„Zanavykų šnektos žodynas“ II (L–R)

174 | RECENZIJOS (In 1958, the author lived for three weeks with his brother’s family, so his sister’s and brother’s speech is much more archaic and systematic.) Ūsai there are ó:znâ· ~ uóznai, not użnai (p. 275), auštrinis (auštrenĭs), not áuštrinis. Of course, the Palanga dialect is Northwestern Samogitian (the third geographical mix-up about Lithuania; see p. 276). And Degučiai is in the so-called dūnininkai region, not among the Klaipėda dialect speakers. Doutu, invalĭ.dô.m⁽ᵃ⁾, vā·īkā are not from that dialect: dô·to, invaledôma, vā·kō, plural locative šeš'ō·s m'ėtō·s was supplied by the transcriber or someone else. A book with an excellent design, a great deal of work and hope invested in it, but attention to detail was lacking; the presentation is greatly deficient, and there is much that is untrue. The project supervisor, sociolinguist and dialectologist, non-dialect-speaking Vilnius native docent Dr. Laima Grumadienė, apparently could not help the compilers much, given her many other projects and limited practical experience in dialect research. Let us be somewhat cautious when using this book for scholarly purposes. Vytautas Antanas Vitkauskas Received 2005 06 09 Lietuvių kalbos institutas 5 P. Vileišio St., 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania DICTIONARY OF THE ZANAVYKAI DIALECT II, L–R TEXT AUTHORS: RIMA BACEVIČIŪTĖ, GIEDRĖ ČEPAITIENĖ, VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ, KLEMENTINA VOSYLYTĖ EDITORS: VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ (EDITOR-IN-CHIEF), KLEMENTINA VOSYLYTĖ. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2004, 595 p., ISBN 5-420-01550-1 (2 tomas), ISBN 5-420-01506-6 (bendras). We now have the second volume of the Dictionary of the Zanavykai Dialect, containing words beginning with the letters L–R. This comprehensive (full-scale) dialect dictionary presents all the lexicon that the dialect, based on the standard language, could record, together with material noted down from the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and not heard during field expeditions; it uses simplified phonetic transcription (it is unfortunate that it lacks the unstressed vowel ə and the consonants ŋ, ŋ’, x). It is very good that sentences and words from works of fiction have been excluded (previously, even neologisms coined by writers from the region and words picked up from elsewhere had been included—these are not the proper subject of dialect dictionaries). The dictionary provides a great deal of reliable and entirely new dialect material, with examples of living, highly expressive folk speech, which many scholars of the Lithuanian language—and especially of its dialects—will undoubtedly use and discuss in their work. The dictionary is also important in the present historical period, when the inherited linguistic systems of all dialects are strongly influenced by the standard language and by the means through which it exerts its influence, especially radio, television, administration, and political forces. This is especially evident in the Sudovian region, where people eagerly embrace novelties, and slang, with all its borrowings and calques, is constantly heard on the lips of the local people from the land of Jonas Jablonskis! A few examples are included here; perhaps users of the dictionary should have been warned that such words and forms are new. This is the bureaucracy’s “contribution” to the entire stock of our language: masiniai Šk “massively” (p. 130); pramatyti (meaning numatyti, “to foresee”) (p. 135); phraseological expression valdymo mazgas “brain” (p. 139); [woman] apsivė·dus (p. 157); mišiuginis “fool” (from Jewish life) (p. 201); motininė [sow] “breeding sow” (p. 216); pamušti blatą “to attach oneself,” RECENZIJOS | 175 “to communicate” (p. 230); nuolatiniai (p. 288) ZP = nuolat; prieauglī. (=prieauglī.) we raise [them] for sale (=... we raise [them] to sell) (p. 469); [after finishing] prōpkes (p. 478); rōta (1) jargon from the Soviet army (p. 574); rūbas masculine noun (2) = rūbas (sl.) (p. 575). Thank God, there are few of them; it is only a pity that no abbreviation was devised to indicate their recent origin and lack of inheritance (40–50 years), and this silence may mislead more than one young researcher in Lithuania and abroad (this has happened and continues to happen because of incorrect transcriptions and non-historical presentations). We know that research into the geography of words, on which etymological scholarship often relies, suffers especially as a result. The dialect data have been checked carefully, and there is little grounds for major criticism. One might consider the following data unexpected: singular accusative rožānč'u = rožānč'u. (p. 9) Nm; mānu vaīks pa-lā'dod tuō (=tuos?) kapuōs (p. 10) Lkč; viēnc [š]rūbas (=viēnc š'rūbas) (p. 17); lietuš (3) (p. 65) – this is a form used by townspeople in place of lytuš; paim[k] kuōla (=paim[k] kūola.) (p. 85); arklē (=ar'kl'ēi) (p. 86); pro li·tu· BBL, rather than pro li·tu. (p. 90); marōd, marōds = mārod, mārods (dialectal ma·ród, ma·róds) (p. 129); vaškārō·s Nm (p. 157) = va·škārō·s; atō·sto·gu. (p. 159) = atō·sto·gu; only nesavē is given, from which source the dictionary form nesavēję was not recorded (p. 260); the incorrect form nešēnija (from LKŽ VIII 704) should not have been propagated: only nešē.n'ije occurs (p. 261); nuplēšējo SNT (p. 429) = nuplēšē·ju; išvā·ri jūs plē·tku. riŋkt Nm (p. 432) = išvā·r'e jus plē·tku. rīŋkt; dùoŋa LPL (p. 436) = dùoŋa; pū·dimus JNK (p. 482) = pū·di·mus; i[š] č'če GRŠ (p. 534) = iš č'č'e (š and č do not merge); reblōti, the nest form is re·bl'o·je Lkč (p. 536); kasn'ūka. Lkč (p. 541) = ka.s'n'ūka.; rī·škiai adverb (p. 564) = rỹškiai ADV.; senūka. i·so·dinu... Nm (p. 572) = senūka· i·so·dino; gi·vē·si SNT (p. 573), Lkš (p. 587) = gi·vē·si; dùodavu Nm (p. 577) = dùodavo; jā·s JNK (p. 583) = jā·s; dā·gi Šk (p. 583) = dā·gi (from dārgi), and several others. The accentuation has been considerably improved compared with the first volume, whose accentuation was lamentable. Here the firm hand of the responsible editor, Dr. Vilija Sakalauskienė, a speaker of the Griškabūdis dialect, has left not a trace of the disorder of Volume I: one of the best compilers and editors of the final volumes of LKŽ did not allow herself or her colleagues to neglect an important field of dialectology (the statement “In the dictionary, headword accents are marked as in the standard language” is perhaps not entirely clear – p. 5). Even the slightest dialectal divergences are discernible, including cases where F. de Saussure’s law is no longer observed, as well as other matters: ge·lės... langinės (p. 23) = laŋ'gin'ēs; i... leke·tin'us (= lek'e·t'in'us) miškus (p. 45); lá·užuose (3) (p. 31) is perhaps unlikely: srē·p's'u (p. 35) = srē·p's'u; gi·vē·na (p. 39) = gi·vē·na; singular locative belā.isve (p. 51) = belā.is'v'e; liejinys (3ᵇ) (p. 60) = (3ᵃ); liēsas, -à (4) (p. 62) = liēsas, -à (3), cf. liēspienis (p. 63); lōviškai (p. 99) = lōviškai (the nest entry was corrected); mandiēra (1) (p. 120) = mandiēra (1); išmėčioti should bear the song accent (p.144) = išmėčioti; mēistrē has accent class 1, not 3 (p. 151); užgā·su (p. 156) = užgā·su; ži·di (p. 157) = ži·di; mēsininkas, -ē (2) (p. 163) = (1); rū·pešč'u (p. 166) = rū·pešč'u, cf. rūpestis (p. 589); rē·ksmas (p. 183) = rē·ksmas, cf. rēksmas (p. 540); ž'ū·ri (p. 193) = žiūri; neá·ugdavu (p. 193) = neá.ugdavu; gá.n (p. 202) = gān; mundiēra (p. 220) = mundiēra (1); nepagarbà (2), but accent class 2 does not fit the accusative nepā.garba (3ᵇ?) (p. 257); the form valē.i is implausible, since the circumflex accent is indivisible and does not extend through diphthongs and diphthongal sequences (p. 266); nōrti—is it really so? (p. 282), since the nest entry has only nōro, panōro; nuoseklus, -i (3) = (4 or 3ᵇ) (p. 289); ōlbyti (p. 294) = ōlbyti; pamažyčiais (p. 324) = pamažyčiais; i·sitē·mijeu (p. 340) = i·sitē·mijau; pasitūrintis (1) – participles of this type have no accent-class number (p. 342); vė·leva (p. 349) = vė·leva; papūls = papūls (p. 349); īrgi (p. 351) = īrgi; pristōjus [arkliui] (p. 366) = pristō·jus; pintīs accusative plural (p. 370), cf. pintis (1) 176 | RECENZIJOS (p. 400); užšilto·s (p. 397) = uš'pilto·s; vadō·ve (p. 414) = vadō·ve; atė·jo (p. 414) = atė·jo; tō·ks (p. 430) = tō·ks; lė.idž'u (p. 457) = lė.idž'u; puōkštė (not in the dictionary); pelė·ti (p. 462) = pelė·ti; acisė·zdavo (p. 467) = acisė·zdavu; ė·da (p. 479) = ė·da; ža·si·tez (p. 484) = ža·s'i't'es; riedam (p. 508) = riedam; pasirė·d'e. (p. 532) = pasirė·d'e.; kō·ta (p. 543) = kō·ta.; atlė·kt (p. 559) = atl'ė·kt; reŋ'uoś'i (p. 565) = reŋ'g'uoś'i; pasiryžimas (1) (p. 569) = (2); rodýti (p. 570) = rōdyti, rōdo, rōdė; perhaps something else has gone unnoticed. There are certainly fewer errors in this work, and we are approaching the standard of an exemplary scholarly text: compiling a dialect dictionary of this kind is very demanding work, which the authors of Volume I did not manage to accomplish. This volume, too, contains oversights and other minor errors, so they could easily have been identified (during preparation for publication) and corrected. Does everything belong to the dialect? After all, the notion of a “dialect word” is not clearly defined, although the entire dictionary volume seems to be held together by the definition “inherited word.” Items and forms that are not dialectal include: literātas (p. 88), silōsiu (= sulōsiu) (p. 97); neišmaišt'iu. GrS = neišmaišt'iu. (apparently, such metatony does not occur there); instead of blē·vas (p. 452); daugumō· (=daugiausia) riṅko· [to transport] tarnā·uto'jus visūs JNK (p. 559), and so on. There are not many such cases either, and references would be very useful and necessary. Now we await the final volume, containing the full wealth of this group of dialects and the basis of the standard language. The third volume should also identify any unpleasant errors or shortcomings. Proper compilation and recording of dialect vocabulary dictionaries is of immense importance: dialects and old written texts are great treasures of the nation’s language, of interest to many Indo-Europeanists. Some questions also remain unresolved, for example, the issue of palatalization in consonant clusters: m'inkšt'i or otherwise, al'ks'n'is or otherwise. Vytautas Antanas Vitkauskas Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva Received 2005 06 09 Irena Erm anytė Dictionary of Antonyms Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2003, xxiii + 584 p., ISBN 9986-668-52-2 The Dictionary of Antonyms is the result of work that took a long time and demanded extensive knowledge and meticulous care. Its author, Irena Erm anytė, is an experienced lexicographer who spent many years writing and editing the comprehensive Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and published the school Dictionary of Lithuanian Antonyms (1985); therefore, we can have complete confidence both in her linguistic abilities and in her scholarly integrity. The dictionary under review belongs to the type of specialized dictionaries, since it presents lexical units of a single type: pairs or chains of words whose meanings are diametrically opposed, that is, antonyms. Drawing material from the multivolume Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language as a whole and supplementing it with examples from fiction and journalism, this work has sought to present both systematic and contextual antonyms and to explain evidence from standard Lithuanian, dialects, and old writings. Thus, before us is a substantial lexicographical work in which one can find information not only about systematic relations among words in contemporary Lithuanian, but also about oppositional relations that arise in particular texts and in one way or another affect the entire language system.