„Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija“

170 | RECENZIJOS VASKELAITE, R. 2003: Syntactic relations of noun compounds in Lithuanian language. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 143-158. Vytautas Ambrazas Received 2005 04 22 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileisio g. 5, LT-10308 Lithuania LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE TARMIU CHRESTOMATIJA SUDARE RIMA BACEVICIUTE, AUDRA IVANAUSKIENE, ASTA LESKAUSKAITE, EDMUNDAS TRUMPA Vilnius: Lietuviy kalbos institutas, 2004, 328 [16] p., ISBN 9986-668-56- -5 For a long time we were taught about the great importance of the folk (living language, dialect) for the culture of the nation's life, for science, every book about dialects was welcomed with joy. This is how we enjoy the new dialect chrestomaty of Lithuanian language. It was prepared by the younger generation of dialectologists, who have studied and are studying Snektas Snekteles with often new methods (the scientific editor is doc. dr. Laima Grumadiene). Everything is provided from the tape recorder (until now the uniform chrestomacy of the 1970s has been completely silenced), texts with dialectal system violations are not avoided (prof. Juozas Balcikonis long ago taught that now everything can be found in dialects, because a lot of the writing, school has been damaged). There is no longer a rural community, everyone now learns from the radio, television, in various schools, and in conversations with dialect people, they hear the use of,,correct* language” —(in 15— 20 min. can not be and what to write, because it is only a minute Sneka,,.learning“ show, and not inherited snekta. In this chrestomaty such a thing is,,Jvade“ about it is said —we all know the present padéti, we realize that it was feared in the past in the newspapers and various articles. This may confuse other linguists who find Salia both inherited and very new. The whole used transcription is presented, although there are many unresolved questions (especially about the morphology of the soft vowel group ayks'¢'au, kel'ti, etc., about reduced vowels from Chylinsky's time child Dv, food DRSK, RTN raSymo, etc.). See errors: dey'.kt' = dengt', mé-d's = me.d'is, udks = udks (p. 18, 19); Siauliai does not have the form Z'un'ks'n- 'us = Z'unks'n'- us, that is, East Lithuania Ziungsnys (see also LKZ,,, from LD 67, Grv). It is said that,,in the common language the first dému of the strong initial diphthongs i, u + 1, m,n, r is short, sodél jy pregadé is marked with a grave (~), e.g.: girtas, kiirmis, but in the book there are no places where it is said: kauniSkiy, jurbarkiSkiy, zagariSkiy only long or semi-long first syllables (only the diphthong wi has been forgotten). Did only Aleksas Girdenis create the new dialect names, or did Prof. Zigmantas Zinkevičius lose his contribution (p. 26)? In scientific works, care and truth are essential. It begins with the section,, The Western Highlands* (subsection,,The Highlands of Kaunas and the Klaipeda Region“). Interesting introductory article about the history of Snekty, remembering the struts and baltsermégiai of the Lesser Lithuania council. To kauniskiy is added Jurbarko Snekta (in summary RECENZIJOS | 171 not even remember that there is said ma.ta ~ mato, sd.k'e, and they are especially different from Kauniskiu). In Jurbarkas, as in all of Lithuania, the Zanavyks speak and speak with the Saki pi.rmas, du.nda (this is not confirmed by Aldonas Pupkis and Vilija Sakalauskienė's edited Zanavyky snektos Zodyn's volumes with dr. Rima Bacevi¢itite in PrieSakyje, and many other questions asked by people) (p. 40). After listening to the texts of the CD, there is a clearly audible i, u plasteléjing (about Marijampole, Prienus is extended, but not more), the authors of the special maps themselves (after p. 36) say that it is pronounced briefly even in Kybartuose, Pajevonyje, and here is some misunderstanding in Salyne: who is wrong, Rima Bacevicite, or the map, or Frydrichas KurSaitis, Jonas Jablonskis, LKA. In that region, the villages of Eglinés and Vaiponia are considered to be part of the Punsk council, 0 in fact they are part of Lubava—Kalvarija, which was created by the Union of Nations with the help of France. It is a big mistake that ma.tu, ma.ti say JRB — only mda.ta, sa.k'e, etc. (so they were assigned to Siaurés yesterday, now transferred to kauniskiy). Very interesting is the text of Katyciy Snekta (there the author Snekétasi in 1964 after going to Buikiskés village near Vainuto): there saké biiva ~ biwo, isva.r'e ~ iSvaré, sa.k'e ~ sake, §'é.ri'd'ie Sa. Lta ~ today Salta, but in the book differently. In Baltkéjy (Sakiy r.) text all the non-Kirgisian e turns to zemaitiSkuoju e (hearing the text, it is only a little more closer to theSakitas e, but not to the zemaitiSkuoju ¢), and there is i.f. emfazés atvejis (p. 51,52). Transposition of glue in Garliava text: aSturtais, devin.tais in. slant indicates 2 kiré., 0 transposed aStuntais, nivens; the secondary accent of the numeral [email protected]'[email protected] in the syllable -de.is considered the main accent (p. 51, 52) and so on. In Birstono text i8 Zemaitkiemio k. the diphthong ua ~ uo is not heard, 0 there in Kederis iikyje several men spoke so, in the city women at the church (even Prof. Jono Kazlausko brother Sviesaus atminimo Kajetonas). Maybe ua (p. 54) is uo and not va? 1977) and I.G. (b. Siauliskiy snektos also begin with jvadéliu, zemélapiu, it is really valuable and jdomus (klitiva only muzikd.- nc = musician (Zagaré) and all Snekty pasij'd.uk't' = pasij‘dukt’, bé-k't' = bé-kt', and not even to say how much paprieSakéje will be zem. e, 0 hairs kazin if there is hair (p. 63), plakas ~ plékas (I hardened) (p. 65) and others. ). In the texts i8 Zagarés apylinkiy it is not noted that the tvirtagalée pregaidé does not extend the bivowel first sando — it is only a musical pregaidé chord iésein, Sdugdava and others (a lot of discussions about this have been made by dialectologists). Very unlikely general short lengthening was, zi.na (a lot of talkéta with SakyniSkiai, it has not been heard, maybe now already confused), but pak'ila and paki-la clearly separates and separates (Sakynoj and Zagaréj full of atejiny from everywhere), taré SvV'él'p', sviil'p'in. Transposition doubts are also: musé.ika (1), not museika; trs-ba, not found; gi.lei distracted kirci néra such, ta.s (that) some kind of uncertainty, tu-s (kelmus) also, w.2lips' la.kstd-s or not participant /akstqs, not sangr. verb, témi not in that, but in another Root and other inequalities (e.g., pas''duz' ~ slips, not slips (p. 70) and so on. They seem to have the same form, but the pronunciation is different: ba.ndo.s gani‘t' and bandas nez'u.r€é:si (p. 71). Unexpected far from Zemai¢iy that transcription twos. Krakiu duds becomes dtios (!!), brafj.gus mokes'¢- ei —dear tax, ti-lic'os —tilycios, rei. Skee —réiskia, etc. (p. 75). In the south, the Aukštaičiai are the real wild people, but the area is shrinking — there are Slavs, there are Aukštaičiai, the eastern Skai or Kaunas Skai. The ivad is well prepared, unless you correct bé-kti = bégte, laj.k'e = laii. 'k'e (p. 77). And it is still unclear how the 9th vowel Zemélapy is indicated as having an eastern border with Nemunas, 0 9°Ska ~ ozka, ki-:pa ~ koé-po is pronounced far east in Varénojé, Macéliai, Valkinifkai, Paparciai, Ramaskonysé (p. 78), cf. zem. after p. 76 (the same voice is heard by BRS, Drs, even vilniskiy Snektos —what is this game). Everything happens in the text: the Paparciu, Macéliy, Varénds texts transcribed by Dr. Astos Leskauskaité are quite correct (unless dae,,now“ needs to be transcribed, atrikty two t have not been heard there, parvaziav[o] needs to be transcribed, ri.to-i = ri.td-i (p. 92), namdpi = namS-p'i (p. 93), paud-k = pauxk (p. 93), tiée = those); In Kucitiny- 's text there were almost no dtios ~ duds (p. 95), dali-kas = dal'i-kas (p. 95), etc. The bibliography contains a significant inaccuracy: A. Jonaitytés and T. Sudnik’s article is about the Apso (east-aukStaiciy) dialect, not about the south-aukStaiciy (p. 86). Perhaps the longest chapter is,,Ryty aukStaiciai* (p. 100-171). This is the greatest variety of speakers, the authors had to work hard. The map is very well prepared, the boundaries of snekty are clear and quite precise (below 100 p.). Ivad is also carefully prepared, doubtlessly only laukudsna = lauktiosna, dantysan = dantysan is interspersed (p. 105), it is incomprehensible how, when adding the consonant 7, the s-vowel e intersperses Sakéja and becomes a: seserés > sasaras (?) (p. 105). The name of the village Pastoviy r. (Belarusian Lithuanian place) is Juravas, not Jiiravas (p. 113) (verified- ); nesiés = nesies (p. 115); We're afraid to admit bis. 1. form béks ~ bégs (p. 115); it is even uzdés (p. 115); vilkas dzidzd.use(s) is first. (ex n.) and to attach any consonant that does not have reikimés (p. 115); Z6sti is very rarely used where it is cut, better Zdsti,,prabilti, prakalbéti* (p. 130) and others. Due to bibliographical errors, the news was not expected: The study of Laiksargiy Snektos 9 km near Tauragė is unlikely to be useful even for children to learn the features of eastern Lithuanian dialect (p. 130). In the texts ma.mi-te. transpose momyté (p. 136-137), kétas (p. 137) = kétas; esa smalé-kai negi smalekai (p. 137); namudsna = namiosna, pir'k'5-sna = pirkidsna (p. 138), sviétas = svietas (p. 139), there are songs of ZodZiy ki¢iing: langq, kiaulés (p. 139), Zinta., i. e. Zénto (p. 139), du.kte, t. y. dukté, 5u.ni(s), t. y. Dog (also). Also in the important text of Baltmuizés (near Daugavpils): durni:s'- te = durnysté (2), ned6-ra.s a.ki.s = ned6-ra.s a.ki.s; kaimi.gka not kaiminka, apibi.ra. = apibi-ra. ~ apibiiro. The same is true in the aknsztény texts: bu.dava = bii-dava. ; liktarné.la.s = liktarnélés; iSplé-Zdava. at least twice re-ragged pleidavo? Form ustavas i8 zadininky Snektos ar tikra —taria ustd.vas (usta-vas), RK ust3-vas ~ uzstovas (p. 147); supla.is'a- .ji. = surplus night; azdun.cti = uzdunsu (after n the consonant s often becomes c) (p. 148). Kupiskény's texts are very interesting, but there are also some remarks: bag5-tas = bags-tas, géra = good, vaz'tios = vaziuds; kriks'ti-- no.s = kriksti-no.s, ji ~ jy (not ji) (p. 157); ats.gal'u rugku = with the left hand (p. 159). Sirvintiskiy luj'.kt' = luj.kt' like a nail in a shoe (p. 162); vilko biita =...biita, laukués(- na) = field sheep (p. 163); pakin'kl'u- .kai = pak'inkl'u- .kai; mer'gi-tes, sukni-te, nabagi-¢- 'u or not prefix -yté everywhere (p. 166); rit‘oi = rit"6i (p. 166); dirvo-na (only K so is raSes) = dirvi-na (p. 170) and so on. The most firmly adhering to the life of panevezy Snekty (they are reproaching me for the word panevezy) ideas and texts are some of the most exemplary, unless there are any correctible shortcomings (p. 180). Panevézieciy duios = duds (at least three times), abz6-t' = ab'z'6-t’, Zuré-t' = Z'ré-t' (p. 185); é-dal’s = é-dal’s (p. 186); d'i-k’s = d'i-k’s, blé-ga = blé-ga, apibé-ks = apibé-ks, d.ic'vars is d.i¢'vars (?). The poor of the earth are worse, jvade had to at least av'iéc'é, kamu.lii-s, sti-nos (p. 196) correct. The areas of presence of Afrikaty ¢, dz in Cia néra are not properly described (p. 198). In many places in Siaurés and varniSkiy Snektos the named bivardia are plat'é-s'is, Zal'é-sis, not placiasis, Zaliasis (p. 201). The whole of Lithuania knows the word April, not only the Zzemaičiai (p. 203), so »neissiskirstes kaimas«, not Siaip koks (p. 203). REVIEWS | 173 The Earth is as if without fault. About Saukény Zunsis and others Prof. Albertas Rosinas has ra’es, Vaiguva’s texts,,Atlas“ also have such an example. It is said to distinguish i, vu: from i, wu“, 0 ra8oma wok. 'c't (all is -i-t'is | -i-t'e — what's Snektas iSmeta? (p. 208). Metatony of the present tense does not occur in the fixed root or prepositional words (dirbs, dugs, gyvéns), while the fixed and short remain unchanged (p. 209). There is also no reference to dgs. caud. and in. final -wms large area only one NemakS¢- iai, 0 not half the dukedom with Jurbark and other neighbors. I§ i: < ie great distinction appeared vyresnyjai = vir'es'n'i-- jai ~ vyresnieji (p. 210) and further: nuritieje = nurietéjo, vél v'i-resn'ijé (!), uoki. 'ti (2) (p. 219); seni-jé i& Varniy (230 p.), ani-jé ~ anyjai (?), didi-je-~ didyjai (3 forms) (p. 231)! The form of the noun is not musy, but mi-su | mii-su | mi-sa et al. ~ miisy, miiso et al. (p. 212). These forms: skerdi:nes = slaughter; Miss. I' ~ power; ay'ks'@'d- .u = early'C'aii | earlyCcidu is,,very early* and that y' before the hard k; ka.7.5ts = kd.ric (p. 215-216); ji-s'us ~ jasius (all Zemaiciu, as NemakS¢- iai turned here); drii-c = dri-kc (heard by myself in 1998); Here. 's completely unheard form (p. 220); Sv yra n'ési, vé-z', ne nése, vé-ze (p. 224); mala-i™ already unebeturi (p. 230); pli-ga = plit-ga, si-mta li-tu =...li.tu (p. 232); va-otherwise, there is no u" (p. 233), /'u.“b appeared, there is still Kv transposed as susisukuos (p. 233); even the softening sign Ziuburius (p. 233) is used, etc., etc. Narrow Zemai¢iy naggies: mé.ykes = mé.y'k'es (p. 238), but m'i.n'k'u = mi.y'k'u, there is not heard saying top'd, only topo ~ tupu, topa.m ~ tiupam and so on (p. 242). The other named ghosts pilkéjai, geréjai, didéjai appeared from p'elké-ié: (ei + ie-—i iri merged), so there are pilkiejai, geriejai, didiejai (p. 242); taria da.inas, not dd.inas (p. 248); i. Sti-r ~ iStira, not stiiri (p. 248); cries say mé.n [email protected] palé.ka, not Salt (p. 249); TirkSliy sounds suspicious, and toupi-te or save, comfort (p. 251) is it really the Latvian E. Trumpa understood that? Sed6j i: bazni-& (!) vara, dé.rps' = d'i.rpsi, ié-ms = ii-ms (p. 252), negi Tel8iy Saioks, siesd-s (p. 252), 036.us (p. 253) bus moksle s6ks, sésas, uzZuds; jaunéjé, only one young man, jaund.s's = jd.unda-- s's, vésos = visits (p. 253), ont ri:to = on rytu (p. 254), tropénel'- ’s = trupineliiis, not trupinélits (p. 254), véinok'tios = vienokids, not viendkios (p. 253). In Kretingiskiy’s very interesting texts, the following things seem to be unbelievable: ¢(§)~Sérdé.i ~ is Sirdie = is Sirdié (p. 263), déuses ~ dudsis = diosis (p. 264), there too n“ories esas norés, siedeis i8 tiesy is sédes(is), not sédies or sédédama (p. 265); on tou ka.rté = an tq kareia (not an tq karte), li.ngdus = lingtios, not linggués (p. 265). In Prysmanciy point ninties is 2 kiré., and made 4 (p. 265), dudriias impossible form —d.udras (see origin), that neverstinas after all (p. 265). Plungiskiy is more often é.zis, not ézi-s (p. 266), in Lao it is translated lds (p. 266); Zentiotume mii-sa gi.vé.nim’ = Zindtumi miso gyvénimga, ne Zindtumei miisa (2) gyvénima (p. 267), i.dtiomé = idomiai (p. 267) and padirbs, ne padirbs, ne manītis, bet bépriiot's = béprotis (p. 267). At the point of Andrew (Judrény district, Leleng k.) the most prominently shown zemaiciy game. I$ early,,modern“ speaker: papa.sakuos'o (trad. papasakuoso), vel'nes (trad. v'é.l'n'c'), va.ka.rs (trad. vakd.rs) and others, but esé-™ cannot be transposed into iSeitu (p. 268), é-10 ~ go, not go, paka.l'n¢ = pakalné[- je], not pakalnéje (ibid.), and others. Vakary zemaiciy (donininky) section is an example of already confused Snekty. Their history can be seen in W. Fenzlau's book on the Germanization of the names of the Klaipėda region, and in the folklore records (not even the occurrence of dininism is noted — this shows u.din'é in Sausgalviai idinéti < uodinéti (p. 284). Great Mr. J. UZpurvio Speaks only in memory with corrected morphology 174 | REVIEWS (in 1958 the author has lived 3 weeks in his brother's Seimas, so his sister's and brother's language is much older and more systematic). Usai there are 6-znd-~ ùznai, not wznai (p. 275), aiistrinis (dustrenis) not dustrinis. Of course, Palanga Snekta is Siaurés vakary Zemaiciy (third confusion of Lithuanian geography, see p. 276). And Deguei is the head of the musician's region, not Klaipėda. Doutu, invali.do.m”, va-ikd. are not those snektos: d6-to, invaledoma, vacks:, dgs. loc. Sé5'd-s m'été’s transcribed by the transcriber or by kien. Very good design book, idéta a lot of work, hope, but took démesio detaléms, transposing greatly delayed, many and untrue. The work of a defective sociologist of Kalbinian betarmé vilnieté doc. dr. Laima Grumadiene- ’s many work and little practice in dialect research, apparently, could not help the compilers at all. We should be careful with the book when using it for scientific purposes. Vytautas Antanas Vitkauskas Received 2005 06 09 Lithuanian Language Institute P. VileiSio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania ZANAVYKU SNEKTOS ZODYNAS II, L-R TEXT AUTHOR: RIMA BACEVICIUTE, GIEDRE CEPAITIENE, VILA SAKALAUSKIENE, JANINA SVAMBARYTE, KLEMENTINA VOSYLYTE EDITORS: VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENE (SENIOR EDITOR), KLEMENTINA VOSYLYTE. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijy leidybos institutas, 2004, 595 p., ISBN 5-420-01550-1 (2nd volume), ISBN 5-420-01506-6 (common). We already have the second volume of Zanavyky Snektos Zodyno, where the words starting with the letters L—R are compiled. This universal dialectic dictionary presents all the vocabulary not recorded in the common language base and not heard during the expeditions and expressed in the LCZ; Simplified phonetic transcription is used (unfortunately, there is no unstretched vowel 9, consonant 7, 7', x). It is very good that the use of the phrases and words from the literary circle has been abandoned (because there was even a provision for the use of new words written by writers from that region and words taken from elsewhere — this is not the object of dialectal dictionaries- ). Zodynas provides a lot of reliable and quite new dialectal material, lively and very pictorial examples of folk language, which, no doubt, will be used and interpreted in their works by many Lithuanian language and especially its recent researchers. Zodynas is important even in the present historical time, when all inherited non-verbal linguistic systems are strongly influenced by bk and its means of influence, especially by the radio, television, administrative and political factor. This is particularly visible in the south coast, where innovation is caught with self-indulgence, slang with all kinds of borrowed, equivalents sounds like this in the local language of John Jablonski's land! A little presented, maybe just needed to educate the users of the dictionary about such a word and form novelty. This is the whole fund of the bureaucratic,,inaSas“ and my language: masiniai SK,,masiskai* (p. 130); overlook (we must foresee) (p-135); frazeol. control node,,brain* (p. 139); [woman] dressed up (p. 157); missionary,,- fool* (i8 Jewish life) (p. 201); motininé [kiaulé], “vedeklé” (p. 216); Put some mud on it.