Page 1ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA
XLVII (2002), 149–164
REVIEW OF RECENT WORKS
Survey of Recent Publications
LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS IN 2001: WORKS PUBLISHED IN LITHUANIA
The year 2001 was not a favorable one for Lithuanian linguistics. The ongoing economic crisis was compounded by turmoil in the administration of science. At one point, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language was to be incorporated into Vilnius University; at another, it was to be merged with the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. Over the course of two years, the funds allocated to the Institute for employee salaries were cut by a third. The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language was reorganized, and its status changed. In such circumstances, serious scholarly work is hard to expect. Nevertheless, around ten new publications appeared in Lithuania under the date 2001, seven of which are reviewed in this article. The review has three parts: the first discusses new monographs, the second collections of articles by individual authors, and the third reprints of the written heritage.
Monographs
Two new monographs were published in Lithuania in 2001: Alberto Rosino The Semantic and Morphological Structure of Pronouns in the Texts of Mikalojus Daukša (Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2001, 164 pp.) and Vytautas Vitkauskas’s Morphophonemic Phenomena in Lithuanian Dialects (Vilnius: Žara, 2001, 262 pp.).
The book by the experienced morphologist Alberto Rosinas is one of the few attempts in Lithuanian linguistics to describe systematically a fragment of the written language of a single author. Moreover, the writings of Mikalojus Daukša—the oldest works written and published in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that have come down to us—provide a wealth of valuable material for research into the history of various levels of the Lithuanian language. The book has already received several reviews (Maskuliūnas 2002; Pajėdienė 2002), so this review highlights only a few of its more important features.
In the preface, the author notes that “the study of the semantics of Daukša’s pronouns used the same methodology as the monograph Lithuanian Standard Language Pronouns (1996). Therefore, to avoid repetition, I do not discuss more complex theoretical questions in this monograph, but simply refer readers to the aforementioned monograph of mine” (p. 8). Nevertheless, the author was unable to avoid repetition, since the book under review draws from the aforementioned and other monographs and articles (Rosinas 1986, 1988, 1995) not only its prior descriptive framework and sequence, individual formulations, but also entire sentences or paragraphs, and even stretches of text several paragraphs long. For example, the chapter “Pronoun Relations” (p. 10) corresponds verbatim, apart from minor cuts, to a slightly abridged version of the text in the 1996 monograph (cf. Rosinas 1996: 17). Two pages of notes (pp. 11–12) in the adjacent chapter, “The Inventory of Pronouns in Daukša’s Texts,” correspond verbatim to the text of an earlier published article (Rosinas 1986: 30). Apparently, only three sections of this chapter have been newly written—
Page 2150 |
ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS
the author’s paragraphs (p. 13), while at the end of the chapter the aforementioned article is again either copied verbatim or somewhat abridged. “Demonstrative Pronouns” (pp. 37–39) is an abridged version of the corresponding chapter of the book Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai (cf. Rosinas 1988: 57–59): the examples have been changed, and an excursus on the “neuter gender” forms of pronouns in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje has been added (p. 37). Reprints of the author’s earlier publications probably make up about half of the monograph’s text (excluding the examples and the final chapter). It is therefore questionable whether it can be regarded as an entirely new, original monograph.
What is new in the book is the paradigms of Daukša’s pronouns and their overview. There are also new claims. For example, that the reflexive possessive pronoun “as a substitute for the oblique-case forms of possessive pronouns manas, tavas […] has no nominative forms” (p. 32); the explanation of the origin of the correlation wis(a) kąkąg (p. 105); and others. The book’s final chapter, “Postpositional Locatives: Origin and Internal Motivations for Changes in Function” (pp. 136–152), is also new and interesting. Admittedly, half the text of this chapter (§48) was published as a separate article at almost the same time (cf. Rosinas 2000 a), while some of its ideas appeared in conference abstracts (cf. Rosinas 2000 b). As the title indicates, the matters examined in this chapter are only partly related to the monograph’s subject and are included in it more as an appendix. Interestingly, in an article published the same year, Gina Kavaliūnaitė explains the use of the adesive in old Lithuanian writings differently (cf. Kavaliūnaitė 2001).
A major shortcoming of the monograph is that the examples it examines are not compared with their originals. Even when the author notes the decisive influence of the original on the use of Lithuanian pronouns, readers generally cannot find the Polish equivalents (e.g., pp. 26, 27, 37 ff.). Exceptions are the Polish examples given on pp. 65, 66, 81 and in a few other places. This particularly undermines confidence in the description of the semantics of Daukša’s pronouns (cf. Jūratė Pajėdienė’s comments on this issue—Pajėdienė 2002: 206). One must also agree with both reviewers’ view that the monograph lacks a statistical analysis of pronoun use (cf. Maskuliūnas 2002: 225; Pajėdienė 2002: 207).
Since the author used (or could have used) the index of word forms in Catechism compiled by Jonas Palionis (Palionis 1995) and the word index of the Postil compiled by Czesław Kudzinowski (Kudzinowski 1977; this publication is listed neither in the bibliography nor in the list of sources), there would seem to be little reason to doubt that the book describes all of Daukša’s pronouns and their forms. However, Pajėdienė found some inessive forms of the pronoun nothing that are not mentioned in the monograph (see Pajėdienė 2002: 210). The monograph by no means lists all the graphic variants of the pronoun forms used by Daukša. For example, in the paradigms of personal participial pronouns, the genitive variants of I manęs DK 134₁₁, manės DK 136₉–₁₀ are not given; the frequent dative maní DK 9₁₀, 12₂, 26₂₀, etc.; the accusative mané DK 69₂; and the accusative variant ma entered in the paradigm is questionable (p. 15). The genitive tawęs DK 155₈ of the pronoun you is not listed; accusative variants tawe DK 11₁, Tawė DK 135₂₂, tawę DK 135₅; instrumental tawim’ DK 177₂₁; adessives tawip DK 169₂, tawimp DK 182₇, tawimp DK 144₁, 155₆, 174₁₃; allatives tawęlp DK 62₁₉, tawęlp DK 136₁₆, 148₂₁, 149₁₁, tawęlp DK 136₂₁–₂₂, 148₉, 149₂₂, etc., tawęlp DK 141₁; the variant táwo is incorrectly identified as a dative in the paradigm (p. 16).
Examples from Daukša’s texts are given in the book in the original spelling. To check the accuracy of the transcription of quotations and individual forms against the original, I compared the examples of the participial pronouns I and you given in the “Personal Pronouns” chapter from the Catechism (pp. 14–17). First of all, attention should be drawn to the citation references: the page cited is not that of the original, but of the 1995 edition of the Catechism (Jakštienė, Palionis 1995); moreover, page line numbers are not given in every instance. Transcrip-
Page 3NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA
151
The following transcription errors were found: mano DK 410₃—should be māno DK 170₃; paties DK 378₈—should be paties DK 154₈; wifsūse DK 404₁₈—should be wifsūlė DK 167₁₈; pritikimūlė DK 404₁₉—should be pritikimūlė DK 167₁₉; tawēfp DK 404₂₀—should be tawēfp DK 167₂₀; idant galecēję pažint tawę DK 358₂₀–₂₁—should be idant galecēję pažint tawe DK 144₂₀–₂₁; Bažnīčia DK 200₁₇—should be Bažnīčia DK 65₁₇; kasg DK 356₁₄—should be kašg DK 143₁₄; wēiksis DK 143₁₅—should be wēikšis DK 143₁₅; efsi su DK 88₁₀—should be efsigū DK 9₁₀; krikbčionis DK 88₁₁—should be krikbčonis DK 9₁₁; vžgines DK 340₁₆—should be vžgīnės DK 135₁₆; Ką DK 126₁₀—should be Ką DK 28₁₀.
The book’s preface states that “Daukša wrote in the Middle Aukštaitian dialect [...]. For this reason he is sometimes called a representative of the ‘Middle variant of the written language’” (p. 7). However, according to Girdenis and Zinkevičius’s classification of dialects, Daukša’s dialect belongs to West Aukštaitian, while the Middle variant of the written language is so called because of the geographical location of the area in which it was used (cf. Zinkevičius 1972: 79, footnote 3).
The book concludes with a bibliography (pp. 157–158), followed by explanations of abbreviations for sources and terms, as well as the principal symbols and conventions (p. 159). The book’s main ideas are repeated in an English summary (pp. 160–163). The book was beautifully published with funding from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language.
Despite the shortcomings and debatable ideas noted here, Rosinas’s monograph is undoubtedly an important and useful publication for historians of language, Balticists, and Indo-Europeanists.
The value of the monograph by Vytautas Vitkauskas, one of our most distinguished dialectologists and lexicographers, lies in its systematic presentation of extensive authentic dialect material, as well as in its insightful observations and interpretations. Assessing these is a task for specialist studies and reviews. The book is the author’s habilitation thesis, defended a couple of years ago (Vitkauskas 1999), and therefore its contents will not be examined in this review. The book differs from the habilitation thesis in having an added German summary (a slightly revised version of the summary in the thesis; pp. 195–220), a subject index (essentially an index of the words mentioned or examined in the book; pp. 221–238), and a list of abbreviations (pp. 239–254); naturally, it also omits the list of the author’s scholarly works summarized in the habilitation thesis. Nearly a third of the book’s main text (excluding the introductory chapters, conclusions, and appendices) corresponds exactly to, or closely follows, the text of the author’s first dissertation (Vitkauskas 1974; the copy held in the Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library, shelfmark F. 76 Ds 2024, was consulted). Compare, for instance, the chapters on the alternations e: i (ę, į, ī); e / i: e; and uᵘ / uo in the book (pp. 53–65; 65–70; 96–107) and the dissertation (pp. 90–103, 84–86, 124–136). About another third of the monograph’s text had previously appeared in various periodicals (see the author’s list of publications, pp. 261–262). Thus, the book under discussion resembles a single-author collection of articles or selected works (like those discussed in the second part of this review).
The texts of earlier works were edited when they were given book form. For example, the chapter “Relics of Regressive Vowel Assimilation?” (pp. 128–141; cf. the corresponding chapter in the habilitation thesis (1999: 98–109)) consists of two articles: “On Regressive Vowel Assimilation in Some Northeastern Samogitian Dunininkai Dialects” (Vitkauskas 1963) and “New Evidence of Regressive Vowel Assimilation in the Kuršėnai Variety” (Vitkauskas 1975) (incidentally, neither the list of scholarly works summarized in the habilitation thesis (1999: 158–159) nor the monograph’s bibliography (pp. 255–262) includes these articles). Most of the latter article also corresponds to the text of the author’s first dissertation (cf. Vitkauskas 1974: §§55–56). Three new paragraphs were added at the end of the chapter (pp. 139–141). Some changes were made in editing the article texts. The footnotes were—
Page 4152 |
ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS
some were incorporated into the text or omitted, and in some places additions were made; in the dialect examples, examples transposed into the standard language have been removed throughout; the inflectional paradigm of the words skrãb'is, skrã.b'i was added (p. 138). The singular paradigm of the adjective gražesnis (1963: 272) was replaced with the paradigm of the adjective g'er'ė:s'n'is; the adjective’s plural paradigm includes variant forms (p. 132). Place names have been marked for stress, and some terms changed: literatūrinė kalba (1963: 271) was changed to bendrinė kalba (p. 132); dūnininkų tarmės was changed in many places to dūnininkų šnektos. The transcription was revised, for example, consonant palatalization was marked consistently. Some proofreading errors were corrected, for example, duonininkų (1963: 271, footnote 6) became dounininkų (p. 131, footnote 20); priešdėlio pa dariniai (1975: 82) became priešdėlio pa-dariniai (p. 135), and so on. The style was substantially revised, for example: e eina betarpiškai prieš galūninį skiemenį (1963: 269) became e eina tiesiog prieš galūninį skiemenį (p. 128); tam tikrais atvejais yra nesvetima ir kai kurioms dūnininkų tarmėms (1963: 269) became tam tikrais atvejais yra pastebėtas ir kai kuriose dūnininkų šnektose (p. 128); tarmę, pasakyčiau, energingai veikia bendrinė kalba (1963: 271) became tarmę, pasakyčiau, stipriai veikia bendrinė kalba (p. 132), and so on.
Nevertheless, some errors remained in the chapter even after editing. First of all, there are proofreading errors: on pages 128 and 129 of the book there are two a) paragraphs, while on page 130 the d) paragraph follows the b) paragraph; sėri (p. 129) should be sėnis; su žodžiu (p. 129) should be su žodžių; *~n (p. 129) should be *en, and so on. There are also some inconsistencies in the transcription, for example, c'ė (p. 133) should be c'ė. Some examples were omitted when the text was reset: kėli (cf. 1963: 270), šimtameči (cf. 1963: 270), ėžė (cf. 1975: 81); the same example, šalt'ėn'is, was printed twice (p. 135); punctuation errors also remain. The bibliography does not include V. Grinaveckis’s publication cited on page 128 (Grinaveckis 1960).
The book as a whole lacks careful editing (I could not find the editor’s name anywhere in the publication), especially the texts that had not previously appeared in scholarly periodicals. For example, the first three introductory chapters of the book (pp. 7–20), transferred from the habilitation thesis (cf. 1999: 3–11), teem with punctuation, spelling, proofreading, logical, and stylistic errors. The following spelling errors were noted: žemaičiuose (p. 10), cf. Žemaičiuose (p. 8); Smoczynski (p. 16, footnote 1) should be Smoczyński; Chilińskio (p. 19) should be Chylinskio. The following punctuation issues stood out: e.g., LKŽ III (p. 8) should be e.g., LKŽ III; tiriama ar yra išlaikoma sistema (p. 9) should be tiriama, ar yra išlaikoma sistema; V. Pėteraitis, 1997 462 (p. 9) should be V. Pėteraitis 1997, 462, and so on. The participle is used incorrectly in the sentence Atidžiau nagrinėjant (t. b. nagrinėdamas) kiekvieną žodį […] pamatai ar suvoki (p. 10). There are numerous proofreading errors: nuolatinio garsų junginių gludinimu (p. 7) should be nuolatiniu garsų junginių gludinimu; taisi (p. 10) should be tarsi; reiškimosi (p. 11) should be reiškimosi; tai (t. b. taip) susiformavo vad. lingvistinės geografijos principas (p. 12); morfemastam (should be morfemas tam) tikrose pozicijose (p. 12); kurie […] dažnai pasitauso visos tautos vartojamas (should be vartojami) (p. 12); Toliau pamatysime […] ir kiti atvejai (pp. 12–13) should be Toliau pamatysime […] ir kitus atvejus; jaunagramatikų (p. 13) should be jaunagramatikų, and so on. The logical relations in many sentences are unclear, for example: Tai yra gal ir menka kai kam atrodanti problema, bet kiek matome iš literatūros gana įvairuojanti ir laikoma ne vieno tyrinėtojo artimais dėsningiems reiškiniams ir niveliuojami (punctuation!; p. 8); Reikia pasakyti, kad dialektizmu (tarmybe) literatūrų ir net kalbininkų vartojama reikšme „bendrinėje kalboje pavartojamas tarmės žodis ar forma“ (p. 8); Kalbos dėsnis ir yra iš lyginimų šitaip nustatytas pastovus, kokioje pozicijoje istoriškai tariamas garsas susidaręs, jų junginys, morfema (p. 12), and so on. Compare also: nutuliojimosi eiga, plėtra (p. 7); stabiliai pakito (p. 13). Some sentences are poorly styled, cf.: ir tai yra visiškai priimtinas toks apibendrinimas (p. 8); Kas susiduria su tarmių leksika, dialektizmų nagrinėjimas būna labai aktualus ir keblus (p. 8); mes nebežinosime, bk veikiami ir niveliuojami, ir tikrosios šnektų padėties (p. 10), and so on. The bibliography
Page 5NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA
153
does not include the following works mentioned in the text: Grinaveckis 1978 (p. 15), Serebrennikov 1975 (p. 15), Mažiulis 1993 (p. 16), Smoczyński 1986 (p. 16). Repetitions have not been avoided; for example, pp. 17–18 partly repeat material (and examples) already presented on p. 7. Most of the shortcomings noted here were carried over into the book, uncorrected, from the author’s habilitation thesis.
It is regrettable that the publication of this valuable book received no support from state institutions, which would probably have helped eliminate the editing and proofreading shortcomings mentioned here, as well as others.
Selected Writings
In 2001 the publication of Aleksas Girdenis’s Works on Linguistics was completed (I: 1962–1974, 420 pp.; II: 1975–1987, 416 pp.; III: 1988–2000, 476 pp., Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing; I–II: 2000, III: 2001; all three volumes are reviewed). In the same year, a selection of works by Pranas Kniūkšta was also published, entitled Language Use and Standardization (Vilnius: Publishing House of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2001, 596 pp.).
Aleksas Girdenis is one of the most active, innovative, and fascinating Lithuanian linguists. A scholar with broad horizons and interests, he is a dialectologist, phonologist, and specialist in general linguistics and the history of linguistics. He has left a significant mark on twentieth-century Lithuanian linguistics—as one of the few Lithuanian linguists, he established his own school of linguistics.
In Lithuanian linguistics, Pranas Kniūkšta is best known as an authority on the standardization of contemporary Lithuanian usage and a promoter of the bureaucratic (or administrative) style. At the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, he developed the Department of Language Culture and served as editor-in-chief of the publication Kalbos kultūra.
The reviewed selections were compiled by the authors themselves. They bring together articles, reviews, and other writings published over three or four decades of scholarly work. There are few new works published for the first time in these books: in Girdenis’s volume, two chapters from the doctoral (candidate) dissertation The Phonological System of the Mažeikiai Dialect and a review of Jonas Kabelka’s textbook Introduction to Baltic Philology; in Kniūkšta’s, articles entitled “Correctness and Precision in Legal Language” and “Use of the Locative to Denote a Field of Activity,” reviews of various legal documents, and answers to questions submitted in writing. In Girdenis’s view, expressed in a review (1974) of Grinaveckis’s History of the Samogitian Dialects, written jointly with Rosinas, “the publication of the book would be welcome even if it contained not a single entirely new claim, because only in a book does the overall theoretical conception emerge, together with its strengths and weaknesses, and only a book can firmly bring a researcher’s factual material and theoretical conclusions into the circulation of scientific ideas” (I, p. 386). This review does not aim to examine the theoretical conceptions presented in either selection; instead, it focuses on their compilation and on their subject-matter and linguistic editing.
Girdenis’s publications are arranged by genre in several sections: articles come first, followed by linguistic notes, reviews, and interviews with the author. Publications within each section are arranged chronologically. Kniūkšta’s articles and writings are grouped by the topics they address. The book has five sections: “Principles and Methods of Language Standardization,” “Administrative and Office Language,” “Names of Institutions and Enterprises,” “Adjectives in the Suffix -inis,” and “Variety in Language Practice.” Publications within each section are likewise arranged thematically rather than chronologically.
The prefaces by both authors (Girdenis’s: I, pp. 11–12; Kniūkšta’s: p. 9) set out similar principles for presenting the texts. 1. The texts are not reworked or corrected; only an occasional passage is amended, and brief notes or references to later works are added only when necessary (Girdenis), while some longer articles have been abridged (Kniūkšta). 2. The spelling has been modernized (Girdenis; Kniūkšta’s about
Page 6154 |
ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS
No mention was made of standardizing the spelling). 3. Only obvious punctuation errors were corrected; otherwise, punctuation was left as it had been (Girdenis; Kniūkšta makes no mention of punctuation corrections). 4. Typographical errors were corrected and, where necessary, phonetic transcription symbols as well (Girdenis); unsuitable formulations and stylistic awkwardness were revised, and inappropriate examples were removed (Kniūkšta). 5. Since “each piece of writing is regarded as a child of its time” (Girdenis), the terminology and “other words that everyone today would condemn as one” (Girdenis) were left unchanged by both authors. 6. References to sources were not standardized (Kniūkšta).
A review of some of the publications reprinted in both collections1 shows that, in essence, the stated principles were followed in them.
1. Girdenis’s corrections are most evident in the notes printed in the articles’ footnotes. Algirdas Sabaliauskas also drew attention to them in his review (2002). They are brief, precise, critical, and clearly seem indispensable. Among the other corrections, some instances of softening earlier claims were noted (e.g., the parenthetical “it seems,” I, p. 193, footnote 11), as well as cases of clarification (e.g., in the article “The Hierarchy of Lithuanian Noun Declension Types and the Main Trends in Its Change,” statistical data for the dendrograms were corrected, II, pp. 55 and 58; the place of the masculine gender and consonant stem in the hierarchy of Šaukėnai dialect declension types was interpreted differently, II, pp. 59–60, and the “tree” of hierarchical grouping of this dialect’s declension types was modified accordingly, II, p. 60). All these and other corrections made by the author himself enhance the value of the reprinted publications and make the collection more interesting: they reflect changes in the author’s scholarly views and, in part, the development of Lithuanian linguistics. It is only to be hoped that changes of this kind will be indicated in every case. References to later works, or to other works printed in the collection under review, are certainly convenient for readers: they help them quickly locate the text they need.
The earlier articles in Kniūkšta’s book received more substantial editing. For example, in the articles “Without Conjunction, Nonalcoholic and the Adjective Suffix -inis” and “Adjectives with the Formants -alinis, -arinis, -yvinis, -atinis,” entire paragraphs and individual sentences and examples were omitted, paragraphs were joined, formulations changed, and even a footnote and a table were left out.
2. The language of Girdenis’s collection was edited by Agota Sriubienė, an experienced editor of philological publications. The results of her work can be seen in all the texts reviewed. Among the traces of spelling modernization, the following may be mentioned: Prūsų lietuvių was corrected to prūsų lietuvių (I, p. 48); typos were corrected: the spelling of the root vilk- (I, p. 48); galbūt (I, p. 52, footnote 30) and turbūt (I, p. 377, footnote 12; I, p. 379) are now written as single words and no longer separated; kur ne kur is written without hyphens (I, p. 190), and so on. It is no wonder that in a work of this size, full of special characters, some errors remained uncorrected, e.g.: Grammatische—should be Grammatische (I, p. 44, footnote 4); V. Vaitkevičiutė—should be V. Vaitkevičiūtė (I, p. 370, footnote 1); Tromsö—should be Tromsø (II, p. 51, footnote 3). Surname forms in some articles
1 The following articles and reviews by Girdenis were examined more closely: “On the Classification of Lithuanian Dialects” (with Z. Zinkevičius; I, pp. 44–55), “What Dūnininkai Have in Place of the Literary Language’s ie, uo” (I, pp. 190–193), a review of the first two volumes of the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (with V. Žulys; I, pp. 370–386), “The Hierarchy of Lithuanian Noun Declension Types and the Main Trends in Its Change” (II, pp. 50–62), “Is the Additional h in Old Lithuanian Writings a Stress Sign?” (II, pp. 315–320), “Newer Dialectal Phonetic Transcription Symbols” (with P. Skirmantas; III, pp. 335–351). The articles examined from Kniūkšta’s book are: “The Principles of Language Standardization Introduced by Būga” (pp. 13–29), part of the article “The Beginnings of Official Language in Jablonskis’s Writings” (pp. 213–219), “Contemporary Official Language” (pp. 249–254), “Without Conjunction, Nonalcoholic, and the Adjective Suffix -inis” (pp. 407–413), “Adjectives with the Formants -alinis, -arinis, -yvinis, -atinis” (pp. 413–417), and part of the article “How We Express Purpose” (pp. 465–471).
Page 7Nauju darbų apžvalga
155
are written in their original forms, e.g., Schmalstiego (II, p. 61), Saussure’o (III, p. 241), while in others (including scholarly works!) they are adapted, e.g., Briukneris, Meje, Ekblūmas (I, p. 385), Sosiūras (II, p. 351). In places, the dialect name or the abbreviation for the standard language is missing from examples (cf. III, pp. 342, 344, 347–348).
Few spelling corrections were noted in Kniūkšta’s book: irracionalinis > iracionalinis (p. 414); ne kaip > nekaip (p. 470); the words Funkcinis tikslingumas (p. 27) were not set in spaced type; the spelling of the surname Sirvydo was corrected (p. 18). Stress marks were corrected in žmóniškas > žmóniškas (p. 407), áukso > áukso (p. 408); a stress mark was added to the word dekorãcinis (p. 416), while in the word vienos the stress mark was, conversely, removed (p. 28). One or two errors crept into quotations from Jablonskis’s writings: spausdintus (p. 218)—should be spaudintus; reikia susirašyti (p. 218)—should be reikią susirašyti. Quotations from Būga’s writings also contain inaccuracies: it should read kūla-raišas, not kūla-raišas (p. 19), óbul-mušas, not obuol-mušas (ibid.); the word stiklas somehow turned into stãlas in the list of loanwords (p. 22); the reflexive form austis was replaced by the simple form austi (p. 23), and stress marks present in the original were removed in some places. Some forms were also “corrected” in the quotation from Skardžius’s work “Earlier and Contemporary Usage of Standard Lithuanian”: nebegalime (p. 141)—should be nebegalima; noromis nenoromis (p. 141)—should be noroms nenoroms. The spelling of personal names has not been fully standardized in the book; cf. Leskynas (p. 17) and E. Sepiro (E. Sapir) (p. 74).
3. As also stated in the preface, some punctuation errors were corrected in the texts of Girdenis’s collection, e.g., parenthetical phrases were set off: iš vienos pusės (I, p. 45), Iš kitos pusės (I, p. 46); tokie pavadinimai, kaip džūkai, kãpsai [...], neabejotinai yra odizioniai (I, p. 52); the adverbial participial phrase of time jomis negalima remtis klasifikuojant tarmes is no longer set off (I, p. 47). Nevertheless, one or two uncorrected errors remain: an unnecessary comma after the word rodo was retained in the sentence Tokie redukuoti balsiai kaip fonemos egzistuoja ir vad. „Mūšos upyne“ – tai rodo, ne tik kvazihomonimų […] skyrimas, bet ir daugybė kitų ypatybių (I, p. 49, footnote 20); likewise, at the beginning of the sentence O, jų neatsisakant (I, p. 380). Although it had been decided not to modernize punctuation, this was not followed in every case, resulting in inconsistencies. For instance, comparative phrases are left unmarked in some cases and set off in others; cf. žodžio gale visada yra daugiau balsių negu atitinkamuose negalūniniuose skiemenyse (I, p. 49) and galūniniuose skiemenyse yra mažiau balsių, negu atitinkamuose negalūniniuose (ibid.); lk. ie, uo atitikmenys skamba trumpiau, negu y, ū atitikmenys (I, p. 191); ne toks puikus dialektologas, kaip K. Jaunius (I, p. 192). Among the grammatical issues, the uncorrected genitive of negation should be noted in the sentence tokie skaičiavimai įprastines latvių linksniuočių klasifikacijas iš esmės nepakeistų (II, p. 61, footnote 19).
Punctuation in Kniūkšta’s texts was also revised. Errors in the original were corrected, e.g., a comma was inserted before a repeated conjunction in the sentence kilmininkas gali reikšti ir priemonės paskirtį, ir siekiamąjį dalyką (p. 467); a colon before the examples was removed from the sentence vartoti neutralius barbarizmus, tokius kaip dušia, ulyčia, adyna, lenčiūgas, Būga niekam nėra siūlęs (p. 28); the comma after mat was removed in the sentence Mat būdvardžiai […] rodo daiktavardžiu žymimo daikto trūkumą (pp. 411–412); the comma after visų pirma was removed (p. 13); and a comma was inserted before the expanded adverbial phrase of time in the sentence principai, kuriais jis rėmėsi dirbdamas norminimo darbą (p. 14). Some punctuation inconsistencies remain in the texts reviewed. For example, a dash was inserted in the sentence romėniškas skaitmuo reiškia raštų tomą, arabiškas – puslapį (p. 15, footnote 7), but there is no dash in the similar sentence pirmąją slavišką laikė A. Leskynas […], dvi paskutiniąsias kurį laiką pats Būga (p. 17). A comma before the comparative phrase is no longer used in the sentence neturėjo tokios įtakos kaip Jablonskis (p. 14), but it has been retained in many instances, cf. būdvardis begalinis nėra visai toks pat, kaip, sakysim, besotinis ar
Page 8156 |
ARTŪRAS JUDŽĖNTIS
unaccented (p. 410), In Lithuanian, the past purpose is expressed by the same forms as any purpose (p. 471). The same applies to the distinction in comparative clauses: in the sentences Is it really possible to object that a plough without a mouldboard [...] is more convenient than one without a mouldboard [...]? (p. 410), In many cases, adjectives are preferable in literary language dogminis, probleminis [...] rather than dogmátinis, problemátinis [...] (p. 417), the comma before the conjunction is no longer used; however, it is retained in many similar cases, cf.: In those sentences the dative is more closely associated with verbs or participles [...], than with nouns [...] (p. 470). A comma seems necessary in the sentence In another article written later (p. 19), since this refers not to several articles written later, but to the same article, which was written later. Unnecessary commas occur in the sentences By tolerating variants, Būga took care not to close the door of literary language to the riches of the dialects (p. 28); In his articles and other writings, when speaking about those matters, Jablonskis uses the words and expressions needed to describe them (p. 214). Punctuation has been impermissibly “modernized” in a quotation from Skardžius’s work “Earlier and Current Usage of Standard Lithuanian” (p. 141).
4. There are quite a few corrected proof errors or simple slips in Girdenis’s texts. For example, a missing line was restored in the table “Main FONTRA symbols for the transcription character set” (III, p. 339); the title of the author’s article was corrected (II, p. 56, footnote 11). A few minor errors nevertheless escaped notice: the volume of the first publication of the transcription “Additional h- in Old Lithuanian writings—a symbol of pitch accent?” is cited incorrectly (II, p. 315)—it should be 23(2), not 22(2); errors crept into the table “Similarity indices of the inflection types of the Šaukėnai dialect” (II, p. 59): the index for i and Cₘ was not rounded, while the index for i and Cᶠ was (and probably should be) 10.7, not 0.7. The new map of dialect classification added to the article “On the Classification of Lithuanian Dialects” (I, p. 55) is inaccurate: it not only includes fewer settlements, but also omits the transitional dialects between the Western Highlanders of Šiauliai and the Samogitian dialects, as well as the Eastern Highlander dialects and the Vabalninkas subdialect (the latter has been made part of the Širvintos dialect). In the article “Transcription Symbols for the Phonetic Representation of Newer Dialects” (III, pp. 335–351), the author, together with P. Skirmantas, describes the FONTRA font set designed specifically for dialect texts and provides examples of its use. Preparing the writings under review for publication offered a good opportunity to make use of the possibilities provided by this font set and standardize the presentation of dialect data in the collection. For example, in the article “On the Classification of Lithuanian Dialects,” consonant palatalization is marked with a “minute” sign, usually written above the letter; consonant softness is marked both before front and before back vowels, whereas in the adjacent article (“Pitch Accents in Post-stress Syllables in the Mažeikiai (Northern Central Dounininkai) Dialect,” see I, pp. 56–75), consonant palatalization is marked with an arc above the letter; moreover, only the softness of consonants preceding back vowels is marked. This is all the more noteworthy given that the author himself writes: “Some have marked palatalization and palatation differently as well: tʹ, dʹ, bʹ, pʹ, č. But these symbols are recommended only when citing the relevant older works, and also when it is useful in particular contexts to distinguish weaker from stronger palatalization” (III, p. 345). Even within a single article, the same dialectal equivalents of the standard-language word gyvà are transcribed differently in the text and the table (cf. I, p. 50 and I, p. 54). In the article “Additional h- in Old Lithuanian Writings—a Symbol of Pitch Accent?” examples from Daukša’s Postil are transcribed fairly accurately. Nevertheless, some characters needed for their transcription were missing, for example, ȧ (musìmp 33₁₄, not musìmpʹ II, p. 316), į (efì 173₁₈, not efì II, p. 315 and elsewhere), į (gìwì 521₁₁, not gìwì II, p. 316 and elsewhere); the generalized character ž is used even where ž is clearly visible (žmógui 92₃₄, not žmógui II, p. 316 and elsewhere). The examples also contain errors: for instance, it should read pažáulìs horé lìkɟminas 214₃, not pažáulìs horé lìksminas (II, p. 319), and so on.
Page 9NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA
| 157
Kniūkšta’s collection contains a considerable number of stylistic revisions, for example, the repeated pronoun jo was deleted from the sentence That “sin” makes it most difficult to assess objectively his contribution to language practice and [his] significance for literary language (p. 13); to avoid repeating a little word, the pronoun But was replaced with All in all: The basis of all language standardization work is concrete linguistic material, but Būga especially valued linguistic facts and relied on them especially heavily (p. 18). The conjunction but is used unconventionally in the latter sentence: or would seem more appropriate. The sentence “is of office-language terms, some of which have come down to our day” was corrected to “of such office-language terms as have come down to our day” (p. 215). Individual words were changed, for example: tyrinėtojas was replaced with the word tyrėjas (p. 29), and the word baltinius was replaced with the word marškinius (p. 465). Word order was also changed, for example, in the sentence so that the reader would not only find the necessary facts but also understand them>they would understand them (p. 253). Verbs were switched in the examples left for firewood, went away to study (the original was went away for firewood, left to study) (p. 465, footnote 2).
5. The preface to Girdenis’s collection promised that the terminology would not be changed. This was done in many cases, for example, aksiomatiškai was retained (I, p. 383), and so on. Nevertheless, this principle was followed inconsistently: the term maximum method was changed to mean method (II, p. 55); prosodic was corrected to prosodic (I, p. 48) and elsewhere, and graphemes was replaced by “characters” (III, p. 335). The description of the academic grammar as descriptive-normative type was unnecessarily corrected to descriptive-standardizing type (I, p. 384): on the page cited (Ulvy das, ed. 1965: 3), the editor had defined its nature precisely in those terms. Girdenis also promised not to revise the usage of individual words in the reprinted texts. Indeed, the conjunction tuo tarpu kai, used to express contrast, was retained (I, p. 53); In the meantime; and the word order in the parenthetical phrase words of the type dienėlė, dienos was left unchanged (I, p. 52). In places, despite the author’s intentions, matters of language culture and style were revised, for example, the complex sentence Colloquial constructions… (I, p. 378) was split into two shorter ones; the quantitative comparison conjunction as… so and was replaced with the conjunction both… and (III, p. 337); in some places, longer forms were replaced with the short forms characteristic of the author, for example, broken off instead of having broken off (III, p. 350).
No changes to terminology were noted in P. Kniūkšta’s book.
6. The footnotes in the book Language Usage and Editing were not standardized, as stated in the preface. They also contain minor errors, for example, the title of P. Skardžius’s work “Earlier and Current Usage of Standard Lithuanian” is inaccurate (Earlier…), as are its publication year (1971, not 1968) (p. 141, footnote 2).
References were not standardized in Girdenis’s writings either: compare, for example, A. Rosinas, Nouns with stems in įa, ė and i in the Šaukėnai dialect, – Kalbotyra XXIII (1) (1971) 53 (I, p. 251, footnote 54) and A. Rosinas. Nouns with stems in įa, ė and i in the Šaukėnai dialect. – “Kalbotyra”, 1971, vol. XXIII (1), pp. 49–54 (II, p. 56, footnote 11). The author himself acknowledges that they are quite inconsistent (cf. I, p. 11), but standardizing them would hardly have been an insurmountable task.
Indexes are printed at the end of both collections, where they are very useful in publications of this kind. Kniūkšta’s book even includes a five-part index. Essentially, it consists of two indexes: a subject index (pp. 579–586) and an index of words and phrases (pp. 586–589). At the end of the third volume of Girdenis’s Works in Linguistics there is a one-page subject index (III, p. 473) and a fairly long list of coauthors, assistants, and consultants (III, pp. 474–475). The subject index is clearly too meagre for a publication of this kind: it is scarcely larger or more informative than the combined table of contents for all three volumes, which, incidentally, is absent from the collection. The index consists of article titles—it gives only the beginning of each article (this
Page 10158 |
ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS
(as noted in the preface to the volume), so in fact this is merely a subject index of the articles. Some index headings are misleading: for example, someone finding the topic Dialogai there might think that the pages cited discuss Girdenis’s work on this type of discourse or text—a fairly popular topic in contemporary linguistics. Unfortunately, at the indicated locations readers will find not scholarly articles but dialogues with the author himself. Incidentally, nowhere is it stated who compiled the index. The second list is interesting in its own way because it shows the author’s collegiality and liking for collaborative work. It includes his teachers (Jonas Kabelka, Leonas Valkūnas, Zigmas Zinkevičius), colleagues (he collaborated most extensively with Aldonas Pupkis, Albertas Rosinas, Bonifacas Stundžia, and Vladas Žulys), and a large group of students.
I did not find a bibliography of the authors in any of the collected editions (although Girdenis’s bibliography was compiled and published as a separate booklet, which appeared in two editions (cf. Skirmantas, ed., 1997); it would have been enough simply to transfer it into the collected works). Bibliographies would reflect the development of the authors’ scholarly thought and their productivity, and would show which publications were not included in the collections.
In Girdenis’s collection, every article has an English abstract, and some also have abstracts in other languages. In Kniūkšta’s book, a brief English abstract appears after the indexes (pp. 591–594).
The publications under discussion are also linked by the fact that both were supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. Girdenis’s collected scholarly works were published on the initiative of Danguolė Mikulėnienė, who also edited them. In the preface, Kniūkšta separately thanks Danguolė Mikulėnienė for encouraging the preparation of the book and for her help with its publication.
Editions of the Written Heritage
In 2001 a new book prepared by Guido Michelinis was published: Jonas Bretkūnas. Giesmes Duchaunas ir kitos 1589 metų liturginės knygos: tekstai ir jų šaltiniai (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2001, 301 pp.). That same year, the journal Archivum Lithuanicum launched a new book series. It was named Bibliotheca Archivi Lithuanici and is devoted to longer articles and sources on the history of old texts, the social context of language, and traditional philology. The first books in the series were Giedrius Subačius’s volume Kalikstas Kasakauskis: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos konjunktūra (Vilnius: Publishing House of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2001, 128 pp.) and Jano Maleckio ir Jano Sekluciano polemika dėl katekizmo kanoninio vertimo, prepared by Vaidotas Rimša (Vilnius: Publishing House of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2001, 180 pp.).
All three publications have distinctive structural features. Michelinis’s book is built around works published by Jonas Bretkūnas in 1589, their texts and sources, accompanied by commentary. The book opens with a short introduction in Lithuanian, English, and German (pp. 7–15). As appendices, the book includes “Examples from German and Latin Books of the 16th Century” (pp. 279–289)—photocopies of selected passages from some original sources—and “A List of Texts by Their Opening Lines” (pp. 290–299), which will help readers locate the text they need; it also provides a summary of how the Lithuanian translations relate to their originals. The central feature of Subačius’s book is a study of Kasakauskis’s views on the standard language, to which most of the volume is devoted (pp. 11–66), while Kasakauskis’s manuscript notes on the language of Valančius’s Žemaičių vyskupystės kalbą (pp. 69–124)—published for the first time!—are included only as an appendix. The largest and most important part of the edition prepared by Rimša consists of the publication of Jano Maleckis’s treatise Defensio verae translationis corporis Catechismi in linguam polonicam and its Lithuanian translation; a substantial section, “The Polemic between Jan Malecki and Jan Seklucian: The Circle of Martynas
Page 11NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA
159
Mažvydas” (pp. 9–33), is merely an introduction to this publication. It is followed by a list of sources and literature (pp. 34–37) and summaries of the introduction in German (translated by Frank Zuber, pp. 38–40) and Lithuanian (pp. 41–42).
The introduction to Michelinis’s edition discusses Bretkūnas’s Kollectu, the oldest surviving Lithuanian prayer book; the sources of the texts and melodies in the hymnals Giesmes Duchaunas and Kancionalas; and the newly published translations by Bretkūnas are highlighted. The introduction then explains the principles for publishing the texts and melodies and transcribing the texts. Along with the reviewers of the edition (cf. Kabašinskaitė 2002: 216–217; Karaciejus 2002: 320), one must acknowledge that this introduction is too limited for a scholarly edition of Bretkūnas’s writings: it leaves unresolved several fundamental questions about the origins of the published texts, earlier research, and the authorship of manuscript hymns.
Subačius’s study Kalikstas Kasakauskis: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos konjunktūra extends his earlier research on nineteenth-century Samogitian writings, above all his monograph Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos (1998): the study employs the same research methodology, similar descriptive aspects, and the same order of presentation. The author succeeded in achieving his stated aim—to trace the development of Kasakauskis’s views on the standard language and the standard-language model he sought (p. 12)—and readers gain a sufficiently clear understanding of this nineteenth-century cultural figure’s attitudes toward the standard language and the circumstances that shaped their evolution. The study clearly demonstrates the changing dialectal basis of Kasakauskis’s language, the territorial orientation of his linguistic strategy, and his tendency to ground standard-language rules in theoretical principles rather than usage alone. The discussion of the relationship between written and spoken language in Kasakauskis’s writings seems insufficiently substantiated: ultimately, the author himself concludes that “Kasakauskis still saw himself at the first stage—the selection of a dialect—for the standard language, when the problem of the spoken standard language [šbk – A. J.] had not yet even arisen” (p. 61). Some of the study’s claims and its methodology raise doubts. The account incorrectly identifies Kasakauskis’s native dialect: it belongs to the southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect, not the Varniai subdialect (see Vitkauskas 2002 and the literature cited there). This error later prevents the author from correctly comparing selected “Samogitian” and “Aukštaitian” features of Kasakauskis’s language: the western Aukštaitian counterparts of [an] (pp. 33–34), the operation of the Samogitian affricate rule (p. 34), and others. The generalization of the criterion for how “noticeable” Samogitian linguistic features are to Samogitians, the method used to establish it, and the division into three levels are also questionable. The study itself shows that in the later period of his writing, while making the language of his works “more Samogitian,” Kasakauskis did not consistently alter some of the “most easily noticed” Aukštaitian features (diphthongs at word end corresponding to Samogitian [ā] or [ē], and the singular dative ending), but did alter some “moderately noticeable” features (he tried to consistently mark the widespread Samogitian [e], and used Samogitian singular imperative endings, even the “third-person” present-tense endings of verbs) (cf. pp. 33, 40, and 21). The same applies to features “moderately noticeable to Samogitians.” Thus, the hierarchy of “noticeability” of Samogitian features for Kasakauskis must have been different from that of the three early-nineteenth-century authors whose language formed the basis for establishing this hierarchy in the monograph Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos (Subačius 1998: 32–39). Subačius measures all Samogitian authors by the same yardstick. Yet there are few phonological or grammatical features that remain invariant across the entire Samogitian area. Southern Samogitian Raseiniai, in particular, often fall outside general patterns: this is a typical transitional dialect between Western Aukštaitian and Samogitian (Zinkevičius 1994: 107, 109). For example, Subačius regards the first-person singular conditional form in -čio as one of the least noticeable features of Samogitian dialects. However, in southeastern Samogitia, corresponding forms in -čia and -čiau are used (often alongside one another), and in some places forms in -č as well (Morkūnas, ed., 1991: map 103; Zinkevičius 1966: 263). Forms in -čiau are also widely used not only in Aukštaitian,
Page 12160 |
ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS
but also some of the Samogitian dialect (ibid.). The author himself states that “in Kasakauskis’s native area <…> this ending, -čiau, <…> does not differ from that of some Western Aukštaitians” (p. 14). Thus, forms with both -čio and -čia may have been used in Kasakauskis’s native dialect; their alternation should be regarded neither as evidence of Aukštaitian influence (as is correctly done on p. 14) nor of Samogitian influence (as is done on p. 23). Would it not, then, be better to establish the relationship of each Samogitian author’s language to the Aukštaitian dialects primarily by means of individual criteria selected with regard to that author’s dialect? As in his previous monograph, Subačius devotes considerable attention to the spelling of Kasakauskis’s works: the study clearly reveals the differences between the spelling of the grammar and that of the later texts (p. 45); it insightfully examines the Cyrillic spelling of Išguldymų Šventų Evangelijų (convincingly demonstrating that this book “was first written in Latin letters, and written by Kasakauskis himself” (p. 45)); and it separately analyzes the spelling and linguistic features of quotations from Giedraitis’s Naujo Testamento. On the basis of the development of Kasakauskis’s spelling, it is firmly established that he wrote his remarks on Valančius’s Žemaičių vyskupystę not in 1866, as Vaclovas Biržiška believed, but earlier, between 1848 and 1863. At the end of the study, the author draws the important conclusion that the norms proposed in Kasakauskis’s grammar, which was “the first and only printed original grammar of the Lithuanian language” (p. 61), found no followers; nor is there evidence that the language of his other works influenced his contemporaries.
The introduction to the book prepared by Rimša briefly surveys the lives and activities of Maleckis and Seklucian, the circumstances surrounding the translation and printing of their catechisms, and their structure, and provides bibliographical information. It then gives a detailed account of the polemic between Maleckis and Seklucian. Considerable attention is devoted to its content (six formulations by Maleckis, which he himself considered better than those of other translators, and thirteen passages in Maleckis’s catechism criticized by Seklucian are selected and summarized), and less to the arguments. As is fitting, the polemic’s connections with Mažvydas’s catechism are discussed separately. Rimša has carefully catalogued the similarities and differences between the polemical works and the Lithuanian catechism. The conclusion is fairly cautious: although Mažvydas did not take into account “all the discussed translation variants proposed by Maleckis,” it is “evident that he departed from SeK precisely in those places over which heated debate had been raging in the Duchy of Prussia for several years” (p. 31). Rimša’s comparison shows that Mažvydas was not only aware of the polemic between Maleckis and Seklucian, but that it also had a certain influence on the structure, language, and style of the first Lithuanian book; therefore, this influence must be taken into account when studying Mažvydas’s catechism from the relevant perspective. At the end of the introduction, new and fairly persuasive arguments are presented concerning the dating of the first Lithuanian book. In Rimša’s view, Mažvydas’s catechism “must have appeared in early 1547, while Defensio may have been written before June 1547, that is, between MžK and Seklucian’s Didžiojo katekizmo” (p. 33).
The principles for publishing the texts are similar in all three editions. J. Bretkūnas’s texts are printed in facsimile alongside their sources, and the sources of the melodies are also provided. Unlike the books in the Bibliotheca Archivi Lithuanici series, the original texts are presented in simplified spelling—“rewritten using letters in current use”—while the melodies are presented “without changing the sources’ clef to the treble clef” (p. 8). The editor’s principles for transcribing the texts are not explained in greater detail and give rise to some doubts (cf. Kabašinskaitė 2002: 220–222). Since the editor has not described the published Bretkūnas texts, it is unclear to what extent the size of the photocopies corresponds to that of the originals. The photocopies of the manuscript hymns are almost illegible, so a transcription would have been very desirable (cf. Karaciejus 2002: 323). Errors were made in transcribing Bretkūnas’s texts. In addition to those noted by earlier reviewers, the following examples from the introduction may be mentioned: pras chom (p. 7) should be pras cham (cf. the facsimile, p. 227); Sussimistlantis (p. 7) should be Sussimilstanis (cf. p. 228); po versikulu (p. 7) should be po versikulų; Tewe (p. 7) should be Tlewe (cf. p. 251); dagusu (p. 7) should be dangui (cf. p. 251); nu (p. 7) should be ne (cf. p. 53);
Page 13NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA
| 161
Adoma (p. 7) should be Adama (cf. p. 88); vieno (p. 7) should be wieno (cf. p. 94); malonus (p. 8) should be Malonus (cf. p. 113); Bagotas (p. 8) should be Bagots (cf. p. 127); “išskyrus Biblijos eilutę nr. 16 gale” (p. 8) should be “išskyrus Biblijos eilutę giesmės nr. 16 gale”; Dievui (p. 8) should be Dievui (cf. p. 198); fenomenologija (p. 9) should be fenomenologiją. Comparing the transcription of Mažvydas’s Gesmių chriksčoniškų, provided alongside a facsimile for the hymns in the first twenty Gesmių Duchaunų collections (the edition prepared by the same author was used; see Michelini 2000), revealed the following errors (in addition to the use of a second capital letter, ligatures, and the spelling of [u]): Chriksčoniskose (p. 21, footnote 1 and many other footnotes) should be Chriksčoniskase (cf. Mž, p. 149); Kyrieeleison (p. 24) should be Kirieeleison (cf. Mž, p. 182); fęnklus (p. 25) should be fęklus (cf. Mž, p. 185); tikraghi (p. 34) should be tikragi (cf. Mž, p. 313); naboyne (p. 34, footnote 2) should be nabozine (cf. p. 300); traice (p. 37) should be Traice (cf. Mž, p. 365); Kyrieleison (p. 38) should be Kirieleison (cf. Mž, p. 389); prisch (p. 38) should be prischs (cf. p. 389); werksme paklusnuma (p. 42) should be werksme / paklusnuma (cf. Mž, p. 383); zaisdu (p. 45) should be Zaisdu (cf. Mž, p. 236). Many inaccuracies also remain in the “List of texts by first lines,” for example: Allmechtiger (p. 290)—cf. Almechtiger (p. 234); sunus (p. 290) should be Sunus (cf. the facsimile, p. 166); Christe / diena (p. 290) should be Christe diena (cf. p. 105); auffgefahren (p. 291)—cf. auffgefahren (p. 249); Dekawokem (p. 291) should be Diekawokem (cf. p. 171), and so on. The references after the introduction (p. 9) are given without authors’ first names, publication years, or publishers. This might be understandable if this information could be found in the bibliography at the end of the book (p. 301). However, it contains no bibliographical information for Gerullis’s Senųjų lietuvių skaitymų, Biržiška’s Rinktinių mūsų senovės raštų, or Koženiauskienė’s book XVI–XVII amžiaus prakalbos ir dedikacijos.
The text of Kasakauskis’s remarks on Valančius’s Žemaičių vyskupystę is presented in facsimile, transcription, and Lithuanian translation. The published manuscript is not described by the editor, so it is impossible to determine whether the photographs are reproduced at original size. Comparison of some passages in the original with their transcription and translation shows that the editor transcribed and translated the text carefully and attentively. The greatest shortcoming of this publication is the absence of an index of Lithuanian words (the book contains only an “Index of Persons”), which would help readers quickly locate a particular word, grammatical form, or passage. Without such an index, it is difficult for lexicographers and grammarians to make use of the publication.
A facsimile of Maleckis’s Defensio is published alongside its transcription. A Lithuanian translation of the work is printed separately. The facsimile is accompanied by subject, textual, and linguistic notes. The proof transcription was checked against the original, and the textual notes were written by the edition’s scientific editor, Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė. Judging by the manuscript description (p. 12), the original facsimile has, for some unexplained reason, been reduced by a good fifth. The transcription of the text has been prepared carefully. A closer comparison of several pages of the facsimile and transcription raised doubts about only a few minor details: for example, footnotes 3 and 16 are marked on pages 47 and 57, respectively, but not printed; in footnote 210 (p. 139), Quod should appear instead of quod. The translation of Defensio is fairly resourceful, although a few things are questionable (for the translation of theological terms, see Ališauskas 2002). For example, the passage Defensio 20v₂₁–21r₁₂ is incorrectly interpreted in the introduction: the fact that Maleckis translated the phrase retenta sunt into Polish as zadzieranie [a does not seem incorrect to Seklucian (contrary to the claim on p. 27); on the contrary, he reproached Maleckis for this translation: Poltea reprehendis me …; Lo. per te adactus 2v₉: lie. tavęs verčiamas = tavo verčiamas; lo. Ablatio 3v₂₂, 4r₁: lie. Inagininkas—it would have been better to retain the Latin case name abliatyvas (cf. p. 168, where ablativus is translated as vietininkas!); lo. paradigma declinationis 4r₁₈, 19v₁₃–₁₄: lie. linksniavimo pavyzdys, pavyzdį = linksniavimo paradigma, paradigmą, as elsewhere (e.g., p. 150); lo. praefens vel
Page 14162 |
ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS
praeteritum tempus 6r₁₈: Lithuanian future and past tenses = present and past tenses, etc. Maleckis’s and Mažvydas’s catechisms are quoted accurately in the introduction, but it is surprising that quotations from the Defensio published in the same volume are sometimes transcribed inaccurately; for example, instead of ut sis longeus super terram (pp. 25 and 31), it should read vt sis longeus super terram (Def 8v18–19); instead of stągže (p. 26), it should read stągže (Def 13v14), and so on. Capitalization is not always used appropriately in the translation (cf. “crediderit is future tense, while Babtifatus is past tense” (p. 167)); the spelling of personal and place names is not standardized (cf. Frydrichas Stafilas (p. 7) and Jano Janówo (ibid.), Stanislawas Rospondas (ibid.); to Marienwerderį (p. 15), but Naujajame Sonče (p. 15), Elko bažnyčios (p. 15 and following)).
In summary, Guido Michelini’s publication Jonas Bretkūnas. Giesmes Duchau-nas ir kitos 1589 metų liturginės knygos: tekstai ir jų šaltiniai, although not prepared with particular care, is a very important publication for historians of language and culture, philologists, and musicologists. Giedrius Subačius’s book Kalikstas Kasakauskis: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos konjunktūra is significant primarily for researchers of Lithuanian culture and written heritage and linguistics, and in some respects also for historians of language. The first publication of Kasakauskis’s notes on Valančius’s Žemaičių vyskupystę has independent value. Vaidotas Rimša’s Jano Maleckio ir Jano Sekluciano polemika dėl katekizmo kanoninio vertimo is a valuable, fairly well-prepared publication. It is important to historians of Lithuanian and Polish language and culture.
The review has not discussed in detail several other books published in 2001. Knyga nob ažnystės krikščioniškos (1653) – XVII a. Lietuvos kultūros paminklas (Kėdainiai: Kėdainių krašto muziejus, 2001, 95 pp.) is a collection of articles based on papers presented at a scholarly conference organized in 1998 by the Kėdainiai Regional Museum and the Lithuanian Society for the History and Culture of the Reformation. The book compiled by K. Župerka Vytautas Sirt autas, Regina Petkevičienė, Česys Grenda. Rinkin-tiniai kalbotyros straipsniai (Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 2001, 288 pp.) is a commemorative collection of scholarly articles by three lecturers at Šiauliai University, accompanied by introductory articles and bibliographies by colleagues. Stasys Keinys’s review (Keinys 2001) provides further information about it. That same year also saw the publication of Frazeologijos žodynas, edited by Jonas Paulauskas and compiled by Irena Ermanytė, Ona Kažukauskaitė, Gertrūda Naktinienė, Jonas Paulauskas, Zita Šimėnaitė, and Angelė Vilutytė (Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2001, XVIII, 886 pp.). This is a substantial collection of phraseology compiled by experienced lexicographers (all of them authors of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno). It brings together phraseological expressions collected from many Lithuanian-speaking localities in Lithuania and beyond, as well as from fiction, early written sources, and bilingual dictionaries. Also worth mentioning is one of the first electronic books on Lithuanian studies: the first part of the computer dictionary Lietuvių tarmės, compiled by Daiva Atkočait y tė and Asta Leskauskaitė and edited by Kazys Morkūnas (Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2001, 116 pp. and a CD-ROM). The dictionary was prepared on the basis of the publication Lietuvių kalbos atlasas I. Leksika, ed. K. Morkūnas (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977, 295 pp., 120 maps). In Lithuanian and English, it describes the distribution, declension, accentuation, brief etymology, and history of usage of more than 120 words naming objects in the human environment.
A review of the range of Lithuanian linguistics publications issued in Lithuania in 2001 reveals a lack of genuinely new, original, and conceptually ambitious research. The growing publication of the linguistic heritage (selected writings) and monuments of early written literature only partly addresses this shortcoming.
Page 15NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA
163
LITERATŪRA
ALIŠAUSKAS, V. 2002: [Rec.] Vaidotas Rimša. Jano Maleckio ir Jano Sekluciano polemika dėl katekizmo kanoninio vertimo, Vilnius, 2001. Knygų aidai 1, 37.
BATAITYTĖ, A. 2002: Knyga apie kalbos vartoseną ir tvarkybą. Kalbos kultūra 75, 158–165.
KABAŠINSKAITĖ, B. 2002: [Rec.] Jonas Bretkūnas. Giesmes Duchaunas ir kitos 1589 metų liturginės knygos: tekstai ir jų šaltiniai, parengė [...] Guido Michelini, Vilnius, 2001. Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 215–222.
KARACIEJUS, J. 2001 [2002]: [Rec.] Jonas Bretkūnas. Giesmes Duchaunas ir kitos 1589 metų liturginės knygos: tekstai ir jų šaltiniai, parengė [...] Guido Michelini, Vilnius, 2001. Baltistica 36 (2), 320–324.
KAVALIŪNAITĖ, G. 2001: Adesyv̇as Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertime. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 93–111.
KEINYS, S. 2001: [Rec.] Vytautas Sirtautas, Regina Petkevičienė, Česys Grenda. Rinktiniai kalbotyros straipsniai, Šiauliai, 2001. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 201–205.
KUDZINOWSKI, Cz. 1977: Indeks-słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“ I (A–N), II (O–Ž), Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
MASKULIŪNAS, B. 2002: [Rec.] Albertas Rosinas. Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra, Vilnius, 2001. Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 223–226.
MICHELINI, G. 2000: Martyno Mažvydo raštai ir jų šaltiniai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
MORKŪNAS, K., red. 1991: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 3, Morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.
PAJĖDIENĖ, J. 2002: [Rec.] Albertas Rosinas. Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra, Vilnius, 2001. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 202–212.
PAKERYS, J. 2002: [Rec.] Giedrius Subačius. Kalikstas Kasakauskis: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos konjunktūra, Vilnius, 2001. www.literatura.lt/TXT/E-302/subac.htm
PALIONIS, J. 1995: Žodžių formų rodyklė. Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 metų katekizmas. Parengė Vida Jakštienė ir Jonas Palionis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 627–748.
ROSINAS, A. 1986: Dėl tūlas, -a statuso ir kilmės. Mūsų kalba 2, 30–33.
ROSINAS, A. 1988: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas.
ROSINAS, A. 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.
ROSINAS, A. 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
ROSINAS, A. 2000 a: Inesyvo ir adesyvo formų kilmės ir raidos klausimu. Baltistica 34 (2), 173–183.
ROSINAS, A. 2000 b: Baltų kalbų postpozicinių vietininkų kilmės ir jų raidos klausimu. Starptautiskais baltistu kongress „Baltu valodas laikmetu griezos“. Referatų tezės, Riga: LU Latviesu valodas institūts, 272–273.
SABALIAUSKAS, A. 2001 [2002]: [Rec.] Aleksas Girdenis. Kalbotyros darbai (I: 1962–1974, Vilnius, 2000; II: 1975–1987, Vilnius, 2000; III: 1988–2000, Vilnius, 2001). Baltistica 36 (1), 138–140.
SKIRMANTAS, P., red. 1997: Aleksas Girdenis. Bibliografinė rodyklė. Antras pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.
SUBAČIUS, G. 1998: Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos. XIX amžiaus pradžia, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
ULVYDAS, K., red. 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija, Vilnius: Mintis.
VITKAUSKAS, V. 1963: Dėl regresyvinės balsių asimiliacijos kai kuriose šiaurės rytų žemaičių dūnininkų tarmėse. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 6, 269–273.
VITKAUSKAS, V. 1974: Žemaičių dūnininkų šnektų morfofoneminiai dialektizmai. Filologijos mokslų kandidato disertacija, Vilnius.
VITKAUSKAS, V. 1975: Nauji regresyvinės balsių asimiliacijos faktai Kuršėnų šnektoje. Kalbotyra 26 (1), 81–85.
Page 16164 |
ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS
Vitkauskas, V. 1999: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių morfonemiai reiškiniai ir jų svyravimas. Habilitacinis darbas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Vitkauskas, V. 2002: [Rec.] Giedrius Subačius. Kalikstas Kasakauskis: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos konjunktūra, Vilnius, 2001. Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 245–248.
Zinkevičius, Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfologija, Vilnius: Mintis.
Zinkevičius, Z. 1972: Rytietiškoji XVII a. lietuvių raštų kalba, jos kilmė ir išnykimas. Baltistica 8 (1), 79–100.
Zinkevičius, Z. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. 2-asis stereotipinis leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
Artūras Judžentis
