Daiva Atkočaitytė. „Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių prozodija ir vokalizmas“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 185 – 190 REVIEWS Reviews Daiva Atkočaitytė Prosody and Vocalism of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai Subdialect Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2002, 222 p., ISSN 1648-3316, ISBN 9986-668-41-7 (Opera Linguistica Lithuanica, 2) Every dialectological book is very important for Lithuanian linguistics—both for inherited linguistic scholarship and for sociology. Daiva Atkočaitytė travelled across a large area of the Southern Samogitian subdialect, from Vainutas to Kùrtuvėnai and from Kražiai to Eržvilkas. This is the so-called southern area of the diunininkai, where the local varieties are affected by the norms of the standard language; especially when speaking with a stranger, speakers avoid even the regular linguistic features within a single sentence. This is also important for the history of the language, because, with the disappearance of rural communities and the former pattern of landholding in the villages, and as children and grandchildren increasingly learn and follow the standard language, people’s speech becomes mixed and varied. The author of the book has demonstrated this as well. All these locations were studied before 1970 by good scholars, whose work is scarcely reflected in this book (only the views of Petro Jonikas and Vladas Grinaveckis were taken into some account, and even then not always; the author had no need of the research of Zelma Dumašiūtė, Zigmantas Pocius, Antanas Balašaitis, Elena Grinaveckienė, Simas Karaliūnas, and others). A great deal of work and effort has gone into the technical study of sounds. This is, of course, interesting and probably reliable, but it cannot always resolve questions of phonetics. The local varieties described here belong to the area of non-retracting stress, some also to the conditional area. Atkočaitytė’s account has been adjusted somewhat, but this is probably the result of more recent population mixing (fieldwork in 1964–1985 found that in the local varieties around Vainutas, Degučiai, Gailnė, Pãupis, Gervinė, and elsewhere, stress was not retracted). The book now claims that almost every long (and often short) syllable bears secondary stress (the shortening of vowels in unstressed long syllables and the monophthongization of diphthongs (diphthongoids) seem suspiciously to be recent developments: givė.nims, devīniolaka, pagidūoje, etc.). Apparently, a leveling or shift of pitch accents and accentuation patterns is also taking place now, since a considerable number of words are presented in highly unusual spellings, often impossible to make out: цц.kinįks (=цц'k'in'inks VDK, NMK, Alėjai) – p. 26; acc. sing. žmuōna (=žmiōna) – p. 26; vārtu (=vā.r.tu KRTV) – p. 27; bažnīčė (=bažnīčė) – p. 46; acc. pl. muōkslus (=muōkslus) – pp. 72, 147; 'skiŕ,ti's (=skiŕtis) – p. 63; jūsus (=other Southern Samogitian forms: jūs'us, jūn'c'us, Gailnė 1964; standard jūosius) – pp. 65, 213; biė,sūs (restored form biesas! =biėsus) – p. 68; 'plū;gus (=plūgus, plugūs VN, TRG, standard plūgūs) – p. 70; su munīm (=su munīm) – p. 73; aštū'nītis (=aštūnītis) – p. 145; mi'gas (=mi'gas, mī'gas, with stress on the 3rd and 1st syllables, ‘granaries’) – p. 145; šeimā (=šeimā KRTV) – p. 147; riēt' (=riēt', standard rėti) – pp. 150, 209; g'īvuolīs (a completely incomprehensible form—restored as gyvolys) – p. 152; what is western Samogitian līpta (p. 186 | RECENZIJOS 153) It is entirely unclear what kind of dūnininkavimas this is (?); it was noticed long ago and discussed by everyone around 1958–1959 (cf. V. Viltkauskas. Forma kýlė – naujybė. Kalbotyra 44(1), 1995, 93–94); Urbanavičiūtė and Grinaveckis were not the first to identify it. pū̃ln (p. 153) comes from pūla and sounds like pū.l.n (even in Alėjai); ati.m s (=ati.m.š Krž) – p. 155, 216; kū̃ts (at least kū̃ts) – p. 176; lìsa (doun. lė̃sos, don. lė̃sas, dūn. lìsas Krš, lìsas Pvn) – p. 209; pū̃ora (=púora) – p. 211; jė̃ (=jė) – p. 46; drū̃ts (=drūts, and in many places also drū̃kc ~ drūktas Skdv (Bokšeiniai village) – p. 214; saži̇̃ningi (=saži̇̃ningi or saži̇̃ningi, newly learned) – p. 216; i̇̃ūs (=i̇̃ūs) – p. 216; skli̇̃nžiais (=skli̇̃n.žė.i.s) – p. 47, 209; pū̃ote, f's (=pū̃oter'us) – p. 160 (but later correctly, 'pū̃ote, f's, p. 205); maũlna (=maũlna) – p. 44; ri.tuõ (=r'i.tuõ) – p. 163. The word gri̇̃pti (here, obviously, gri̇̃pti) is very rare (p. 176), newly taught; the author herself has even given grė̃pti; cf. the form nugrė̃ibęs ~ nugreibęs (nugriẽbęs) – p. 157; gi.ve.nã: ~ gyvenai – p. 146 (the only example with a circumflex accent on the second-person singular present-tense ending); 'vi̇̃eškeli (=vi̇̃škelį Gervinėję, from G. Vitkauskaitė-Grikšienė); blū̃.di̇̃ (=blūdi̇̃, where is the diphthong i̇̃ here? Cf. vi̇̃.r.š.ii̇̃ Alėjai in 1989, ūgaui Adakāvas, kì.r.mìj Vn) – p. 63, etc. Some excessive generalizations and failures to check historical texts also leave matters unclear. The singular dative ending of masculine nouns in Nemakščiai, Raseiniai, Viduklė, Alėjai, and Paupys is -ui (see the writings of S. Stanevičius), whereas, without any explanation, it is claimed that this ending is ú“ in all the dialects of that subdialect – p. 146 (see 'kūni,gū“ Nemakščiai – p. 65; cf. LD 520, LKAIII 36 žem.). It is said that i < in-, nu-, pri- are unstressed and only short throughout Žemaitija, although Petro Joniko (PGrT throughout), Vlado Grinaveckio Žemaičių tarmių istorija, and other sources have clearly not been consulted (until 1985, long unstressed i and u were heard in Užv, Pvn, even Krš, Grd, Žv, and elsewhere) – p. 157 (the author (p. 149) has heard only half-long stressed vowels and is generally doubtful about those long vowels). Some explanations are missing. The form pū̃ln (p. 146) may have developed from pūla, since in Adakavas I heard pū.l.ñ ~ pūlna ‘falls’ (in 1969 a woman from Stulgiai said pọ́.l ~ pūla ‘falls’), just like bã.l.n ‘swamp’, šã.l.n ‘frost’, ši̇̃.l.n ‘warms up’, etc. The particle -si of reflexive prefixed verbs occurs at the end of the word together with the particles ne-, be-, te-, tebe- (tebi-): n'ėjukė̃s ‘does not laugh’, ter'štã:s ‘may it resolve’, tebišnekã:s ‘is still talking’, etc.; nėšnekamuos ‘we do not talk’ (Žv), nauj-kėtes ‘does not laugh’ (Skdv), nėmetãs (Didkiemis), whereas p. 19 makes it seem to occur after all prefixes (footnote 16). Sometimes one hears: kãp sutvarki̇̃sės / atsipū̃sės ‘when [he/she] has put things in order / rested’, in the familiar case described by the author of these lines (see V. Vitkauskas. „[P] + [s] + V + s“ tipo sangrąžiniai veiksmažodžiai rytinėse žemaičių šnektose. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 18, 1978, 171–175), even in Grd, Trg, PgrT. Many Žemaitian dialects have the forms lab'ã.u || lãb'ã.u., pask'ã.u. || pas'k'ã.u., daug'ã.u || daug'ã.u. (heard in Stulgiai, Vainutė, Adakavas, and used by me in Kuršėnai). Not only daug'ã.u, lab'ã.u, pas'k'ã.u – p. 215: formations with the ending -áu express the superlative (from daugã.usa > daugiaus > daugiau), whereas daugiau means the comparative. The Kražiai form s<ī̄l>ta (p. 136) is clearly a non-gendered adjective form, replaced by a feminine nominative with retracted stress. In some cases, one may question the accuracy and presence of i, u“: viresn'ījėi ~ vyresnėjai (p. 27, 157), nėduk – p. 42 (cf. dọk, dūk ‘give!’ in many South Žemaitian dialects: dūk dėvė, so also nėduk dėvė), ne'gã.udi, s'i̇̃s (=negã.ud'i:s'i:s) – p. 65; nearly all Žemaitians have n'eš'i:s ‘you carry yourself’, vė.s'i:s ‘you will lead yourself’, mūš'i:s ‘you will beat yourself’, etc. (Sg, Rsn, Ms, Vvr, Trš, Rdn); šven'dīnu.se (transcribed by the author as švendūnuose, standard Švendūnuose) – p. 70; se'n'ījėi – p. 72; tę.i.ni: (=why not tęi̇̃n'i?) – p. 82; pruo'v'uo,s'i:s (=pruoviós'i:s) – p. 82; ki.k (not ki̇̃k?), pri̇̃.šãs (= pri̇̃.šãs, all Žemaitians have pri̇̃.šãs, ‘opposite, facing’, etc., from which the southern Žemaitians have completely diverged) – p. 210; šė.n.ḋ.i – p. 212 (there was also šė̃n,d'i – p. 74); nuri.tieje (a feature of dūnininkavimas?) – p. 213; uoki̇̃.čiu – p. 213; uuȯki̇̃ti (?) RECENZIJOS 187 – p. 214 (the syllable -ki- in this word is used by all Žemaitians; here the Raseiniai speakers are once again idiosyncratic, departing from all Žemaitians, but cf. uuoki.tįs – p. 39, uuoki.čū – p. 213). In Viduklė on 03 03 02, people were asked how the name of the village Jūkainiai is pronounced; two people said jūkain'u, and the form jū“kaiñ'u (p. 69) seems somewhat doubtful. As a highly short-sighted person, I do not much want to point out typographical errors, but such data as brūol,is (=brúolis) – p. 151, ‘vā.lgi,,dāwā (=vá.lgi.dāva) – p. 211, petrīnes (=petrīnes) – p. 213, ‘ā.r,klū! (=ārklu) – p. 69, ‘ābu,dū (abūdu) – p. 74, važū“dava (=važū“dava) – p. 206, vištums (=vištums) – p. 81, should clearly be identified. The young scholar has done a great deal of work, describing dialects across hundreds of square kilometers that are losing regular features and inherited dialect characteristics (although in many places one can still find speakers of the inherited, regular dialect). But what the evidence shows is probably what Daiva Atkočaitytė has presented. This is important for the history of language as well. She should merely have avoided forms and words that are inconsistent with one another, and doubtful momentary fluctuations, when speaking with (a young or several young) overdressed girls. In publishing this work, she had not a single Žemaitian plough-hand helper at her side, although she thanks a fairly large group of advisers and consultants. Vytautas Vitkauskas, Institute of the Lithuanian Language, P. Vileišio St. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania Received 2003 05 05 TEXT-CRITICAL EDITION OF THE TRANSLATION OF THE PSALTER INTO THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE BY JOHANNES BRETKE, PASTOR AT LABIAU AND KÖNIGSBERG I. PR., BASED ON THE MANUSCRIPT FROM THE YEAR 1580 AND THE REVISED VERSION OF THIS PSALTER BY JOHANNES REHSA, PASTOR AT KÖNIGSBERG I. PR., BASED ON THE PRINTED EDITION FROM THE YEAR 1625, TOGETHER WITH THE TRANSLATION OF THE PSALTER INTO THE GERMAN LANGUAGE BY MARTIN LUTHER, BASED ON THE EDITION FROM THE YEAR 1545, PREPARED WITH THE COLLABORATION OF FRIEDEMANN KLUGE. PROVIDED WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND EDITED BY FRIEDRICH SCHOLZ. Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2002, LXXXI + 559 p., ISBN 3-506-71681-6. (Biblia Slavica, Series VI: Supplementum: Biblia Lithuanica, Series 2: Editions, 6. Published by Hans Rothe and Friedrich Scholz in collaboration with 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 it along with 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