Naujų darbų apžvalga

LITHUANIA The 2000s were marked by the approach of the new millennium, economic stagnation (and therefore, lack of funds) and the crisis in the organization and administration of science. Nevertheless, even in these unfavorable years for science, not so few linguistic publications were published in Lithuania. It seems that it will be more convenient to review them conditionally divided into three groups: new research, scientific editions of old writings and publications of Lithuanian linguistics legacy. Monographs There were few new monographic studies in 2000, which probably reflects the current state of Lithuanian linguistics. The most serious study in this section is Saulius Ambraz’s monograph Noun Forming Evolution XI. The Lithuanian language. (New York: University of New York Press, 2000, 352 p.) With this book, the author consistently continues his historical research on word formation in Lithuanian, which he has been conducting for a couple of decades. In 1993 they were summarized in the first volume of the monograph. It has been used in Lithuanian language translations. In the introduction, the author discussed the most important concepts of word formation and the historical principles of word formation in Lithuanian language. They are also followed in this, the second, volume dedicated to the examination of substantive Vedas. The monograph deserves, and will undoubtedly receive, a thorough linguistic review, so I will be satisfied with one more general note in the margins. The author distinguishes seven categories of nouns made from nouns: names of characteristics, names of owners of characteristics, names of groups, names of places, names of female persons and animals, names of male persons and animals and deminutives. This division of the categories of works differs somewhat from the one given in the introduction of the first volume (see I, 10): it puts names according to gender difference into one category, but there are separate categories of names of persons according to place of residence and names of children according to parents. It is quite understandable that during eight years of work the author's opinion on this issue could have changed, but such changes remained unexplained, 0 the new division is unjustified. After a short introduction, each category of work is examined separately. There is no single plan here — starting with the basic types of work and then moving on to the others, or the material is presented in chronological order; but the center of the category is usually well highlighted, the main, most productive types of each category are quite clearly distinguished. The development of noun construction is thoroughly studied by the author, based on extensive data from dialects and the most important ancient Lithuanian writings. In examining the main types of formation of characteristic names, the author unnecessarily distinguishes (§ 3) the XVI-XVII century reconstructions based on the middle highland dialect from the 19th century reconstructions based on the middle highland dialect. 208 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS a. writings (M. Daukša’s Postila, S. B. Chylinski- ’s New Testament, M. Petkevičius’ Catechism). The above-mentioned authors of the middle variant of the written language wrote in a language based on the dialects of the western Altay dialect (present Šiauliai dialect). Later (e.g. in references p. 18, 21, etc.) they are identified as such by the author of the monograph. Summarizing the productive Lithuanian derivatives with -ysta, -ystė, which are abundant, according to the author, in the western Altay dialect of the 16th-17th centuries, but almost absent in the Latvian language, while in the Prussian language one derivative of cristionist E 794 has been found, the conclusion is drawn: “All this allows to look for the center of this innovation in the western dialects of the Baltic languages” (p. 200). However, the West Highland dialect is a dialect of the Lithuanian language — the East Baltic language, so this conclusion seems insufficiently justified or inaccurately formulated (also p. 20). About deminutives with suffixes -ikas, -ikė it is written that they are “apparently most characteristic of the dialects of the western Baltic languages, which have been influenced by Slavic languages since ancient times” (p. 89). This conclusion is more justified than the previous one, because in the Prussian texts the Vedic with *-iko predominate among all deminutives, while in Latvian such deminutives are rare (p. 88). In addition to Prussian, they are quite common in some Zemgalian and Western Highland dialects. These dialects are considered to be the western dialects of the Baltic languages, as is Prussian. Most likely, this refers to the substrate of the Curonian, Skalvian and Nadruvian peoples, but the author does not mention this anywhere. According to the author, the noun-based category of place-name formation “is quite new, formed in the Lithuanian language soil” (p. 63; similarly, p. 207). This view is supported by the main suffixes of this category -idė/-ydė, -udė; -inis, -inė. However, peripheral suffixes of this category are also used in Latvian to make place names: e.g. laukums, klajums; bread box, bread box; highland, pine, maybe even trunk is etc. The author does not mention anything about the relationship of these Latvian forms with Lithuanian ones. Maybe this is the result of parallel development, or the origin of a common category of work? The book includes a fairly detailed summary in German (pp. 326-345), which makes it more accessible not only to Baltic, but also to Indo-European language researchers in general. All of them will be greatly assisted in using the monograph by the indexes of Lithuanian construction affixes (pp. 235—240) and Lithuanian words (including words discussed in both volumes of the monograph, pp. 241—325). The book ends with a list of corrections to the errors found in the first part of the monograph (1993). This monograph is a truly valuable work of Baltic linguistics. Zigmas Zinkevičius’ new book Lietuvių poteriai (Lithuanian Poetry) (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000, 272 p.) is also called a study of language science. It is based on previous work by the author and other linguists and historians. The topic is interesting, little researched, the analysis of short poetry texts reveals a general picture of the development of Lithuanian language. The book is written in a lively, emotional language, sometimes in a journalistic style. Almost a fourth of it is devoted to history, which is not touched on in this review. The book is interesting and useful, its main idea about the influence of German on our oldest poets is convincing. However, the reader is annoyed by repetitions, there are insufficiently substantiated statements. In writing about Lithuanian language in the 13th-15th centuries, in many cases the data of linguistic experiments are used. Sometimes this is the only argument of the author. Still, such an experiment, siai gE ee OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 209 rota Indo-European proto-language data. The text obtained by such reconstruction cannot be considered the original form of Lithuanian pottery and can not be dated to the 13th-14th centuries or later centuries in the „Chronological Table of Changes in the Pottery Text“ (pp. 200—226). In the section “Christianization of Lithuania and Potarians” the changes in the Potarian language due to Polish language are examined before their fixation in writing. Since there are no references in this chapter, it is not clear on what the author is based when he claims that the valuables in question originated before the first manuscripts or books. The more so, because in the book, probably all the same cases are discussed when examining the language of later sources. The influence of the originals on the translated Lithuanian texts is not always sufficiently taken into account. For example, the construction without a conjunction in Vaišnūra Žemčiūga’s theological zegnone 115b is considered archaic (p. 138), but there is no conjunction in this place in the Latin original. Z. Zinkevičius, among others, draws the following conclusions from his examination of Mažvydas- ’s poetry speech: “Mažvydas put into his catechism that [variant of the Confession of Faith], which he knew himself, probably learned from his mother, only slightly adapted it to the Seculician text” (p. 128); “in no way can it be claimed that Mažvydas translated the Confession of Faith from the Seculician Catechism” (p. 127). The author supports his statements with the discrepancies in the catechisms of Mažvydas and Seklucian. The famous researcher of the Mažvydas writings Chr. In his study Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas, published in Oslo in 1929, Stangas, after comparing Mažvydas’ text with its possible originals, concluded: “Mžv. since he took into account the Lithuanian tradition where he could do so without deviating from his models (Seklucjan 1545 and Malecki)” (p. 16). Stangas found in his study that in certain cases, when Mažvydas distanced himself from Sekluciano, he relied on Malecki's catechism. These cases constitute at least half of the examples on which Z. Zinkevičius refers (p. 127 and 128), so the cited conclusions are not sufficiently justified. The source of the texts quoted in the chapter “Poteriai XVIII-XIX a. Mažojoje Lietuvoje ir už etninių žemių” is not specified. In the original, the errors are not corrected. For example, in the transliteration of Daukša’s catechism poteris “in their plain spelling” (p. 98) the word mū/fų is written with one f, there is no diacritics above o in the word S3wetoii, instead of /ėdi is written /ėdi, the word Sjwetq is written in lowercase, and in the word /5wėtą after ¢ there is no diacritics left; a few more spelling cases are disputed. In Simon Vaišnor’s Theological Examples of Zemčiūga (p. 138) there are also several mistakes —written chriklcjonilchkoie, it should be —Chrikfc3oniflehkaie; in addition, the location of the samples was incorrectly indicated on several occasions. The data of the ancient writings are presented in the book in several different ways: in some cases — as written in the original, in others — transcribed in the current spelling, in others — reconstructed in the current common language. It is far from always clear which presentation variant the author has chosen in a particular case. The book contains abstracts in German, Polish and Russian. Sources are indicated for confusion with literature. The list of literature is selective: for example, it does not include the aforementioned Ch. A study of the language of the Mažvydo Catechism. The book is supported by the indexes: “Words, forms and phrases” (pp. 254-262) and “Surnames (personal names)” (pp. 263-267). Vido Kavaliausko monograph General Lithuanian Verb Pronunciation (Vilnius: Algarvė, 2000, 232 p.) was prepared on the basis of his recently defended doctoral dissertation. This is indicated by the author himself in the preface (p. 8) and is especially evident from the introduction (p. 9-18), which has retained the necessary structure for dissertations: object and purpose of the work, relevance and novelty, etc. Even the theoretical and practical significance of the work is written down according to these requirements (p. 18). It was certainly possible to trum- 210 | ARTÚR MUDŽENTIS better and more gracefully arranged. Otherwise, such a quick preparation of the dissertation text for the press and publication is certainly a welcome thing and an example to follow. The book examines the pronunciation of verbs formed with the nine most common suffixes (-uoti, -inti, -(i)oti, -ėti, -auti, -telėti, -inėti, -enti and -yti). The pronunciation of the derivatives of each adverb is explained by their construction, morphological, grammatical and semantic characteristics, the accentuation power of the adverbs and other things are taken into account. The factual material is taken from the third edition of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary (1993). In individual cases the author also used two previous editions of this dictionary and other normative works on Lithuanian pronunciation, as well as the multivolume Lithuanian language dictionary. The data was refined using the Reverse Dictionary of the Current Lithuanian Language. The book is divided into nine parts according to the verb suffixes. The order of the verbs determines their hardness. This order is not convenient — the Vedic pronunciation of structurally related suffixes -ėti, -telėti and -inėti would have been better discussed one by one. Each part of the book, often smaller chapters and sub-chapters, begins with an overview of previous research, therefore unnecessary repetitions are not avoided (see pp. 47-49 and 51). Due to the concision and the numerous references, such reviews can be confusing (see pp. 26-28). Parts of the book have conclusions, which in turn are summarized in the final conclusions (pp. 212-220); they present the results of the study grouped according to the accentuating characteristics of the adverbs. The book ends with a summary in French (pp. 221-223) and a list of cited literature (pp. 224-230). The author's frequent remarks on the issues of spelling norms raise some doubts. They are not supported by special studies: the pronunciation of verbs of the current common language is examined in the book on the basis of data from the normative work (they are often compared with data from other normative or theoretical works), rather than live usage. Thus, in many cases, the proposed amendments to the norm provided by the third edition of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary are based mainly on the analysis of the dictionary’s own data. Is this not a vicious circle? In this way, the facts of the living language, not the basis of the norm in dialects, but the general principles of consistency and systematicity are decisive. There is another point to be noted: not everything that is given in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language is common language facts: there are also dialects and archaisms. In the book, all the data of this dictionary are usually treated as equivalents, belonging to one system: “Here <...> is examined the pronunciation of all the adverbial verbs provided by the “Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (1993)” (p. 8). Therefore, the conclusions drawn may be inaccurate. For example (p. 24—25), the pronunciation of two verbs with the suffix -uoti —gruodėti and varpučiuoti — is examined. They are an exception to the general rule that the verb derivatives of this suffix, made from nouns, are pronounced in the suffix. However, both of these verbs are dialectisms (as the author himself indicates- ), so they should not be considered on the same level as other relevant derivatives and included in general statistical calculations. Comparative method specifically understood by the author: it is the comparison of facts provided by scientific literature, the approximation of dialectal pronunciation variants and the norms of common language, etc. (p. 18). The book is full of statistics, which are quite skillfully presented in the form of tables and colorful charts. The language is fluent and correct. Proofreading errors were noted only one: in the sentence „DZ, fiksavęs daugelio žodžių pronunciation similarities“ (p. 31) instead of many there should be many, or instead of similarities — similarities; unclear sentence „This makes it difficult to explain the reasons for the prepositional pronunciation of such verbs“ (p. 76) —is something missing here? OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 211 As one of the first works of a young researcher, the book makes a good impression and gives hope for more thorough and careful studies of Lithuanian pronunciation. Aldona Paulauskienė. Lithuanian Language Culture (Kaunas: Technologija, 2000, 256 p.). The author writes in the preface that this book is “published not as an ordinary textbook, but as a popularly written monograph” (p. 7) and “can also be called an original work of social linguistics” (p. 8). However, the book is primarily intended for students (p. 7), so this review does not discuss it in detail. Even in times of difficulty, the publication of old Lithuanian manuscripts was continued, although not without interruptions. The organizer of this work —Vytautas Ambrazas; his name is mentioned in the prefaces of both publications published in 2000. The first one was published in 2000 in the book Martynas Mažvydas raštai ir jų šaltiniai, prepared by Guido Michelini (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000, 731[1] p.). The title pages of the book are misleading: the book is not an author’s work, for example, a monograph on Mažvydas’ writings and their sources — it prints facsimiles of Mažvydas’ works and their originals. Michelinis is the author or preparer and editor of the book, his pen belongs to the introductory article (pp. 8-18), textological notes, list of Mažvydo texts according to the first lines (pp. 715-725), list of used sources (pp. 726-729) and a selected bibliography (pp. 729-730). The book contains all Mažvydas’ works: the catechism (p. 61—139), reprinted from a copy from the University of Toruń; S. Ambrapfeio hymn (p. 141-153), reprinted from a copy in Kėrnikio library; Forma Chrikstima (p. 155-196), reprinted from the Toruń University copy; Paraphrasis (p. 197—210), reprinted from a copy at Uppsala University, and Gesmes Chriksczoniskas (p. 211-654), reprinted from J. Gerulis’ 1923 book Mosvid. The oldest Lithuanian language memorials up to the year 1570 (Heidelberg: Winter). In addition, photocopies of Mažvydo letters from the Berlin archive are included at the end of the publication (pp. 655-693). For the first time, along with all Lithuanian texts, the book presents their sources. In selecting them, the compiler relied on the previous Chr. Stango, P. U. Dinio, D. Pociūtės, J. Trilupaitienės studies, checked and corrected them if necessary. The study of the melodies of Mažvydas' hymn, the identification of the sources of the hymns' melodies — mainly Michelini's merit. Since the Toruń University copy of Mažvydas’s Catechism was published in photographic form only recently and is still easily accessible to everyone, it would have been more appropriate to publish in this publication another, Vilnius, copy of it, whose 1974 publication is of lower quality. The introduction of the book in Lithuanian, German (p. 19-31; translated by Saskia Drude) and English (p. 32-43; translated by Jonas Steponaitis) mainly devotes space to Mažvydo hymn. Its content, structure, the problem of the composer, the sources of the texts and the origin of the melodies of the hymns are discussed. The text is written quite confusingly, repetitions are not avoided. The article summarizes the articles published in scientific journals in 1997—1999, although there are also new statements and conclusions. The introduction briefly discusses and critically evaluates the work of previous researchers of Mažvydas’ legacy. The detailed study “Martinas Mažvydas’s spelling” (p. 44—60) by Jon Palionis, written especially for this publication, makes the book more valuable and lays the foundations for further research into the language of Mažvydas’ writings. The facsimiles of Mažvydas’s works are printed in the book based on the photographs of Baltų lankų publishing house, used in its book Martynas Mažvydas, published in 1993. The Catechism and Other Writings. 212 | ARTŪRAS MUDŽENTIS In the new edition, these pictures have been slightly reduced, so smaller or fragmented writing (for example, the Catechism and the Hymn of St. Ambrafleius) is more difficult to read. The facsimile of the front pages in the publication, on the contrary, is magnified, thus also distancing itself from the original. The original translations are presented by the translator in the current Latin alphabet, in other cases their spelling is modernized. The original transcription (at least the Polish ones) did not avoid errors. For example, in the 1948 reprint of the book Druki mazurskie XVI w. prepared by S. Rospondo, when re-writing the 1545 catechism of J. Seklucian, the word zlonkov appeared instead of zlonkow (p. 77), there is no period after the word Cwartha (p. 78), instead of Siodmy it should be Syodmy (p. 79), instead of Dziewigt it should be Dziewigt. should be Dziewigte. (p. 80), the Arabic I. should be replaced by j. (p. 81), the reverse hyphen \ between the words wszechmogącego and stworziciela (ibid.) is omitted, instead of Trzecy there should be Trzeczy (ibid.), instead of Syodmi. should be Syodmy. (p. 82), instead of Wierzę —wierzę (the same, twice), the position of the numbering of the verses of the prayer Oicże nasz was changed, two reversed hyphens were omitted in the third stanza (p. 83), the same hyphen was omitted between the words bożego and pod (p. 85), a paragraph should have begun from a new line with the words 70 iest Vo ciele (the same), the space after the word Christusa should have been left unchanged (the same), instead of novy should be nowy (p. 87), instead of bysciekol iek should be bysciekolwiek (p. 89), instead of Niecyn should be Nieczyn (p. 101). These errors call into question the accuracy of the transcription of the other originals, Latin and German. In those cases where the originals of Mažvydas’ texts or their facsimile copies were available to the editor, their photographic presentation would only have increased the reliability of the texts and the value of the book. For example, why was it not possible to use the opportunity to print the good-quality facsimile of the Catechism of J. Seculian recently found in the library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (by the way, this is the same copy of which photocopies were published by S. Rospodas in 1948)? In the notes after the photocopies, the author corrects typographical errors and explains parts of the text that are difficult to read (see p. 68). There are not many such comments. After reviewing Mažvydas's catechism notes, some corrections and reconstructions raised doubts. In some notes, other forms of the corrected or clarified word are written in parentheses: kragis MK 18, corrected to kraugis and added (= kraughis) (p. 78); Similarly, the difficult to read case of MK 25,,,, is explained as schwentągi, and next to it is written (= schwentąghi) (p. 85); flad MK 21,, corrected to siad and added next to it (= sitting) (p. 81); fauweta MK 30,, explained to itself weta and written (= wieta) (p. 90); ij [it takes MK 31, “corrected to ijstaitima and added (= ijstatima) (p. 91). What do the forms in parentheses mean? Maybe these are amendments of amendments? In a study published in this book, Palionis found that /j/Mažvydo was not only noted seven times, but also that “the distribution of grapheme and grapheme combinations (digraphs) denoting it was not uniform in the individual publications” (p. 49). In addition, it also states that "MK /j/ was more often represented by the grapheme i, g and the digraph ij". Therefore, the corrections schwentągi = schwentqghi and kraugis = kraughis have no basis. The correction of the form weta wieta is also questionable: the letter e “was not often used, especially in MK, for the diphthong [ie]” (p. 46). The correction siad = sits is all the more unfounded, since the phoneme /ė/ is not graphically marked in the first Mažvydas writings (MK, GA) (p. 46). In the notes under consideration, Mažvydo digraph ij is transliterated ij: for example, in MK 28,, the case is transliterated as presiprawijges (p. 88), rather than presiprawyges. However, in the transcription of the Polish source printed alongside the photocopy, the same digraph ij (from the same printing house) is consistently represented by the letter y (see, for example, the transcriptions of the words Ktor3ij, thijm, godnij, etc. on the same page). The editor’s notes also contain errors: glaufiti MK 10, incorrectly corrected to klausyti (with y) (p. 71); on MK 25,, case incorrectly writes that "missing raising sign after testament" (should be: after OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 213 testamen) (p. 85); jadziustus MK 28. incorrectly corrected to the words tus (with o instead of a) (p. 88); Schwnetgie MK 45, incorrectly corrected to Schwetaie (with a instead of a) (p. 105). In explaining the relationship of the reprinted texts to the originals, the unreasonable variety of signatures under the photos disturbs, e.g.: verbatim translation, essentially verbatim translation, mostly verbatim translation, almost verbatim translation, not completely verbatim translation; freely translated, freer translation, fairly free translation, partially free translation, circular translation; free replication, free translation replication. Do they all represent a different relationship between translation and its sources? The list of Mažvydas’ texts printed at the end of the book, according to the first lines, differs from a similar “List of church hymns of Prussian Lithuania in the 16th and 17th centuries” compiled by Dainora Pociūtė (see Pociūtė, D. 1995: XVI-XVII a. protestantų bažnytinės giesmės, Vilnius: Pradai, 147—178) in that it contains parts of the Mass psalmody that Pociūtė does not consider as independent hymns; It also gives a brief description of the relationship between the original and the translation of each hymn. Incidentally, these descriptions do not completely coincide with the corresponding notes to the facsimile. The book was published with the funding of the State Lithuanian Language Commission at the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (painter Alfonsas Žvilius). It is a very valuable publication of Baltic studies. It replaces the publication Martynas Mažvydas. Katekizmas ir kiti raštai (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1993), but does not replace the 1974 publication Martynas Mažvydas. The first Lithuanian book (Vilnius: Vaga). J. Gerulis's book Mažvydas. The oldest monuments of Lithuanian language up to 1570 (Kaunas: Ministry of Education publication, 1922) and its 1923 Heidelberg edition have, at least until the Gesmes Chriksczoniskas preserved in Karaliaučius is found, the value of a primary source. The 1599 Postila of Mikalojus Daukša and its sources. The edition was prepared by Jonas Palionis (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2000, 1331[5] p.). The publication begins with Lithuanian (p. 7-8) and German (p. 9-10) prefixes, followed by a list of abbreviations (p. 11-12) and an introductory article “The 1599 postcard and its issues” (p. 13-22). They are followed by Textological Commentaries (pp. 23-35). From page 36 the parallel facsimile of the translation and its original text begins. The joy of the publication of the new scientific edition of Daukša’s Postila is soon overshadowed by regret over the poor quality of its printing. On the basis of this Postila’s authorization, a copy belonging to Oton Praniauskas, which is kept in the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania, was taken. In 1926, when Postila was published, this copy was an auxiliary one: only some pages and the last page of „Disappearances“ were photographed from it. The two editions are therefore based on different copies of the translation. In Palionis’s opinion, the best preserved and most complete copy in Lithuania is the copy of Simonas Stanevičius (see p. 1), so the question arises why not this copy became the basis of the new edition — perhaps the quality of the print would have been better? One can only speculate that Simonas Stanevičius’ underlines and corrections in this book prevented this (p. 7). Comparing the new edition with the 1926 edition (Daukšos Postilė. Photographic edition, Kaunas: Lithuanian University Publication) it is clear that the quality of both is at best equivalent (although they are separated by three quarters of a century!- ). This is particularly evident when comparing pages 279-280 and 620-621, which in both editions are reprinted from the same original: of the four pages, only the first seems to be better printed in the new edition; the latter three are more prominent in the 1926 book. Let us compare some other parts of both editions: in the phrase už tą didelį susimylinimą io 5 in the previous edition all the nasal letters are visible, and in the new edition — only in the word didį; the new edition does not show the letter e in the diacritic word conjunctions 6, at all; in the word patience 9,, the first letter k is not counted at all, etc., etc. 16* 214 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS Daukša probably translated the Postilla from the second edition of Wujek’s Little Catholic Postilla, and edited the final translation based on its third edition — this conclusion is based on a comparison of the structure, content and discrepancies of the texts (pp. 17-20). Based on it, the book, along with the translation, includes a photocopy of the Polish text of the third edition of the Postilla, taken from a microfilm provided to the Lithuanian Language Institute by Wojciech Smoczynski from the Library of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. Unfortunately, the Polish original in this publication is of poor quality, in many places completely unreadable (cf. also pp. 133 (43), 293 (131): letters are “floated- ”, without middle marks, blurred diacritical marks. It is totally incomprehensible why the original copies in the Vilnius University Library have not been used for the publication (I thank Jurgis Pakerius for their reference): the second edition from Jurgis Lebedys’ collection, which is of good quality, however defective, and is kept in the Lithuanian Studies Reading Room (signature 25 SK-15), the third edition, which is currently being restored, so perhaps dismantled and convenient for photographing (signature II 5343), and the recently restored fourth edition, which is kept in the Rare Prints Department (signature II 1658). They would have made the work of the editor and the publisher easier, and the print quality would probably have been much better. The Polish original text is divided into pages according to the Lithuanian text. Such a division, due to differences in grammar and vocabulary or due to a more free translation, can only be conditional. In some cases it is doubtful, for example, at the junction of pages 245 and 246 the display pronoun (probably f0) has disappeared. Wouldn't it have been easier not to split the lines, but to give the whole last line at the end of the page and repeat it at the beginning of the next page? At the end of the introductory article, Palionis raises the problem of the postilla translator. His conclusion is noteworthy: “when reading the DP text and comparing it with the original, it is noticeable that in fact some of its parts differ considerably in certain linguistic features” (p. 21). In the section “Textological comments” the author indicates the most prominent differences between Daukša’s translation and the three original editions: places omitted or added by the translator, translation inaccuracies. These differences are listed in order of place in the text, not sorted. Some of them are important for determining the original of the translation (its publication), while others only reflect the technique of translation (see notes 12, 40, 54, 72, 76, 92 and some other notes). The section “Errata” (pp. 1304—1331) prints “more obvious errors of the translator or of the printing press”. In compiling the list of corrections, Palionis relied, as he himself indicates, on the corrections of Edward Voltaire. Some corrections have been dropped, while the Voltaire list has been supplemented with missing corrections to errors on pages 457–630. The list corrects not only the facsimile translation errors of this publication, but also The 1926 edition errors (marked with stars). This list does not include the corrections of Daukša's own errors, "Pakilimus teip pataisik". They are not printed in photographic form either, so they are not in the new edition at all: the researcher has to look again for the 1926 edition, in which the mentioned list occupies five pages. By the way, there are also interesting dialectological notes in that list. In the list of abbreviations (p. 11) eye hunger riktai: does not match abbreviations adj. and conj. explanations. One cannot disagree with the author’s opinion that the language of the translation still needs to be thoroughly and comprehensively studied. The scientific translation publication lays the foundation for such research. Unfortunately, the publication in question does not live up to the expectations. Critical editions of ancient writings have been used for decades, so they should be prepared with great care and care. During the presentation of the book, both the author and the publisher complained about the lack of time and money, the lack of the 100,000 litas allocated by the Ministry of Culture for the publication. However, it seems that most of all this publishing bar of ours lacks the simplest responsibility. OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 215 Found Selections A relatively large number of scientific publications on our linguistic heritage were published during the year under review. They seem to compensate for the lack of new capital research. These are the collection of academic Kazis Ulvydas Lithuanian language adverbs (Compiled by Elena Valiulytė, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 2000, XXXIII+463[- 1] p.) and Jono Kazlauskas Selected Writings (1. Historical grammar of the Lithuanian language. Photographic publication. Prepared for the press by Albertas Rosinas, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 2000, XXIV +414[2] p.; II. 1998-1999 Articles, reviews, language culture... by Albertas Rosinas, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 2000, 324 p.). Based on these publications, it is useful to discuss some common issues of compiling and editing publications of this type, so both of them will be reviewed interchangeably, according to the topics discussed. The principles of compilation of the publications in question are different. Jon Kazlauskas has compiled in general all scientific and scientifically valuable works, and Kazis Ulvydas — articles and studies on adverbs and adverbiation. The chosen thematic principle of the latter book justifies, for example, the reprint of the entire chapter of the academic Lithuanian grammar volume II and the recently published study “Invariant parts of language in the first Lithuanian grammar”. This is far from the entire scientific legacy of Ulvydas. A separate book, like a continuation of this one, would consist of his numerous articles on language culture. Both publications have in common the absence of new works printed from manuscripts. Both books begin with introductory articles, which give an overview of the lives and works of our classics of linguistics. The introductions to the books were written by their pupils, already well-known linguists, authorities in their fields of research: Vytautas Ambrazas and Elena Valiulytė for Ulvydas’s books, and Aleksas Girdenis and Albertas Rosinas for Kazlauskas’s books. The introductory articles are not satisfied with a simple overview of Ulvydas or Kazlauskas’ works, but reveal the theoretical basis of their scientific work, the methodology of research, and give short but accurate evaluations of the works. For example, about Ulvydas’s edited Lithuanian Grammar it is written: “not the theory of the description of the grammatical structure, 0 the consistently investigated variety of grammar phenomena makes this work a solid foundation for both the standardization of the language and further research” (p. XXVI). Such assessments given in both books by recognized scholars from a certain time perspective are in themselves an interesting and valuable thing, revealing the further development of our linguistics. The introductory articles of the publications under consideration also have fundamental differences resulting from the views of their authors. In describing Ulvydas’s life, the author is not satisfied with mere facts and dates, but seeks to reveal the personality traits of the famous linguist, he is remembered as a teacher and colleague, a cultural and social figure (see especially pp. XXIV-XXV). XXV). This attitude is also reflected in the photographs (pp. XII-XXIII), in which we see Ulvydas with his academic friends and collaborators, with his family and pupils, at his desk and resting. Kazlauskas’s book, on the contrary, contains almost nothing about the deceased- ’s personal life, manner of communicating, peculiarities of character — the author of the article clearly separates these matters from his scientific and public life, consciously distancing himself from them. In this book I missed Kazlauskas’s pictures at the university, with students, on weekends… Beautiful pictures with family and portraits on the front pages are overshadowed by photocopies of certificates and diplomas (even seven!), monuments and memorial plaques. The authors followed similar principles of editing reprinted texts. The texts in Ulvydas’s selection are reprinted scanned (the text of the book was prepared for the press by the Lithuanian Language Institute publishing house); they corrected “noted proofreading errors or obvious errors, as well as