariškiai and Šakyniškiai tend to lengthen the vowels in question to half-long, although not always systematically.

114

Pastabos

27–28). Following this approach, the Chrestomatija includes all examples and texts, except where the pronunciation is irregular.

I would like to respond to a couple of comments concerning the East Aukštaitian section. First, regarding the pitch accents of the illative and inessive forms. In earlier works, the marking of pitch accents in these cases was inconsistent. Most often, the acute pitch accent was marked in forms of both cases. Only in recent years has the idea been advanced that in those East Aukštaitian dialects where shortened illative and inessive forms are used, pitch accent distinguishes them; cf.: ainù pæ.vǯs and arḱlùs gà.na.s pæ.vǯs (Rinkauskienė 1999: 5). Interestingly, J. Jablonskis marked the illative forms with circumflex stress: Šiauliuõsna, daržùõsna, daržùõsen, Salõsna, Salõsen (1957: 72). It is true that his marking was criticized on the grounds that, being a West Aukštaitian, he could not correctly stress forms that did not exist in his native dialect¹¹ (Zinkevičius 1966: 214). Experimental studies are needed to confirm or refute this hypothesis, but the shortened forms sound different.

In the reviewer’s opinion, in the Širvintiškiai area of East Aukštaitian, the suffix -ytė should bear acute stress, e.g.: mergí·tes, sukní·te, nabagí·č’u, etc. It is unclear, however, what this claim is based on, since Širvintiškiai belongs to the area of dialects with stress retraction, and all forms that can help establish the pitch accent are stressed on the stem. By ear, the pitch accents of forms of this type seem quite unlike the acute. Incidentally, other researchers also mark the vowel in such suffixes with the sign for the mid pitch accent, e.g.: smal·te, mar·te (Markevičienė¹² 1999: 100–109).

Many of the comments on Žemaitian can be accepted, but some are also questionable. The statement that “the areas where the affricates č, dž occur are not described systematically” is entirely unclear. In addition to the description on p. 198, the distribution areas and prevalence of the affricates are indicated in the table of Žemaitian dialect features (after p. 200) and illustrated on a map for each subdialect. Readers can certainly find the information they need.

The word balandis ‘dove’ may now be known throughout Lithuania, learned from books, especially after so many years of intensive use of taikos balandžio ‘dove of peace’; but earlier, balandžio and karvelio...

¹¹ However, in the opinion of many dialectologists, of all the Aukštaitians, it is precisely the West Aukštaitian Kauniškiai who perceive pitch-accent distinctions best.

¹² In the Širvintiškiai texts, the author marks the mid pitch accent on all stressed long vocalic syllables, e.g.: pasakí·s’u, víena, mó·tera, pà·sakaya, cigó·ne. The research data of Ž. Markevičienė and V. Markevičius (1995: 69–72) show that the stressed long vowels of Širvintiškiai are considerably shorter (more than twice as short!) than those of Standard Lithuanian; with such short duration, it is simply impossible to pronounce pitch accents distinctly.

115

Pastabos

The isogloss indeed separated the Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects¹³ (cf. LKA 1977: 149, map no. 76).

And a few more thoughts on the cases that the reviewer considers transcription errors. Apart from those places where inaccuracies have indeed remained, errors are often detected where, in the author’s opinion, the pronunciation does not correspond to the dialect system. It should not be forgotten that most of the words proposed for correction are recordings, for example: mė·ds, ūkṣ (pp. 18, 19), kàmul·is, sú·n°s (pp. 196, 197). Listening more carefully, one can hear that they have been transcribed as pronounced. The same can be said of the continuous texts: an effort is made to transcribe them according to pronunciation, even when this does not match the generalized picture of the dialect. For example, in Katyčiai the pronunciation of endings varies – i.sib'r'úove, pradė·i·, sukrúovi, viėž, however much we might wish them to be pronounced i.sib'r'úove, pradė·ie, sukrúove, viėže. In the Žagarė text, the phrases rė·ik bã.ndo.s ganí·t' ‘the herd needs to be grazed’ and to.z__ bãndas než'u.rė·si ‘you will not look after that herd’ clearly use different forms, and so the pronunciation differs too.

The review states that “attentiveness and truthfulness are essential in scholarly works.” This is a sensible and correct principle, which scholars ought to follow everywhere. However, the more complex a publication is (Chrestomatija, with its vast number of transcribed texts, was certainly no easy undertaking for either its editors or its publishers), the harder it is to avoid inaccuracies. The review itself best demonstrates that none of us is immune to error. It is entirely unclear how to understand the reviewer’s suggestion to correct deŋ'.kt' ‘to disappear’ to deŋgt' (a word misunderstood and written partly in transcription and partly using standard-language orthography). When quoting examples (whether or not they need correction) from the reviewed Chrestomatija, they should be reproduced exactly as they were written. Yet there are discrepancies with the text of the Chrestomatija in nearly every word quoted in the review, for example: deŋ'.kt' ~ deŋ'.kt' (p. 18), ž'un'ks'n'us ~ ž'uŋ'ks'n'us (p. 22), ír ~ í.r (p. 51), aštúntais ~ aštúntais (p. 51), devín.tais ~ devíntais (p. 51), ʊa ~ ùà (p. 54), plàukai ~ plàukai (p. 63), ǧ.lei ~ ǧ.lei (p. 69), ú.žlips' ~ ú.žlips' (p. 70), lá.kstà.s ~ lā·kstà.s (p. 70), bã.ndo.s ~ bã.ndo.s (p. 71), než'u.rė·si ~ než'u.rė·si (p. 71), mokeš'čėi ~ mokeš'čėi (p. 75), rėi.ška ~ rėi.ška (p. 75), laŋ.k'e ~ laŋ.kæ (p. 77), namõpi ~ namõpi (p. 93), dalí·kas ~ dalí·kas (p. 95), vīlkas didždã.use(s) ~ vīl.kas ziǧé.use(s) (p. 115), dur'nís'te ~ dur'nís'te (p. 141), nedóra.s ~ nedō·ra.s (p. 141), kaimī.ŋka ~ kaimī.ŋ-ka (p. 141), bú.dava ~ bú.dava. (p. 147), liktarnė.la.s ~ liktarnė.la.s (p. 147), iš-plė·ždava. ~ išplė·ždava. (p. 147), pakiŋ'kl'ū·kai ~ pakiŋ'kl'ū·kai (p. 166), and so on. Incomplete—

¹³ Jokio balandžio is unknown even in the author’s native dialect; all the older people, who have had less schooling, use only karvelį.

116

Pastabos

…minor shortcomings—here a dot or a hyphen has been omitted, there a plain vowel has been written instead of a reduced one, and so on. Yet in transcription, every dot and hyphen has its purpose.

Once again, thanks to the review’s author for providing the opportunity to express some points of debate concerning dialectology.

LITERATŪRA

Bacevičiūtė, R. 2001: Mišriųjų dvigarsių kiekybė šiaurinėse kauniškių šnektose. In: Paribio kalbų ir tar mių problemos: Tarptautinės mokslinės konferencijos, skirtos Europos kalbų metams, pranešimai: Šiauliai, 2001 m. balandžio 27 d. Šiauliai, 12–19.

Bacevičiūtė, R. 2004: Šakių šnektos prozodija ir vokalizmas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Bacevičiūtė, R., Leskauskaitė, A. 2004: Akūtinių dvigarsių pirmųjų dėmenų [i], [u] trukmė aukštaičių šnektose. In: Baltų ir kitų kalbų fonetikos ir akcentologijos problemos. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginio universiteto leidykla, 9–20.

Garšva, K. 1977: Akcentuacijos ir vokalizmo sąryšis šiaurės vakarų aukštaičių panevėžiškių tarmėje. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 17, 76–88.

Girdenis, A. 1996: [Rec.:] A. Salys, Raštai 4: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Roma: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija, 1992. Baltistica 31 (1), 101–114.

Girdenis, A. 2000: Dėl [k], [g] minkštumo prieš kitus priebalsius. Kalbotyra 48 (1)–49 (2), 165–167.

Girdenis, A. 2003: Teoriniai lietuvių fonologijos pagrindai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Girdenis, A., Židon yte, G. 1994: Šiaurės panevėžiškių (Rozalimo šnektos) balsių sistema. Baltistica 29 (2), 115–154.

Grinaveckis, V. 1973: Žemaičių tarmių istorija (fonetika). Vilnius: Mintis.

Jablonskis, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Kačiūskienė, G. 2006: Šiaurės panevėžiškių tarmės fonologijos bruožai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Kazlauskaitė, R. 2005: Atitrauktinio kirčio priegaidės Pašūvio šnektoje. In: Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 1. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 313–324

117

Pastabos

LKA 1977 – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1: Leksika. Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKA 1982 – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 2: Fonetika. Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKT 1970 – Lietuvių kalbos tarmės (chrestomatija). Vilnius: Mintis.

Markevičienė, Ž. 1999: Aukštaičių tarmių tekstai 1. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Markevičienė, Ž., Markevičius, V. 1995: Kelios pastabos apie Vidiškių šnektos balsių ir dvibalsių trukmę. Kalbotyra 44 (1), 69–72.

Pakerys, A. 1982: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos prozodija. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Pakerys, A. 1986: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Pakerys, A. 2003: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika. Vilnius: Enciklopedija.

Rinkauskienė, R. 1999: Rytų aukštaičių uteniškių vardažodis: dabartinė padėtis ir istorinė raida. Daktaro disertacijos santrauka. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginio universiteto leidykla.

Salys, A. 1992: Raštai 4: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Roma: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija.

Vaišnienė, D., Bacevičiūtė, R. 2005: Dėl pietų žemaičių raseiniškių ir šiaurinių vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių dvigarsių [i, u + l, m, n, r]. In: Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 1. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 292–303.

Vitkauskas, V. 2005: Mažmožis 7. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 161.

Zinkevičius, Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Zinkevičius, Z. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Rima Bacevičiūtė

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

118