Daiva Atkočaitytė. „Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių prozodija ir vokalizmas“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 185 - 190 DAIVA ATKOČAITYTĖ PROZODYJA IR VOKALIZMAS PIETŲ ŽEMAIČIŲ RASEINIŠKIŲ Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos instituto leidykla, 2002, 222 p., ISSN 1648-3316, ISBN 9986-668-41-7 (Opera Linguistica Lithuanica, 2) Each book on dialectology is very important for the study of the Lithuanian language —both for inherited linguistics and sociology. Daiva Atkočaitytė travelled a large area of the southern Žemaičių dialect from Vainutas to Kūrtuvėnai and from Kražiai to Eržvilkas. This is the so-called southern area of the mudmen, where the schnekts are influenced by the laws of common language, especially with a stranger in conversation avoiding even in one sentence the lawful features of language. This is also important for the history of the language, because without the rural community, the situation of land union in the village, the children and grandchildren studying heavily and despite the common language, people's speech becomes diverse and varied. The author of the book also showed this. All these places were studied until 1970, by good scientists, whose works were almost not reflected in this book (only the thoughts of Petro Jonikis and Vladas Grinaveckis were somewhat taken into account, and this is not always, and the author did not need the research of Zelma Dumašiūtė, Zigmantas Pocius, Antanas Balašaitis, Elena Grinaveckienė, Simo Karaliūnas and others). Especially much work and energy was put into technical sound research. This, of course, is interesting and probably reliable, but not always able to solve phonetic problems. There are also a number of bridges that are not part of the bridge network, some of which are still in use. Atkočaitytė is somewhat corrected, but this is probably the result of the recent mixing of the population (the trips in 1964-1985 showed talk about Vainūta, Degučiūs, Galnė, Paupiai, Gervinė and elsewhere without removing the accent). Now the book states that almost every long (and often short) syllable has secondary accents (suspectingly there is a recent shortening of vowels of unpronunciated long syllables and monosyllabicization of diphthongs: givė.nims, devinuūoleeka, pagidūoje ir t. t.). Apparently, there is also a levelling or change of accents, because there are a lot of words written quite originally, often inaudibly: uu.kininmks (=wik'in'inks VDK, NMK, Alėjai) —p. 26; acc. sing. Zmuona (=Zmiona) —p. 26; vartu (=va.r.tu KRTV) —p. 27; bažnjče (= bažnje) —p. 46; acc. pl. miokslis (=miokslus) —p. 142, 147;'skir.- ti's (=difference) —p. 63; jūšus (=other southern žem. jūs'us, jūn'c'us Galnė 1964 m., bk. jūosius) —p. 1965. pp. 213. "Renaissance" (PDF). 68; 'plū,gūs (=plūgūs, ploūs VN, TRG, bk. plūgūs) —p. 70; su munim (=su munim) —p. 73; aštu'nitis (=eighth) —p. 145; mi'gas (=mi'gas, migas 3 and 1 crossword, 'aroodus- ') —p. 145; family (=séima KRTV) —p. 147; riet' (= swallow, bk. rėtį) —p. 150, 209; g'ivuol'is (completely incomprehensible form —restored gyvolys) —p. 152) and the West End (p. 186 | REVIEWS 153) it is not clear what kind of mud mining (?) has been observed here for a long time, about 1958-1959 all discussed (cf. Form arose—the novelty. Linguistics 44(1), 1995, 93-94), not Urbanavičiūtė and Grinaveckis first established; pū*In (p. 153) is from pila and sounds pi.ln (even Aléjuosė); ati.m s (=ati.m.s KRZ) —p. 155, 216; kii“ts (at least kū*ts) —p. 176; lisa (doun. ['ésos, don. lėsas, dun. [sas KRS, Nisas PVN) —p. 209; pūora (=piora) —p. 211; jé-(=jé)—p. 46; dritts (=dnrits, many places and drickc ~ drunk SKDV (BokSeiniy k.) —p. 214; saži'ningi (=honest or honest, newly learned) —p. 216; he (=iūs) —p. 216; sklinziais (=skli.n.,že.i.s) —p. 47, 209; puote, i's (=pūoter'- us) —p. 160 (and further well, 'pūote,F'- s, p. 205); malina (=mill) —p. 44; ri.tūd (=ri'itūo) —p. 163. The word grip'r'i (here, of course, gri“pti) is very rare (p. 176), newly learned, even the author herself has presented gréipti, cf. form nugréibes ~ nugreibęs (nugreibęs) —p. 157; gi.vena-—gyvenai —p. 146 (the only example with the present tense second-person ending with a fixed suffix); 'vieškeli (=viškeli in Gervinė, from G. Vitkauskaitė-Griškienė); 'blū,di* (=blūdii, where there is a diphthong i, cf. vi.f.šiį Alėjai 1989 m., ūgaui Adakavas, ki.i.mii VN) —p. 63and t. t. Some excessive generalizations or unchecked historical writings also leave the question unclear. The singular noun ending of the masculine nouns of Nemakščiai, Rasčiniai, Vidūklė, Alėjai, Paupis is -ui (see S. Stanevičiaus writings), and without explaining anything it is given that all the dialects of that dialect have this ending 4* —p. 146 (ss. 'kūni,gū* Nemakščiai —p. 65, plg. LD 520, LKA,, 36 žem. It is said that i < in, nu-, the unpronounced in the whole of Žemaitija are only short, although it is not clearly read in Petro Jonikos (PGRT in the whole text), Vlado Grinaveckio Žemaičių tarmių istoir elsewhere) —p. 157 (the author (p. 149) has heard only pudding accents; x and those with long accents she doubts in general). There is a lack of explanations in some places. The form pū“In (p. 146) may have originated from pila, because Adakavē had heard the form pū. Ln ~ pulna ‘pull’ (from Stulgiū woman in 1969 said pg. ~ pula ‘pull’), as well as ba. Ln ‘bala’, šū. Ln ‘Sala’, $iln ‘Syla’, etc. Sangraziniy prepositional verbs with the particle -si at the end of the word are used with the particles ne-, be-, te-, tebe-(tebi-): n'ėjukės ‘doesn’t laugh’, ter'išta:s ‘tesiryzta’, tebišnekas ‘isn’t talking’, etc. ; nėšnekamuos ‘nesiSnekam’ (Žv), najiketies ‘nesijuokiat' (SKDV), nėmetass (Didkiemis), and p. 19 appears as if after all the prepositions (footnote 16). Sometimes it is said: kap sutvarkisės | atsipisés that known, the author of these lines (see V. Vitkauskas. [P] + [s] + V + $s conjugative verbs in eastern Samogitian dialects. Lithuanian linguistics issues described, in the case even 18, 1978, 171-175) GRD, TRG, PGRT. Many of the Žemaičių šnektos have the forms || lab'd.u lab'a.ū., pask'd.u. || pas'k'ū.ū, daug'a.u || daug'a.ū. (hearing loss) Stulgiuosė, Vainutė, Adakave, own used used ir (In the circle). Ne vien daug'd.u, lab'a.u, pas'k'a.u —p. 215: derivatives of the -au ending denote the highest degree (from manyd.usa > manydus > more), the higher plural. o — Kražių š<il>ta (p. 136) clearly is a non-noun form of adjectives, (that a feminine noun with a degressive accent, changing the “unnamed” gender. In some places it is possible to doubt the existence of i", u* accuracy: ir viresn'ijei vyresnieji ~ (p. 27, 157), not even — p. 42 (plg. jack, ace ‘duok’ in many southern Samogitian dialects: dik diévi, it's not even diēvi), ir ne'ga.udi,si's (=nega.ud'is'is) — p. 65; almost all of the Žemaičiai 10 n'ėš'i:s ‘tu nésies’, vés'is *vesies', musts ‘musies’ ir t. t. (SG, RsN, Ms, VvR, TRS, RDN); šven'dūnuse (transponuota autorés švendūonūse, Svendiinuose) bk — p. 70; se'ntiei — p. 72; I'm not... (= along ne the river*?) — p. 82; pruo'vūo,; si's (=pruoviios'is) — p. 82; ki.k (not who?), pri',šas (=pri,šass, all Žemaites pri, §as, prišais, prišū's and so on, from which the southern Žemaites are completely separated) —p. 210, pp. 10. —p. 212 (there was also šėn,d'i* — p. 74); nuri.tieje (i. mud farming phenomenon?) — p. 213; Wook'i. '€ū— p. 213; uuoki’ti (?) 187 —p. 214 (the syllable -kiof this word in all the Žemaites, here the Raseiniai people are again so selfish, rejected by all the Žemaites, but cf. uuoki.tis —p. 39, uuoki.Čū:- —p. 213). In 03 03 02 the question was asking how to pronounce the name of the village Jūkainiai, two people said jiūkain'u, as if doubting the Jū*kaini- 'u form (p. 69). I don’t really want to point out the proofreading errors, as a big short-sighted person, but to such data as brivolis (=brūolis) —p. 151, *va.lgi.,daw" (=va.lgidava) —p. 211, petrines (=petrinés) —p. 213, fuck it! (=plough) —p. 69, 'abu,dū (abudu) —p. 74, važū*dava (=važū*dava) —p. 206, for chickens (=chickens) clearly stated. The young researcher put a lot of work into it, she described hundreds of kilometers of dialects, losing — p. 81, things of regularity, inherited dialect characteristics (although in many places it is still possible to find users of inherited regular dialect), but what she shows, Daiva Atkočaitytė probably presented. For the history of language, this is also important. It was only necessary to avoid inconsistent uniform forms and words, dubious momentary fluctuations, when speaking to (young or young) puffy girls. In doing so, she did not have a single poor layman helper beside her, although she thanked a fairly large group of advisers and consultants. Vytautas Vitkauskas Gauta 2003 05 05 Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva TEXT-CRITICAL EDITION OF THE TRANSLATION OF THE PSALTERS INTO THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE BY JOHANNES BRETKE, PASTOR TO LABIAU AND KONIGSBERG I. PR., AFTER THE MANUSCRIPT OF THE YEAR 1580) AND OF THE REPRODUCED VERSION OF THIS PSALTERS BY JOHANNES REHSA, PASTOR TO KONGSBERG I. PR., AFTER THE PRINT OF THE YEAR 1625 IN ADDITION TO THE TRANSLATION OF THE PSALTERS INTO THE GERMAN LANGUAGE BY MARTIN LUTHER AFTER THE AUSGABE AUS DEM YEARS 1545 UNTER COOPERATION VON FRIEDEMANN KLUGE. PROVIDED WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND PUBLISHED BY FRIEDRICH SCHOLZ. Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zürich: Ferdinand Schoningh, 2002, LXXXI + 559 pp, ISBN 3-506-71681-6. (Biblia Slavica, Serie VI: Supplementum: Biblia Lithuanica, Reihe 2: Editionsbande, 6. Published by Hans Rothe and Friedrich Scholz with the collaboration of Christian Hannick and Ludger Udolph.) In the foreword (p. IX-X) Scholz writes that Johannes Bretke (Bretkūnas) completed the Lithuanian translation of the entire Holy Scriptures between March 1579 and November 1590, but until now only the Psalter had appeared before in print. This Psalter, translated between the 20th of May and the middle of July 1580, came into the hands of Johannes Rehsa, who revised and published along with it Luther's German translation in 1625 in the Laurenz Segebad press. The common statement that Rehsa's version differs little from Bretkūnas' translation is just not true. as a glance at the two texts will easily show. The volume discussed here contains both Bretkūnas' original and Rehsa's revision on facing pages. At the request of Prof. Jonas Palionis