Rusų bulgaristika ir Lietuva

PERSONALIA | 227 STEPANOV, JU. S. 1965b: Структура французского языка: Морфология, словообразование, основы синтаксиса в современной французской речи, Москва: Высшая школа. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1966: Основы языкознания, Москва: Просвещение. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1970: Литовское yra – 3 лицо глагола „быть“. Baltistica 6 (2), 193–196. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1971: Семиотика, Москва: Наука. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1975a: Методы и принципы современной лингвистики, Москва: Наука. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1975b: Основы общего языкознания, Москва: Просвещение. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1981: Имена. Предикаты. Предложения: Семиологическая грамматика, Москва: Наука. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1985a: В трехмерном пространстве языка: Семиотические проблемы лингвистики, философии, искусства, Москва: Наука. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1985b: Лит. yra, рус. (он) и есть (К вопросу о происхождении). Baltistica 21 (1), 4–13. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1988: Текстовая теория русских падежей в описательном и сравнительно-историческом языкознании. Русистика сегодня. Язык: система и ее функционирование, Москва: Наука. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1989a: Индоевропейское предложение, Москва: Наука. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1989b: Счет, имена чисел, алфавитные знаки чисел в индоевропейских языках. Вопросы языкознания 4, 46–72; 5, 5–31. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1995: Баба-Яга, Яма, Янус, Ясон и другие: К вопросу о „нестрогом“ сравнительно-историческом методе. Вопросы языкознания 5, 3–15. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1997a: Константы: Словарь русской культуры: Опыт исследования, Москва: Языки русской культуры. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1997b: Непарадигматические передвижения ударения в индоевропейском: (1. Вокруг законов Ваккернагеля и Лескина). Вопросы языкознания 4, 5–26. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1998: Язык и метод: К современной философии языка, Москва: Языки русской культуры. STEPANOV, JU. S., PROSKURIN, S. G. 1993: Константы мировой культуры: Алфавиты и алфавитные тексты в период двоеверия, Москва: Наука. Regina Venckutė, Kazimieras Garšva, Olegas Poliakovas RUSSIAN BULGARISTICS AND LITHUANIA Two distinguished Russian scholars, specialists in the Bulgarian language and culture, are associated with Lithuania: the founder of Russian Bulgaristics, Yuri Venelin (born Georgis Hucas), who was of Hungarian origin, and Prof. Grigory Venediktov, one of today’s foremost Moscow Bulgarists, who came from Lithuania, from near Obeliai. Lithuanian linguists have long known G. Venediktov from his publications “K istorii lituanistiki v Rossii,” specifically the one on the Lithuanian linguistic materials and correspondence of linguist Jonas Juška, which survived in the archive of the Russian linguist I. Sreznevsky, who had supported him. Moreover, he not only actively engages with promoters of Lithuanian culture and Balticists in Moscow, but also maintains close relations with Lithuanian linguists, sending them his works and other valuable literature. The linguist’s 228 | PERSONALIA research focuses on the epoch of the Bulgarian national revival in the 19th century and on the formation and standardization of the Bulgarian standard language of that period, as well as various other questions in cultural history. Some writing has already been done about the scholar himself, his works, and certain parallels between the national revivals of the Lithuanian and Bulgarian peoples (cf. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 30, 1993, 218–220). Incidentally, an error crept in there: in 1947, after graduating from Vilnius’s 4th (Russian) Gymnasium, the future linguist went to study Slavic studies not in Moscow, but in Leningrad (St. Petersburg), as it was then known. After postgraduate studies, he began working at the Moscow Institute of Slavic Studies in 1956. Recently, G. Venediktov has devoted considerable attention to the undeservedly forgotten J. Venelin (1802–1839), the aforementioned founder of Russian Bulgaristics, whose works were of great importance to the revival of the Bulgarian nation, language, and culture. In this connection, two new books prepared through his efforts and recently received by us should be mentioned: Ju. I. Venelin v bolgarskom vozroždenii (1998; which publishes materials from conferences held in Uzhhorod and Sofia in 1989, along with J. Venelin’s complete bibliography, marking the 150th anniversary of the scholar’s death) and the first-ever printed edition of J. Venelin’s first Bulgarian grammar, written back in 1834 (Grammatika nynešnego bolgarskogo narečija, 1997, with an extensive accompanying article by G. Venediktov on the fate of J. Venelin’s grammar). On April 22, 2002, 200 years had passed since J. Venelin’s birth. On this occasion, it would be worth recalling in somewhat greater detail the more important dates in the scholar’s life and career, his major works, and his modest contribution to the history of Lithuanian culture. Unfortunately, during the Soviet period, J. Venelin’s life as a former clergyman, his broad interests, and his impressive works were suppressed. Consequently, the information we have drawn from a tsarist-era encyclopedia may also be inaccurate (we have been unable to find more recent publications). Georgis Hucas was born in 1802 in Hungary, in the settlement of Nagy-Téb. He studied at the Ungvár Gymnasium and then at a teachers’ seminary. Choosing the profession of clergyman, he changed his surname from Hucas to Venelin and entered the University of Lviv, where he studied philosophy. He graduated from the university in 1822. In 1823, having obtained a position as a teacher and tutor at a theological seminary, he left for Chișinău. While working there, Venelin met Bulgarian émigrés and immersed himself in the study of their everyday life, language, and history, which determined the course of his future life. In 1825 Venelin arrived in Moscow and studied medicine, graduating in 1829 with a medical diploma. However, he did not work as a doctor. Having completed the work he had begun, Senieji ir dabartiniai bulgarai politiniu, tautosakiniu, istoriniu ir religiniu požiūriu pagal jų santykį su rusais (Drevnie i nynešnie bolgare v političeskom, narodopisnom, istoričeskom i religioznom ich otnošenii k rossijanam), he submitted it to specialists at the Academy of Sciences. The work was well received, and the first volume was printed as early as 1829. The complete monograph was published later, after the author’s death, in 1841 (vol. 1, 241 pp.; vol. 2, 326 pp.; second edition, 1856). In 1830 J. Venelin was sent to Bulgaria to familiarize himself with the book repositories there, inspect them, collect manuscripts, and further his studies of the Bulgarian language, everyday life, history, and so on. However, Venelin had little success there either in inspecting libraries or in finding any significant manuscripts. The people were suffering under the Turkish yoke, were intimidated by officials, and distrusted an unfamiliar visitor. He became more closely acquainted only with the inhabitants’ everyday life, culture, language, and signs of a national revival. He found more material after working for about five months in Wallachia (Romania), in the libraries and archives of Bucharest. After returning to Moscow in 1831, Venelin devoted himself to scholarly work, writing studies based on the material he had collected and taking part in discussions with numerous articles. He lived in extreme poverty, on meagre fees and donations. He died before reaching the age of 37, on March 14, 1839. He was buried in the cemetery of Moscow’s St. Daniel (Danila) Monastery. PERSONALIA |229 J. Venelin was a scholar with broad interests. During his short life, he accomplished a great deal. The following are among his more important and substantial works: On the Character of the Folk Songs of the Transdanubian Slavs (O charaktere narodnych pesen u slavjan zadunajskich, 1835), On the Origins of the New Bulgarian Literature (O zarodyše novoj bolgarskoj literatury, 1838), The Writings of the Wallachian Bulgarians or Dacian Slavs (Vlacho-bolgarskie ili dako-slavjanskie gramoty, 1840), Critical Studies on the History of the Bulgarians… (Kritičeskie issledovanija ob istorii bolgar…1849), and others. Only one of J. Venelin’s most important works remained unpublished—the aforementioned grammar. Through his works, J. Venelin provided a scholarly foundation for the existence of the Bulgarians as an independent people with their own language and distinctive cultural tradition. Thus, through both his scholarly and cultural activity, he contributed greatly to the faster national revival of the Bulgarians. It is no wonder that Venelin’s works are considered programmatic, having laid down the principal guidelines for the development of the Bulgarian people, its language, literature, and culture. J. Venelin entered the history of Lithuanian culture with his work The Peoples of the Lands Around the Baltic Sea, That Is, the Letts and the Slavs (Okružnye žiteli Baltijskogo morja, to est’ lety i slavjane, 1846). By Letts he meant all Balts, more precisely the Baltic peoples—the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Prussians. Lithuanian cultural figures (including linguists) rely chiefly on this monograph by Venelin when discussing the ethnic composition of Lithuania’s population in the early 19th century. Lithuania, by then already incorporated into the Russian Empire, was divided into two governorates: Vilnius and Grodno. In giving an approximate ethnic composition of the populations of these governorates, Venelin was not original. He drew on the work Geografia wschodniej części Europy (Geography of the Eastern Part of Europe), published in 1825 in Breslau (present-day Wrocław, Poland), that is, on the data contained therein. Since both of the aforementioned works are now bibliographical rarities, it is worthwhile to present these data briefly to the reader. The population figures by ethnicity are given here in the same order as in J. Venelin’s book, with our calculated percentages in parentheses. Grodno Governorate: Poles 80,000 (10%), Russians (rosijane) 490,000 (61.25%), Lithuanians 100,000 (12.5%), Tatars 10,000 (1.25%), Jews 120,000 (15%); Vilnius Governorate: Poles 100,000 (8.33%), Lithuanians 780,000 (65%), Russians 130,000 (10.83%), Tatars 10,000 (0.83%), Jews 180,000 (15%). In addition, more than 200,000 people of Lithuanian stock live in East Prussia (i.e., Lithuania Minor). Venelin also mentioned the Białystok Governorate, but made no mention of the Lithuanians living there. Other details are also interesting. People living in Lithuania call themselves lietuvninkais, and their land Lietuva. Lithuanian and Latvian linguistic data are compared with those of Latin, Russian, Greek, and German. Some mythology is also presented. J. Venelin’s views largely reflect those of the ruling class of the Russian Empire at the time. In the 14th century, the Białystok and Grodno governorates, and part of the Vilnius Governorate, had still been “pure Russia.” Only later did the Poles begin to lay claim to that region. The Russians were reduced to serfs, while the Poles formed the upper stratum—the nobility, the szlachta, and the burgher class. The old name of Prussia was supposedly Borussia, derived from Porussia, meaning a land situated beside Russia. Of course, it is unlikely that Venelin could have written otherwise. J. Huc (Venelin) earned the profound respect and gratitude of the Bulgarians through his work. To the Bulgarians, he probably means more than Jurgis Zauerveinas does to the Lithuanians. Moreover, the times and circumstances were different. The Russian Empire helped the Bulgarians not only to free themselves from the Turkish yoke, but also encouraged and continually supported their national and state revival. It is no wonder that Dr. J. Basanavičius, who lived in Bulgaria for a long time and contributed considerably to the advancement of Bulgarian culture, learned much there and later put it into practice, helping Lithuania regain its independence. 230 | PERSONALIA We can only rejoice that, in present-day Russia, the field of Bulgarian studies pioneered by J. Venelin is being carried forward by our compatriot, a linguist and colleague close to us, G. Venediktov, who speaks and writes Lithuanian beautifully. Aloyzas Vidugiris FROM PARTICLES TO THE SYNTACTIC WHOLE (On the occasion of Professor Vitas Labutis’s 70th birthday) Professor Vitas Labutis’s scholarly and pedagogical work has been diverse and prolific. He worked for ten years at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, then taught at the Kaunas Evening Faculty of Vilnius University, and from 1972 at the Faculty of Philology of Vilnius University. For many years he taught a course in Lithuanian syntax, as well as various specialized courses, and supervised students’ research projects and dissertations. He also held various administrative posts. At the same time, he pursued intensive scholarly work. The Professor’s bibliography includes the monograph Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, several textbooks, and more than one hundred and fifty articles and shorter pieces! Vitas Labutis is one of our most prominent syntacticians. Yet the Professor’s interests were not confined to syntax. He also wrote on morphology, terminology, onomastics, and the theory of language culture. In honoring the Professor on his seventieth birthday, an effort has been made to survey his more important research on Lithuanian grammar and his many publications on other topics, including questions of language practice and teaching methodology, while leaving aside. *** At the beginning of his independent scholarly career, V. Labutis turned to a topic in Lithuanian grammar that had received little study at the time: particles. His article “Particles and Their Place Among the Parts of Speech,” published in 1962 in the continuing publication Literatūra ir kalba, was the first study in Lithuanian linguistics devoted specifically to this part of speech. It was written at a time when there was not yet a clear view of the place of particles among the other parts of speech or of their relationship to adverbs and conjunctions. Nor was there a more detailed description of the meanings and usage of particles. The study examines how particles were interpreted in earlier works of Lithuanian linguistics and describes their general semantic and syntactic characteristics. Particles, largely on the basis of the criteria for distinguishing parts of speech that prevailed in Soviet linguistics, are treated as a separate part of speech: they cannot be assigned to any other part of speech and relate to the other parts of speech as an equivalent group of words (Labutis 1962: 368). Particles are defined as “an invariable part of speech that expresses additional shades of meaning concerning phenomena of reality or the relations between them, and conveys these to individual sentence constituents or to the sentence as a whole” (ibid.). Among other things, particles express modal, expressive, and emotional shades of meaning. There are no strict boundaries separating particles from other parts of speech: some particles can also function as conjunctions, others are difficult to distinguish from adverbs, while still others become affixes or components of indivisible compounds. Structurally, particles may be simple or compound.