Lietuvių kalbotyra 2001-aisiais metais: Lietuvoje išleisti darbai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVII (2002), 149-164 OVERVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS Survey of Recent Publications LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS IN 2001: PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED IN LITHUANIA 2001 was not a favourable year for Lithuanian linguistics. The ongoing economic crisis has also been compounded by the confusion in the administration of science. The Institute of Lithuanian Language was to be attached to Vilnius University, here to be merged with the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. Over the past two years, the Institute’s funding for employees’ salaries has been reduced by a third. The State Lithuanian Language Commission was reorganized and its status changed. Under these circumstances, serious scientific work is hard to expect. Nevertheless, in 2001 there were about a dozen new publications in Lithuania, seven of which are reviewed in this paper. The review consists of three parts: the first part discusses new monographs, the second part — collections of articles by individual authors, and the third part — publications of the literary heritage. Monographs Two new monographs were published in Lithuania in 2001: Alberto Rosino Semantic and Morphological Structure of Pronouns in the Texts of Mikalojus Daukša (Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias, 2001, 164 p.) and Vytautas Vitkauskas Morphonomenal Phenomena of Lithuanian Dialects (Vilnius: Žara, 2001, 262 p.). The book of the experienced morphologist Alberto Rosinas is one of the few attempts (in Lithuanian linguistics) to systematically describe a fragment of a single author’s writings. In addition, the writings of Mikalojus Daukša — the oldest works written and published in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that have survived to us — provide a lot of valuable material for the study of the history of various dialects of the Lithuanian language. The book has already received several reviews (Maskuliūnas 2002; Pajėdienė 2002), so this review only highlights some of its most important features. In the preface to the book, the author states that “In studying the semantics of Daukšos pronouns, the same methodology was used as in the monograph “Pronouns of Lithuanian Common Language” (1996). Therefore, in order to avoid repetition in this monograph, I do not discuss more complex theoretical questions, but only refer to my monograph” (p. 8). Nevertheless, the author did not manage to avoid repetitions, because from the aforementioned and other monographs and articles (Rosinas 1986, 1988, 1995) not only the preliminary scheme of description and sequence, individual formulations, but also entire sentences or paragraphs, even passages of text of several paragraphs in size, have been transferred to the book under consideration. For example, the section “Relationships of Pronouns” (p. 10) corresponds literally (with small notes) to the somewhat shortened text of the 1996 monograph (see Rosinas 1996: 17). In the adjacent section “Inventory of pronouns in many texts”, two pages of notes (p. 11-12) correspond literally to the text of the previously published article (Rosinas 1986: 30). rewritten, it seems, only three of this section- 150 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 151 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 152 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 153 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 154 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 155 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 156 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 157 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 158 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 159 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS 159 „Showing pronouns“ (p. 37—39) is a shortened version of the corresponding chapter of the book „Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai“ (cfr. Rosinas 1988: 57-59): the examples have been changed and an excursion on the forms of pronouns of the „unnamed genus“ in the grammar of contemporary Lithuanian language has been added (p. Transcriptions of previous publications of the author probably make up about half of the text of the monograph (excluding examples and the last chapter). So it can hardly be considered a completely new, original monograph. In the book, there are many references to the Bible and its teachings. There are also new claims. For example, about the fact that the recursive adjective pronoun “as a substitute for manas, tawas of adjective pronouns in indirect verb forms [...] has no nominative forms” (p. 32); correlation wis(a) kąkąg origin interpretation (p. 105) and others. A new and interesting final chapter of the book is “Postpositional pronouns: origin, internal motives of function changes” (pp. 136-152). It is true that half of the text of this chapter ($48) was published almost simultaneously in a separate article (see Rosine 2000 a), and some of the ideas in the theses of the conference papers (see Rosine 2000 b). As the title suggests, the subjects covered in this chapter are only partially related to the subject of the monograph and are printed therein rather as an appendix. Interestingly, in the article by Ginta Kavaliūnaitė published in the same year (cf. Kavaliūnaitė 2001), the use of the adesive in ancient Lithuanian writings is explained in a different way. A major drawback of the monograph is that it does not compare the samples with the originals. Even in those cases where the author states the decisive influence of the original on the usage of Lithuanian pronouns, the reader usually does not find Polish equivalents (e.g., pp. 26, 27, 37 et seq.). Excluded are the Polish examples given at pp. 65, 66, 81 and somewhere else. This particularly reduces confidence in Daukša’s description of the semantics of pronouns (see Jūratė Pajėdienė’s remarks on this subject —Pajėdienė 2002: 206). The opinion of both reviewers regarding the lack of statistical analysis of pronoun usage in the monograph should also be supported (see Maskuliūnas 2002: 225; Pajėdienė 2002: 207). Since the author used (or could have used) the Catechism word forms index compiled by Jonas Palionis (Palionis 1995) and the Postilas word index compiled by Czesław Kudzinowski (Kudzinowski 1977; this publication is not mentioned either in the list of literature or in the list of sources), it is doubtful that all Daukša pronouns and their forms are described in the book, as if it were not appropriate, but Pajėdienė found such non-mentioned in the monograph none inesive forms of the pronoun (see Pajėdienė 2002: 210). The graphical variants of the pronoun forms used by Daukša are not all mentioned in the monograph. For example, the paradigms of personal participle pronouns do not specify the variants of the noun I manęs DK 134,,, manės DK 136,: dažnas naudotininkas mari DK 9,,, 12,, 26, and so on. ; back mdné DK 69,; doubts raises the variant mania of the backhand recorded in the paradigm (p. 15). The pronoun tu is not specified originator taw¢s DK 155,,; tailpipe variants tawe DK 11, Tawé DK 135,, tūwę DK 135,; innagininkas tawim’ DK 177,; adesyvai tawip DK 169,, tawimp DK 182,, tawimp DK 144, 155, 174,,; aliative tawelp DK 62,, tawg¢/p DK 136,,, 148,, 149,,, tawélp DK 136,,,,, 148, 149, etc., taw¢lp DK 141; variant in tao paradigm incorrectly listed as usufructuary (p. 16). Many text examples in the book are given in the original spelling. In order to check the accuracy of the transcription of the quotes and individual forms, I compared the examples of participle pronouns I and You given in the Catechism in the section “Personal Pronouns” (pp. 14-17). First of all, attention should be paid to the metrics of the examples: the page of the 1995 edition of the Catechism is indicated instead of the original page (Jakštienė, Palionis 1995); Furthermore, page lines are not always specified. Perrašy- OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 151 mo inaccuracies found as follows: my DK 410, —t. b. Mine DK 170,; same DK 378, —t. b. patiés DK 1544; wilsūsę DK 404,, —t. b. wilsūfe DK 167,,; pritikimiife DK 404, —t. b. DK 167,,; tawglp DK 404,,—t. b. taw¢lp’ DK 167, idant gatec3é poznat tawę DK 358, „,—t. b. any person who is able to recognize you DK 144, “; 200 BC–c. b. Bažnica DK 65,,; kasg DK 356,, — t. b. kasg DK 143,,; DK 143, —t. B. wieksis DK 143; efsi gu DK 88,, —t. b. efsigu DK 9s krikfc3ionis DK 88, —t. b. krikBezonis DK 9,: vigines DK 340, —t. b. DK 135 watchtowers; DK 126, —t. b. What about DK 28. The preface to the book states that "Daukša wrote in the dialect of the middle highlands [...]. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the representative of the ‘middle variant of the written language- ’” (p. 7). However, according to Girdenis and Zinkevičius's classification of dialects, the Daukšos dialect belongs to the western Highlands, and the middle variant of the written language is so called because of the geographical location of its area of use (cf. Zinkevičius 1972: 79, note 3). At the end of the book is printed a list of literature (p. 157-158), sources, abbreviations of terms and basic symbols and conventional signs are explained (p. 159). The main ideas of the book are repeated in the English summary (p. 160-163). The book was beautifully published with the funding of the Lithuanian State Language Commission. In spite of the shortcomings and discussions mentioned here, Rosinas’ monograph is undoubtedly an important and useful publication for language historians, Baltists and Indo-Europeanists. The value of the monograph of Vytautas Vitkauskas, one of our most famous dialectologists and lexicographers, consists of a systematically arranged rich authentic dialect material, interesting insights and interpretations. To evaluate them is the task of special studies, reviews. The book is the author’s habilitation thesis defended a couple of years ago (Vitkauskas 1999), so its content will not be discussed in this review. The book differs from the habilitation thesis by the addition of a German abstract (which is a bit edited from the previous abstract of the habilitation thesis; pp. 195-220), a subject index (essentially an index of the words mentioned or examined in the book; pp. 221-238), a list of abbreviations (pp. 239-254) and by the fact that it no longer contains a list of the author’s scientific works summarized as a habilitation thesis. Almost a third of the text of the book (excluding the introductory chapters, conclusions and appendices) corresponds completely to the text of the author’s first dissertation (Vitkauskas 1974; copies of the dissertation, signed E. 76 Ds 2024, kept in the Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library, were used) or is close to it (cf. also the chapter aboute:i (e,i,i); e/i:e; u“/uo change in the book (p. 53-65; 65— 70; 96-107) and in the dissertation (p. 90-103, 84-86, 124-136)). Another third of the text of the monograph has been published in various periodicals (see the list of the author’s publications at pp. 261—262). Thus, the book in question is close to a collection of articles by a single author or a collection of writings (even if discussed in the second part of this review). The text of previous works has been edited, giving them the form of a book. For example, the chapter “Relicts of regressive vowel assimilation?” (p. 128-141; cf. the corresponding chapter of the habilitation thesis (1999: 98-109)) consists of two articles —“On regressive vowel assimilation in some northeastern Žemaičių mudininkų dialects” (Vitkauskas 1963) and “New facts of regressive vowel assimilation in Kuršėnų dialect” (Vitkauskas 1975) (by the way, neither in the list of scientific works summarized by the habilitation thesis (1999: 158-159), nor in the list of literature of the monograph (p. 262) these articles do not exist). Most of the latter article corresponds to the text of the author’s first dissertation (cf. Vitkauskas 1974: §§55-56). Three new paragraphs are added at the end of the chapter (pp. 139-141). Some changes have been made to the 152 | ARTŪRAS MUDŽENTIS those in the text or abandoned, supplemented in some places; from the dialect examples, the examples transposed into the common language have been deleted everywhere; added the conjugation paradigm of the words škrab'is, škra.b'i (p. 138). The singular paradigm of the adjective gražesnis (1963: 272) is replaced by the plural paradigm of the adjective g'er'ės'n'- is, which gives the adjacent forms of this adjective (p. 132). Place names were conjugated, some terms changed: literatūrinė kalba (1963: 271) to bendrinė kalba (p. 132); The Dunedin dialects are in many places strange to the Dunedin dialects. Handled transcription, e.g. consistently marked softness of consonants. There are corrected proofreading errors, e.g., baker (1963: 271, footnote 6) —baker (p. 131, footnote 20); prefix pa derivatives (1975: 82) —prefix consequences (p. 135) and others. A lot of stylistic corrections, e.g.: e goes directly before the final syllable (1963: 269) —e goes directly before the final syllable (p. 128); in some cases it is not foreign to some of the mud dialects (1963: 269) —in some cases it is also observed in some mud dialects (p. 128); dialect, I would say, energetically influenced by common language (1963: 271) — dialect, I would say, strongly influenced by common language (p. 132) and so on. However, even after editing, there are still errors in the section. First of all, the proofreading: on pages 128 and 129 of the book there are two a) paragraphs, and on page 130 after b) paragraphs go (d) a paragraph; mushrooms (p. 129) —t. b. Mushrooms; with the word (p. 129) —t. b. with words; *~n (p. 129) —t. b. *en etc. There are also some inconsistencies in the transcription, for example, Ch'e' (p. 133) —t. b. ¢'e. Some examples of texts omitted when re-selecting: kėli (cf. 1963: 270), šimtamėti (cf. 1963: 270), ėže: (cf. 1975: 81); twice printed the same example šal'rėn'is (p. 135); left the divorce errors. The list of literature does not include V. Grinavecki’s publications mentioned on page 128 (Grinaveckis 1960). The whole book lacks open editing (I did not find the name of the editor anywhere in the publication), especially those texts that have not been published in a scientific journal before. For example, the first three introductory chapters of the book (p. 7—20), taken from the habilitation thesis (cf. 1999: 3-11), are full of punctuation, spelling, proofreading, logic, and style errors. The following spelling errors have been noted: in Žemaičiai (p. 10) plg. in Žemaitija (p. 8); Smoczynski (p. 16, footnote 1) — t. b. Chimneys; Chilinskio (p. 19) —t. b. Chylinski. The following divorce issues caught my eye: e.g. LKZ III (p. 8) —t. b. e.g., LKŽ III; system is being examined or maintained (p. 9) —t. b. investigate whether the system is maintained; 1997. pp. 462. (p. b. V. Pėteraitis 1997, 462 and others. Incorrectly used divisor in the sentence When you look closely (i.e., when you examine) each word |...) you see or perceive (p. 10). There are many proofreading errors: constant ironing of sound combinations (p. 7.) —t. b. texts of the articles. Contributions to continuous ironing of sound compounds; taisi (p. 10) —t. b. Tarsi; reškimosi (p. 11) —t. b. the manifestation; this (i. e. so) formed the so-called principle of linguistic geography (p. 12); morphemastam (i. e. morpheme) in certain positions (p. 12); which [...] often become used by the whole nation (i. e. used) (p. 12); We shall see further |...) and other cases (p. 12—13) —t. b. Next we will see |...) and other cases; jaunagramatikų (p. 13) —t. b. jaunagramatikiy and others. In many sentences, the logical connections are unclear, e.g. : This is perhaps a small problem that seems to some, but as we see from the literature quite varied and considered by not one researcher close to lawful phenomena and leveled (divorce!; p. 8); It must be said that dialectism (dialect) is used by literates and even linguists in the meaning of “a dialect word or form used in common language” (p. 8); The law of language is the constant determined from comparisons, in which position the historically pronounced sound has been formed, their combination, morpheme (p. 12) and so on. See also: the course of rolling, development (p.7); steadily changed (p. 13). poor style of some sentences, cf.: and it is perfectly acceptable such generalization (p. 8); Those who deal with dialectal vocabulary, the examination of dialectisms is very relevant and tricky (p. 8); we will no longer know, bk are affected and leveled, and the real position of the snakes (p. 10) etc. Literature OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 153 The list does not include the works mentioned in the text: Grinaveckis 1978 (p. 15), Serebrennikov 1975 (p. 15), Mažiulis 1993 (p. 16), Smoczynski 1986 (p. Repetitions have not been avoided, for example, pages 17-18 partially repeat those things (and examples) that have already been set out on page 7. Most of the problems mentioned here were not corrected in the book from the author's habilitation thesis. It is a pity that the publication of this valuable book did not receive the support of state institutions, which probably would have helped to eliminate the above-mentioned and other shortcomings of editing and proofreading. In 2001, the work of Aleksas Girdenis Kalbotyra (1: 1962—1974, 420 p.; II: 1975—1987, 416 p.; III: 1988-2000, 476 p., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas; I-II: 2000, III: 2001; all three volumes are reviewed) was completed. In the same year, Pranas Kniūkštas published a collection of his works, Language Use and Ordnance (Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute Press, 2001, 596 pp.). Aleksas Girdenis is one of the most active, innovative and interesting Lithuanian linguists. He is a broad-minded and diverse researcher, dialectologist, phonologist, specialist in general linguistics and history of linguistics. In the Lithuanian linguistics of the 20th century, he was one of the few Lithuanian linguists who created his own school of linguistics. Pranas Kniūkšta is best known in Lithuanian linguistics as a curator of the current Lithuanian language usage, a promoter of the clerical (or administrative) style, a founder of the Language Culture Department at the Lithuanian Language Institute, and a responsible editor of the Language Culture publication. The review selections are compiled by the authors themselves. They contain articles, reviews and other papers published over three or four decades of scientific work. There are few new works published for the first time in these books: Girdenis — two chapters of his doctoral (candidate) dissertation Mažeikių dialekto fonologinė sistema and a review of Jono Kabelka’s textbook Baltų filologijos įvadas; Books — articles “The correctness and accuracy of the legal language”, “The use of the locality to indicate the field of activity”, reviews of various legal documents and answers to written questions. According to Girdenis’s opinion, expressed in the review of Grinavecki’s History of the Žemaičių dialektai (1974), written together with Rosinas, “the publication of the book would be welcomed, even if we did not find any completely new statement in it, because only in the book the whole of the theoretical concept, its strengths and weaknesses are highlighted and only the book can firmly introduce the researcher’s factual material and theoretical conclusions into the circle of scientific ideas” (I, p. 386). This review does not attempt to examine the theoretical concepts presented in both collections, but is satisfied with the examination of their composition, subjective and linguistic editing. Girdenis’ publications are divided into several sections according to genre: firstly, articles are published, then — linguistic notes, reviews and interviews with the author himself. The publications of each section are listed in chronological order. The articles and essays in the book are organized according to the topics they deal with. The book consists of five chapters: “The rules and methods of language management”; "Administrative and office language", "Names of institutions and companies", "Adjectives with -inis", "From the variety of language practice". Thematic rather than chronological principle is also used in the printing of publications in each section. The principles of presentation of the texts set out in the prefaces of both authors (Girdenis —I, pp. 11-12; Kniūkštas —p. 9) are similar. 1.The texts are not reworked or corrected, only one other place is corrected, only in necessary cases short notes or references to later works are added (Girdenis), some longer articles are shortened (Kniūkšta). 2. Present spelling (Girdenis; Knyūkštas apie 154 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS spelling is not mentioned). 3. only obvious errors were corrected from the divorce, otherwise it was left as it was (Girdenis; Kniūkšta does not mention the corrections of the divorce). 4. corrected proofreading errors, as appropriate — and phonetic transcription marks (Girdenis), corrected inappropriate formulation and style errors, deleted inappropriate examples (Kniūkšta). Since “every writing is regarded as a baby of that time” (Girdenis), the terms and “otherwise words, which today we would all curse as one” (Girdenis) are not changed by both authors. 6. Source references are not uniform (Kniūkšta). A review of some of the reprinted publications of both collections shows that they generally comply with the principles set out. 1. Girdenis’s corrections are primarily visible in the footnotes to the articles. Algirdas Sabaliauskas (2002) also drew attention to them in his review. They are short, precise, critical and certainly seem necessary. Other corrections showed some softening of previous statements (e.g., inserted in footnote 11, p. 193) and some clarifications (e.g., statistical data of dendrograms clarified in the article „The hierarchy of noun conjugation types in the Lithuanian language and the main trends of its change“, II, pp. 55 and 58; the position of the masculine i and the consonant stem in the hierarchy of conjugation types of the Šaukėnai schnekta was interpreted differently, II, pp. 59-60, and the hierarchical grouping of conjugation types of this schnekta was modified accordingly, II, p. 60). All these and other corrections made by the author increase the value of the reprinted publications and make the selection more interesting: they reflect the change of the author’s scientific views, and partly also the development of Lithuanian linguistics. It is only desirable that changes of this nature are marked in all cases. References to later or other works published in the reviewed selection are certainly convenient for the reader: they help to quickly find the required text. In the book, the earlier articles are more noticeably edited. For example, in the articles "Unconjunctive, non-alcoholic and adjective suffix -inis" and "Adjectives with the formants -alinis, -arinis, -yvinis, -atinis" there are omitted whole paragraphs, dropped sentences and individual examples, joined paragraphs, changed formulations, not even a footnote and a table. 2. The language of Girdenis’s selection was edited by Agota Sriubienė, an experienced editor of philological publications. The results of her work are visible in all the texts reviewed. Traces of the modernization of the spelling can be mentioned as follows: Prussian Lithuanian corrected to Prussian Lithuanian (1, p. 48); bugs fixed: root spelling (I, p. 48); perhaps (I, p. 52, footnote 30), probably (I, p. 377, footnote 12; I, p. 379) are written together and no longer separated; where not where written without hyphens (I, p. 190) and others. It is not surprising that in a work full of special characters of such a volume, things remained uncorrected, e.g. : Grammatiche —t. b. Grammatische (1, p. 44, footnote 4); V. Vairkevičiutė —t. b. V. Vaitkevičiūtė (1, p. 370, footnote 1); Tromso —t. b. Tromso (II, p. 51, footnote 3). Forms of surnames in one article! The following articles and reviews by Sie Girdenis have been examined more closely: „On the classification of dialects of the Lithuanian language“ (together with Z. Zinkevičius; I, pp. 44-55), „What have the Dūnininkai instead of literary language ie, uo“ (I, pp. 190—193), a review of the first two volumes of Lithuanian grammar (together with V. Zulis; I, pp. 370-386), „The hierarchy of types of noun conjugation in Lithuanian language and the main trends of its change“ (II, pp. 50—62), „Additional h in the ancient Lithuanian writings — a prepositional sign?“ (II, pp. 315-320), „Newer characters of phonetic transcription of dialects“ (together with P. Skirmantas; III, pp. 335-351). Articles from Kniūkšta’s book: „Principles of language standardization introduced by Būga“ (p. 13-29), part of the article „The beginnings of the office language in Jablonskis’ writings“ (p. 213-219), „Contemporary office language“ (p. 249-254), „Unconjugated, non-alcoholic and adjective suffix -inis“ (p. 407-413), „Adjectives with formants -alinis, -arinis, -yvinis, -atinis“ (p. 413—417), part of the article „How we express purpose“ (p. 465—471). OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 155 are written original, e.g. : Schmalstieg (II, p. 61), Saussure (III, p. 241), and in others (also scientific!) —adapted, e.g. : Bruckner, May, Ekblom (I, p. 385), Sosiūras (II, p. 351). In some places, the examples lack the name of the dialect or the abbreviation of the common language (cf. III, pp. 342, 344, 347-348). In Knyūkšta’s book, spelling corrections are rare: iracionalus- >iracionalus (p. 414); not as > not at all (p. 470); Functional purposefulness (p. 27); corrected spelling of the surname Sirvydas (p. 18). Correction of accents Zmoniskas > Zmoniskas (p. 407), aukso > aukso (p. 408); accent added in the word dekoratinis (p. 416), in the word vienos, vice versa, accent removed (p. 28). Another error occurred when quoting Jablonski’s writings: printed (p. 218) —t. b. Printed; need to register (p. 218) —t. b. need to record. There are also inaccuracies in the quotations of the Buga writings: there must be kula-raisas, not kūla-raišas (p. 19), 6bul-mušas, not obuol-mušas (ibid.), the word stiklas in the list of foreign words somehow turned into the word stalas (p. 22), the regressive form austis replaced with the simple form austi (p. 23), the former accent marks were removed in places. In a quotation from Skardzio’s work “Ankstyvesnė ir dabartinė lietuvių bendrinės kalbos vartosena” some forms are also “corrected”: nebegalime (p. 141) —t. b. no longer available; (p. 141) —t. b. roaring or not roaring. The book does not fully unify the writing of personal names, plg. : Leskynas (p. 17) and E. Sepiro (E. Sapir) (p. 74). 3. In Girdenis- ’s collection of texts, as stated in the preface, some punctuation errors have been corrected, e.g.: insertions from one side (I, p. 45), from the other side (I, p. 46) have been excluded; such names as dzūkai, kapsai [...] are undoubtedly odious (1, p. 52); no longer distinguished partitive circumstance of time they can not be used to classify dialects (I, p. 47). One other uncorrected error still remained: an unnecessary comma was left after the word shows in the sentence Such reduced vowels as phonemes exist also in the so-called „Mūšos upyne“ —this is shown not only by the distinction of quasi-homonyms |...) but also by many other features (I, p. 49, note 20); as well as the sentence O, jy without renunciation at the beginning (I, p. 380). Although there is a rule that divorce must not be agreed upon, in one other case this was not observed, which led to disparities in divorce. For example, comparative expressions are not distinguished in some cases, but in others they are distinguished, cf.: at the end of a word there are always more vowels than in the corresponding non-terminal syllables (I, p. 49) and in the final syllables there are fewer vowels than in the corresponding non-terminal syllables (ibid.); I'm going. ie, uo correspondences sound shorter than y, ū correspondences (I, p. 191); not as a great dialectologist as K. Jaunius (I, p. 192). Of the grammatical matters, it is worth mentioning the uncorrected genitive of the negation in the sentence such calculations would not fundamentally change the usual classifications of Latvian verbs (II, p. 61, footnote 19). Punctuation of knitting texts has also been handled. Previous errors have been corrected, e.g.: a comma placed before a repetitive conjunction in a sentence can indicate both the purpose of the means and the partial object (p. 467); deleted the colon before the examples to use neutral barbarisms in the sentence, such as dūšia, ūlyčia, adyna, lenciūgas, Būga niekam nėra siūlęs (p. 28); the comma after mat in the sentence Mat adjectives |...) indicates the absence of the object of the noun (p. 411-412); deleted the comma after first of all (p. 13); before the extended circumstance of time in the sentence the principles on which he relied in working on the normative work (p. 14). In the revised texts there are still punctuation inconsistencies. For example, in a sentence a Roman digit represents a volume of writings, an Arabic — a page (p. 15, note 7), a dash inserted, but in a similar sentence A. Leskynas considered the first to be Slavic [...] the last two for some time (p. 17) have no dash. Before the comparative pronoun in the sentence did not have such an influence as Jablonski (p. 14) the comma is no longer written, but in most cases it is left in this place, cf.: adjecti- 156 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS beakuotinis (p. 410), in Lithuanian the former purpose is expressed in the same forms as every purpose (p. 471). The same applies to comparative sentences of difference: in the sentences Can one argue that a reversible plough [...] is more convenient than a reversible [...]? (p. 410), In many cases the adjectives ddogminis, probleminis [...] are more representative of literary language than dogmatinis, problematinis [...] (p. 417) The comma before the conjunct is not used, but in many similar cases it is left, cf. : In those sentences the noun belongs more to verbs or participants [...], than to nouns |...) (p. 470). The comma, it seems, should be in the sentence In another article written later (p. 19), because it is not about several articles written later, but about the same article, which was written later. Unnecessary commas in sentences By tolerating proximities, Buga took care not to close the door to literary language for dialect treasures (p. 28); In his articles and other writings, when speaking about these things, Jablonski uses the words and statements necessary to describe them (p. 214). The separation is inadmissibly “Modernized” in the quotation from Skardžys’ work “An earlier and present use of the Lithuanian common language” (p. 141). 4. There are quite a lot of corrected proofreading errors or simply flaws in Girdenis’s texts. For example, fixed a dropped line in the table "Main characters of the transcription character set FONTRA" (III, p. 339); corrected the title of the author’s article (II, p. 56, footnote 11). One other thing, however, was overlooked: the incorrectly indicated volume of the first publication of the article „Additional hsenuosiuose lietuvių raštuose — priegaidės ženklas?“ (II, p. 315) — should be not 22(2), but 23(2); in the table „Indexes of similarity of the types of conjugation of the exclamation squeak“ (II, p. 59) there are mistakes: i, and C, the index is not rounded, 0 i „and C, the index was (and probably should be) not 0,7, 0 10,7. Inaccurate new map of dialect division, added to the article “On the classification of dialects of the Lithuanian language” (I, p. 55): not only fewer places of residence, but also no intermediate dialects between the western Highlands Šiauliai and Žemaičių and eastern Highlands dialects, the Vabalninkas dialect (it has been made part of the Širvintų dialect). In the article „Naujesni dialektų fonetinės transkripcijos ženklai“ (III, pp. 335-351) the author together with P. Skirmantas describes the font set FONTRA, which is specially designed for dialect texts, and gives examples of its application. When preparing the texts for the press, it was a good opportunity to take advantage of the possibilities offered by this set of fonts and to unify the presentation of dialect data in the collection. For example, in the article “On the classification of dialects of the Lithuanian language” the palatalization of consonants is indicated by the “minute” sign, usually written above the letter; The softness of consonants is marked both before the vowels of the anterior and posterior row, and in the article next to it („Mažeikių (šiaurinio vidurio dounininkų) dialekto pokirtiniy skiemenų priegaidės- “, see. I, pp. 56-75) palatalization of consonants is indicated by a band above the letter; in addition, only the softness of the consonants preceding the vowels of the back row shall be indicated. In addition, the author himself writes: "Palatalization and palatation have been marked differently by some: t', d', b', p, €. But it is advisable to use these signs only when quoting the corresponding older works, as well as when it is appropriate in certain contexts to distinguish between lesser and stronger palatalization” (III, p. 345). Even in the text of one article and in the table, the same dialect equivalents of the common language word viva are transcribed differently (see I, p. 50 and I, p. 54). In the article „Additional 4 in the ancient Lithuanian writings pronoun sign?“ are compared accurately transcribed examples of Daukša Postila. However, they lacked some characters for transcription, such as p (musimp 33,,, not musimp' II, — p. 316), f (efi 173,,, ne eft’ II, p. 315 ir ve i infinite is not quite the same as, say, besotinis or elsewhere), (giwj 521,,, ne giwj II, p. 316 ir kitur); generalized writing j even where it is ir clearly visible 3 (for individuals 92.,, ne for the enterprise 11, p. 316 ir kitur). There are also mistakes in the examples, for example, there should not be pafdulis horė liksminas (11, p. 319), but pafaulis horė likfminas 214, etc. OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 157 Kniūkšta- ’s collection contains a number of stylistic corrections, e.g.: the repeating pronoun in his sentence That “sin” is what most impedes an objective evaluation of his contribution to linguistic practice and [his] significance for literary language (p. in order to avoid the repetition of the word pronoun Any changed to All: The basis of the normative work of All is the specific material of language, but Bogus especially valued and relied on the facts of language (p. 18). In the latter sentence, the conjunction but is unusually used: there, it seems, o would be better suited. The sentence is a correction of office language terms, some of which have survived to our days. It is a correction of office language terms, some of which have survived to our days (p. 215). Individual words have been replaced, e.g.: tyrinėtojas replaced by tyrėjas (p. 29), žodis baltinius replaced by žodis marškinius (p. 465). There are changes in word order, for example, in the sentence the reader not only finds the necessary facts, but also understands them >understand them (p. 253). The verbs in the examples have been replaced: išvažiavo malkų, išvyko mokytis (was gone for wood, went to study) (p. 465, footnote 2). 5. Terms promised to remain unchanged in the preamble of Girdenis collection. In many cases this has been done, for example, left axiomatically (1, p. 383) and so on. However, this has not been followed consistently: the term ‘peak method’ has been changed to ‘average method’ (II, p. 55); prosodic corrected to prosodic (1, p. 48) and elsewhere, the grapheme replaced by the character (III, p. 335). Unnecessarily, the description of academic grammar as of a descriptive-normative type is corrected to a descriptive-normative type (I, p. 384): this is exactly how the editor defined its nature on the page referred to (Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 3). The use of individual words in the reprinted texts was also promised not to be corrected. Indeed, the conjunction used in the meaning of opposition while when (1, p. 53) has been left in them; Meanwhile (11, p. 51); unchanged word order in the insertion of words such as dienélé, dienos (I, p. 52). In some places, although not intended by the author, language culture and stylistic issues have been corrected, e.g.: the sentence of complex structure Linguistic constructions... (1, p. 378) has been divided into two shorter ones; the quantitative comparison conjunction as... so and was replaced by both... and (III, p. 337); in some places, the short forms characteristic of the author have been replaced by long ones, e.g. nutrūkusi in place of nutrūkus (III, p. 350). There is no change in the term in P. Kniūkšta- 's book. 6. The footnotes of the book Language use and management, as stated in the preamble, are not uniform. There are also mistakes, for example, the inaccurate title of P. Skardžiaus’s work “Ankstyvesnė ir dabartinė lietuvių bendrinės kalbos vartosena” (Previous...) and the year of publication (1971, not 1968) (p. 141, footnote 2). References to literature are not unified in Girdenis’ writings either: cf., for example, A. Rosinas, Šaukėnų šnektos ia, € ir i kamieno genties vardai, —Kalbotyra XXIII (1) (1971) 53 (1, p. 251, footnote 54) and A. Ro sin as. The name is derived from the Greek nouns ia, € and i. —Kalbotyra, 1971, vol. XXIII (1), pp. 49-54 (II, p. 56, footnote 11). The fact that they are quite marvelous is acknowledged by the author himself (cf. I, p. 11), but to arrange them would not have been such an impossible task. At the end of both sets are printed indexes, which are very necessary in this type of publication. The book has a five-part index. In essence, there are two indexes: the subject index (p. 579-586) and the word and word combination index (p. 586-589). At the end of the third volume of Girdenis Kalbatyra’s works there is a one-page thematic index (III, p. 473) and a rather long list of co-authors, assistants and consultants (III, p. 474-475). The thematic index is clearly too small for such a publication: it is not much larger and more informative than the overall content of all three volumes, which, by the way, is not included in the collection. The index consists of the titles of the articles — it only indicates the beginning of the article (including 164 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS VITKAUSKAS, V. 1999: Morphological phenomena of Lithuanian dialects and their fluctuation. Habilitation thesis, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. VITKAUSKAS, V. 2002: [Rec.] Giedrius Subačius. Kalikstas Kasakauskis: Conjuncture of Lithuanian Common Language, Vilnius, 2001. Lithuanicum 4, 245–248. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology. Comparative dialect phonetics ir morphology, Vilnius: A thought. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1972: The Eastern Lithuanian script language of the 17th century, its origin and extinction. Baltistica 8 (1), 79— 100. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1994: The dialectology of the Lithuanian language. 2nd stereotypical edition, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Artūras Judžentis