Daiktavardžių morfologiniai variantai G. Mancelio „Lettische Postill“ (1654)

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XL (1998) Everita MILCONOKA Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Latvia, Riga MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATIONS OF NOUNS IN G. MANCELIO- ’S “LETTISCHE POSTILL” (1654) Ancient writings are characterized by grammatical variation of forms of language parts, which can be considered as a phenomenon of language history and its development. The morphological variants of nouns are reviewed in G. Mancelis's fragment of Postilas (Postilas I, 100 p. fragment). The research used the database of ancient texts of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics of the University of Latvia. G. Mancelis (1593-1654) was an educated man of the 17th century in Zemgale and Courland, had a humanistic and humanistic education and, of course, was well versed in Latin. In 1637, Duke Frederick invited Manceli to return to Jelgava from Terbata (present- -day Tartu), where he was the rector of the university. Mancelis became the pastor of the palace and later the superintendent general. While working there, he wrote Postilla, which was printed in 1654. Several monographs and articles have been devoted to the life and work of G. Mancelis. A. Ozols in his monograph “Veclatviešu rakstu valoda” mentions G. Mancelis as the most important author who introduced orthographic norms. It was based on the Winter's Tale. Manceli's authority was not undermined by K. Fūreris, who proposed an even more rational system of Latvian orthography. The Bible translators chose G. Manceli's spelling norms as the basis for their work. This resulted in Manceli's spelling system, which was revised only in the 18th century, when the second edition of the Bible was prepared for printing. E. Lamė (1933) wrote about the principles of G. Manceli's spelling, A. Augstkalnis (1930) examined textology, P. Šmitas (1895) questions of lexicon, morphology and syntax of G. Manceli's language, and L. Berzinis examined these problems from the aspect of stylistics' (1944). From recent research devoted to "Lame E. Logiskais princips Glika rakstiba. —Filologias materiali, Riga, 1933, 104-110; Augstkalns A. Review of old-time articles. —RLB Zinibu Komisijas Rakstu krams 20, 1930, 92-137; III M u a T II. OcobeHHOCTH sI3bIKa JaThinmickoro rucarenst I. Manueausi. — XKusas cmapuna. Beinyck 2. Ton nse. Cankr Ilerep6ypr, 1895, 162-170; Bērzinš L. Language and expression in Mancela- 's writings. —Izglītības Meénesraksts 1, 1944, 8-12; 2, 1944, 29-31; Dar zrrEndzeline M. A review of Jur Mancel's life and literary work. —Paradigm of the script trunk: 46 For G. Mancelius, one could mention J. Krėslinio work "Dominus narrabit in scripturis populorum: A Study of Early Seventeeth-Century Lutheran Teaching on Preaching and the Lettische lang-gewūnschte Postill of Georgius Mancelius" (1989). It reviews G. Mancelis biography based on archive material." The morphological variation of the roots is observed when the nouns of the fragment under consideration (100 pages) (300 masculine and 336 feminine nouns together with grammatical forms) are divided according to the root system of the current Latvian language. The nouns of the o and a stems are stable, almost without morphological variants. Nom Gen Dat Acc Loc Sg |3illoabr Zillmata 3illvatam Sillrodtu 3eetuma Pa=tehwis Pagaanam Maizeg=NReesini RBactar=ebden Pl |3illmati 3illwato Sillmateem 3illvatus Darrbobą Dabrtoni Pagaano=Tauteem | Jillwiteems Pagganus his tree paradigm: Nom Gen Dat Acc Loc Sg | Bebrnings Berninja Koninjam Bebrninju Wahzinja Sellfch Setfa=Wiers Zellu Mubfcha' Tefuling Tezulin Pl | Bebrninji Koninjo Lautineem Kaiminus mubfchobqg Karreems Setus In ancient writings there is an obvious variation in the spelling of the nouns of his root at the ending. According to the consonant used to indicate palatalization, it can be said that in the 17th-century Latvian there was not yet a definitive sejas. A series for school and youth. Edited by A. Dauge and V. Pludon. No.1. Juris Mancelis, Riga, 1927; Blese E. History of Latvian Literature. The grandchildren and the middle stage. In the XVI g.s. mid to XIX century vidum, Light Palace, 1947, 317. * J. Krėslinis in his work adds to Blesė’s statements by pointing out that the director of the Latin school in Jelgava was A. Gecelis — one of the most famous translators of earlier religious texts. K. Krēslinis writes that it is difficult to prove the influence of A. Gecelis on G. Mancelis, but emphasizes that G. Mancelis was a pupil of one of the first pioneers of Latvian writing. In addition, J. Krėslinis- ’s work contains a panorama of historical events, which allows us to better understand the peripeties of G. Manceli’s life. The literature listed here, mostly published and preserved abroad, is very useful in order to learn as much as possible about the cultural and historical situation in the Baltic States and Europe in the 17th century. 47 the process of assimilation that has taken place’. Mancelis writes vins, virins, vardins, and in front of the consonant -§ he used a consonant not yet latinised, e.g., celš, kumels*. A morphological variant could be the noun jėzulins, with a different suffix, but it is the only such noun. Therefore, it can be assumed that this noun is a loan from the German language with the entire affix, but not a systematic phenomenon. It can be said that the listed features of the script at the same time reflect morphological features." the paradigm of the ijo stone: Nom Gen Dat Acc Loc Sg | Apuftulis Baugla Bauglam Baufli Cally Apuftuls Baufles® Baulim Baulu Engels Brabla Bauplei Knebweki Cngelam Pl | Burrmwi Burrwjo Burrweem Bauplus Cullaini Apuftuteem Burrwjug DProweetes” Mirroneems * The spelling in Mancelis’ texts was examined by A. Ozols in his monograph,,- Veclatviesu rakstu valoda“, where it is mentioned that Mancelis irregularly marks the sound /n] [Ozols 1965: 167]. However, those Zodzis that end with -nš are always marked with -ngs in the writings. This can be considered as a spelling norm. * The form celš is also found in G. Manceli’s dictionary “Lettus” [Fennell 1988: 15]. It should be added that the soft consonant was used in other syllables, which is confirmed by the material of the fragment of the Book of Postilas, as well as by the examples mentioned in the dictionary “Lettus” Gen Sg: cela bariba, cela lapa, cela raditajs, cela virs, Acc Sg: celu griezt, Nom PI: divi celi [Fennell 1988: 16]. Also, Nom Sg has the form kumelš, and Acc Sg has the form kumelu, similarly to the form mentioned in the dictionary “Lettus”: kumela pėdi [Fennell 1988: 43]. * M. Rudzytė, describing the palatalization of consonants in dialects, mentions that -s after the end of a -n word is changed to -š throughout the language, e.g., vinš, virinš. It is further explained that in 1638 G. Mancelis still writes wings (=wines) and Wierings (=welds). According to M. Rudzyte, “there was no time of assimilation of the district at least at that time” [Rudzite 1993: 324]. The author explains that the -s at the end of the / word has changed to -§ in many dialects, e.g., celš, zalš. At the end of the word, G. Mancelis uses -š after -/-: Zellfich (=celš), diwi Zetli (=celi). * The form bausles could reflect the earlier tradition of writing, since there is no more evidence to consider it a morphological variant of the noun. Since the German noun das Gebot ‘utterance’ has the Gen Sg ending -es, one could assume that the latter influenced Manzel’s writings. In addition, the noun bauslis has a different Dat Sg ending, i.e. bauslei. This suggests that at that time the noun verb was the variants of ė and ijo stems. I think that in the whole of Postila’s book one could find some other form confirming this hypothesis. Since neither the Lettus dictionary nor the Mühlenbach-Endzelyn dictionary records the noun of the root ė with a bausle, it is not possible to definitively explain these forms Gen Sg and Dat Sg. " The form provietes could be interpreted as the form of the noun ė-kaminio; male and female endings are used in the same context: (..) ZTabebt mūtzatobB 20. LaitohB riffi frodbti Promweetes air allafch waizadbami maizaIn addition to the Nom Sg forms of 21. jufchi /[28, 19-21]; 48 the ijo root nouns, the o root endings are also found. This feature is also observed in other vowels, e.g., Nom Sg bauslis, Gen Sg bausla, Acc Sg bausli, bauslu; The name is an abbreviation of Angelus. The Dat Sg forms of the ijo stem indicate that the present Latvian form -im was not yet widespread in G. Mancelis' Postila, and that the forms with -am/-'am prevailed, e.g., bauslam, engelam, sulainam, vūciešam. Alongside the ijo root paradigm Nom Sg, nouns with the 0 root form are found, e.g. apuztuls, blēds, ēzels, engels, proviets, timermans, vilizters. It may be argued that this was a reduction of the short vowel of the last syllable, but it remains unclear why the reduction does not apply to other words. All the listed nouns are borrowed, so this morphological feature may be related to the adaptation of borrowings in the Latvian language system. þ trunk paradigm: Nom Gen Dat Acc Loc Sg | Leetus Allug (tam Kungham) | DMaddu Chriftus Chrifti Tefu Chrifto (Kungbu) Tefum Chrift Telu Chrifti (Koninju) Chriftum Telus FEfum Mancelio Postilé has not many consonant and u stem nouns; In addition to ordinary nouns of the ux root, such as medus, there are also proper nouns, such as Jezus, Kristus, etc., which have the Latin conjugation paradigm. (The Latin conjugation system is used for proper nouns: Gen Sg ending -i; Dat Sg -0; Acc Sg -um. It must also be acknowledged that the conjugation of actual nouns is not entirely regular, because Gen Sg next to the form with -i, e.g. Kristi, there is also a form with -u, e.g. Jezu, and also next to Dat Sg with -0, e.g. Kristo, there is a form with -u, e.g. Jezu, but Acc Sg and Jezum, and Kristum use the Latin Acc Sg ending.) ė trunk paradigm: Nom Gen Dat Acc Loc Sg Paffaule paffaules Paffaulet Paffaul Paffauleh Needra Gilli Gilly MNeedru PI Comes Drehbehm Drehbes Pabdebbeffies reifag Nabwas (..) Chis Peftitais gir Chriftus taf 26. Kungs /taf Peftitais fattru tee froabti Promweetes und Koninji 27. gbribbejufchi redfeht [561, 25-26]. 49 ė root nouns have more morphological variants than a root nouns. Several morphological variants have ė root nouns Acc Sg: a) infinitive forms predominate, e.g. brūt, dvėsel, mut, pasaul (26 cases); b) less common is the ending -u, e.g. atvidnu, navu, niedru, reizu (6 cases); c) the present form with the ending -i is used only twice: navi, sili. It is suggested that the Acc Sg ending -u originated from the example of a-root nouns, but this form is not very common in Manceli's writings, as the Postilés fragment reflects the adoption of the infinitive form. L. Berzinis in his work,,Valoda un izteiksme Mancela rakstos“ states that word endings are not always regular, and infinitive forms are found as Acc Sg, as well as Nom Sg (Berzinš 1944: 1, 142). and the stone paradigm: Nom Gen Dat Acc Loc Sg | Abwig Debbef Affint Nactty Olffins Debbeffes Cngbhela-- Webt Webfte Debbes Wallfta Wallfta Wallftu Pl | 2Abwig Abmweem Siwis Affinies (dimi) Durrwo-Sarrgs abrtim Webites Wallftes Most of the morphological variations are in the i-trunk paradigm: here are the old Nom Sg forms, such as the word avis: bett. / Ėa tom bubf/ 19. Deema Wabrdu Bafniza dfirrdejis /attbal Mabjabf pabr 20. ghajis ta [abba Ahmwis to Dwebffeles Barribu att-ghrammobt / 21. Deewam par Bhobdu /to Swebhdeenu nhe Slinntodbams /bett 22. Deema Wahrdu allfch apdohmadams igždfiemobt. [94 18-22] and balksnis: Wings gir ar to Bhohdu ar Meeru / 30. to winjam Deems debwis /fackahf Affobtą /fautzama Ballpnis 31. Turneffy [46 29-31]. In modern Latvian, the i stem nouns cilts and valsts Mancelio are used as 4 stem nouns, and vests as ė stem noun. In the fixed adverb form kart kartim the old noun Dat PI ending -im is recorded: 14. Ka nu /factu es /Leela Nabbadfiba by /to Kunghu ICEfu 15. Chrifto peedfammobt /jar-ahds /tad [eect Wings tomabr fcho Lee- 16. tu fatgiet teem Shanneem ar leelu Bhohdu žaur weenu Enghe17. li /ap tattru Deewa Spobfchums abet Labrtim fpiedeja /wif 18. Laur by fpobfch and atfpiedeja fa Vgguns. [54 14-18]. E. Blese, having studied J. Langy’s 1685 Latvian-German dictionary (with a brief description of Latvian grammar), states that “in general, the nouns of the i stem and consonant stems caused a great headache to the 17th century authors, and in Manceli’s writings these stems do not yet have any strict system”. * Postila contains a number of nouns whose genus has changed. They are also recorded in the dictionary of Lettus or Phraseologia Lettica, for example, Nom Sg balksne and balksne; Nom PI trouble and trouble; Nom Sg juris is the sea. Some examples can be explained by Manceli’s attempts, as an orator, to find the appropriate rhythm for his posture, for example, by leaving that work that darkness and covering that brune that ticibas; or: you svėtu day not to celebrate and go to the church | nemacais_patarus and songs of God; and some examples remain unclear: miela tapa (dkt. mielės) or: those other three big castles. Yes Mancelio used the form actiniem (Acc Pl acis, Dat Pl acim, acims; but actiniem- ). The Mühlenbach-Endzelyn dictionary mentions the deminutive actina (Milenbachs 1923-1925: I, 9), but there is no indication that there could be a masculine form. Such a diminutive is not found in neither the “Lettus” dictionary nor in “Phraseologia Lettica”, but T. Fennell, speaking about feminine nouns with masculine endings in J. Langy’s “Dictionary of Latvian-- German languages” (1685), mentions the existence of such a form (Fennell 1991: 344). Fennel says that such cases may occur due to the influence of the sniff of the tamnies. J. Endzelins gives such examples in his “Latvian grammar”, because “in all Lybian dialects the feminine gender forms have disappeared” (Endzelins 1951: 461-464). G. Manceli also used the interesting Acc Pl form puks: Mubfcham tam labbe nbe iB-dDobffeeB /taf 6. toh PDugtus famas Jaunibas Wallam dohd obfchnabt /bett 7. tab beefas Meeles famas Weibas Deewam preetfcha get. 8. Zapehtz nhe tabwejee /d Iillwabr /no Bhrateem attitahteef. [96 5-8]. Manceli was familiar with the ijo-stem noun pukis. This can be inferred from the forms of the word “Lettus” in the dictionary: Nom Sg pukis, Dat Pl no pukiem, Acc Pl pukus lasit [Fennell 1988: 74], as well as from the sentence in “Phraseologia Lettica” * E. Blesė mentions that “already in the 17th century the knowledge of the strains and flexions of both groups (i-strains and lidzkanas strains, for example) caused great headache to writers, and there is no strict system of these strains in Mancela- ’s writings” (Blese 1936: 577). 51 God bless those dicks [Fennell 1989: 94], Muhlenbach-Endzelyn dictionary G. Mancelio used the form pukis (Mūlenbachs 1925-1927: II, In the 405). way there is such paaiškinama Postillion Acc Pl form. In the fragment of the Postilas, the noun siksna is 0 found in ir a variant forms of the stem of the stem: kurpes siksna kurpes ir siksnus atraisit; also G. Mancelio In Postilé we find the no jau longer known stem noun solis in the stem jo form sola, i.e. ū Acc solas Pl nearby Dat PI shaped benches. The "Lettus" dictionary records 4 the stem form sola [Fennell 1988: 87], ‘Phraseology Lettica’ — forms: Name Sg sola, sole, Acc Sg ne one bench in front of me ne ir Spear [Fennell 1989: 94]. Muhlenbach-Endzelyn dictionary G. Mancelis used the noun solis a trunk form suola (Mūlenbachs 1927-1929: III, 1137). G. Manceli was familiar with the abiejų stem forms used ir Postilla. In the case under consideration, Mancelio The fragment of the Postilas contains two Dat PI variant endings: older -ms and newer -m, e.g. acims, durvims and acim, durvim, burviem, akminiem. L. Berzinis explains that the -s in Dat PI forms had disappeared before G. Manceli's time, but the writing tradition maintains the older Dat Pl form. But even in the old writings, consistency is not always maintained, because already on the first page of the Postilla we read: „...nosūtija Jēzus divi no saviem macekliem un sacija uz tiem“ (I 1), while in the Reminiscere — Sunday text it is written: „neklūjas šiem bērniem to mais jemt/un priekš suniems mest“ and „no drusciniems“ (I 17th c., but it is not a mandatory thing, and the author can choose which forms to use (Berzinš 296). L. Berzinis daro išvadą, kad galūnė -s Dat PI formose dar yra pažįstama 1944: 2, 30). The trend to use the newer ending -m is mainly typical of masculine nouns, with 82% of such forms. Statistical material confirms that of the examined Dat Pl forms, the female gender better than the male one preserved the older ending -ms, i.e. in a ratio of 33% and 8%. The material of the postilla suggests that the Dat PI ending with -m is already dominant in the 17th century, and feminine nouns still retain the old Dat PI ending with -ms. In modern Latvian there is a known law that one preposition controls a constant vowel, and certain prepositions control two vowels, but in this case it is related to the difference in meanings. Examining the prepositions caur, iekšan, no, pēc, pie, uz, virs, two trends are noticeable: 1) masculine nouns after the preposition in the singular are used only with Acc Sg vowel; 2) for feminine nouns in the singular after the preposition, the dominant is the Gen Sg vowel, although the Acc Sg vowel is also used. D. Nytinia in his monograph “The system of prepositions in the Latvian written language” (Nitina 1978: 207) states that the use of prepositions in the first Latvian written monuments reflects various features of the middle dialects of Curonian and Ziemgalian. This is shown by the prefix management. The use of Acc in the singular after all genitive prepositions (male gender 100%) is 52 characteristic of G. Manceli’s works. The peculiarities of such governance are found not only in Courland and Zemgale, but also in Vidzemes in the northwest, so they survived in the written language until the second half of the 19th century. (Of other prepositional constructions in which you could expect the form of the masculine noun Gen Sg, only one example is recorded —no niča. It is possible to think that this fixed form was already known in the 17th century and that G. Mancelis, hearing people using such a saying, used it in his Postila.) The morphological variants allow us to study the language characteristics of one of the most important 17th-century authors, and also confirm that the variation of spoken language is reflected in written language. Received 17 April 1998 LITTERACY Augstkalns A. Review of Old Latvian writings. —RLB Science Commission Papers 20, 92-137. Bērzinš L. 1944: Language and Expression in Mancela- 's Writings. —Education MenArticle 1, 8— 12; 2, 29-31. Blese E. 1936: The 1685 Latvian-- Latvian dictionary of Jan Langij, a monk of Nice and Bart. E. Blese, Dr. phil., professor at the University of Latvia, Riga, 577. Blese E. 1947: History of Latvian Literature. The older and middle stage. In the XVI g.s. mid to XIX century vidum, Light Palace, 317. Endzeline M. 1927: A reflection on the life and literary work of Jurs Mancels. — [Writers’ faces.] A series for school and youth. Edited by A. Dauge and V. Pludon. No.1. Juris Mancelis, Riga. Endzelins J. 1951: Grammar of the Latvian language, Riga, 1100. Fennell T. G. 1988: A Latvian-- German Revision of G. Mancelius’ Lettus (1638), Melbourne, 110. Fennell T. G. 1989: A Latvian-- German Revision of G. Mancelius’ Phraseologia Lettica (1638), Melbourne, 150. Fennell T. G. 1991: Feminine Nouns with Masculine Terminations in Johannes Langius’ Latvian-- German Dictionary (1685). —Journal of Baltic Studies, Vol. 22, No. 4, 339346. Krēslinš J. 1989: Dominus narrabit in scripturis populorum: A Study of Early Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Teaching on Preaching and the Latvian Long-Wanted Postill of Georgius Mancelius. —Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 123-131. Lame E. 1933: The Logical Principle of Glyceric Writing. —Filology materials, Riga, 104-110. Mancelius G. Long-wanted Latvian Postill, That is: A short and simple, yet scribed reading and explanation of the Sunday and most noble feast Gospels, so that they may be read in the first district of Cuhrland and Semmgallen, also in the iiberdnische Liefflande, as far as the Latvian language extends... From Advent bites to the Feast of the Most Holy Drey-Unity. Riga... 1654. 555 pp. and 6 unpag. S. printing errors; S. 1–100. —Text in electronic form is stored in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics of the University of Latvia. 53 Milenbachs K. 1923-1932: The wordbook of the Latvian language. Edited, supplemented, continued by J. Endzelins, Riga, I, 1923-1925; II, 1925-1927; III, 1927-1929; IV, 1929— 1932. Nitina D. 1978: Prievārdu sistēma latviešu rakstu valoda, Riga, 249. Ozols A. 1965: 1993: Historical Phonetics of the 626. Latvian Language, Riga, 382. III M u gt II. 1895: OcobeHHOCTH si3bIKa JIaTbINCKOTro RINucarejJIsi Il. Mannemus. —XKueas cmapu-Ha, bin. 20, Canxr Ilerep6ypr, 162-170. THE MORPHOLOGICAL VERSIONS OF SUBSTANTIVES OF G. MANCELIUS „LETTISCHE POSTILL“ (1654) Summary “The Morphological Versions of Substantives in the Fragment of G. Mancelius' Sermon Book Lettische Postill' (1654)' deals with the introduction to the language peculiarities of one of the most important authors of the 17" century —G.Mancelius. Some trends of Dat PI ending's development are mentioned. The fact that the modern ending -m was dominating in the 17“ century has been proved by examples from Sermon Book. Morphological versions covering all stems of substantives and reflecting some cases of substantive transition from one gender into another provide information not only on language of G. Mancelius’ work, but they confirm that versions of spoken languages have their reflections in the written language as well. 54