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

Everita Milčonoka

Preparing document pages…

3 short passages of this localized version are shown in the original language because they could not be localized reliably.

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XL (1998)

Everita MILČONOKA

Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Latvia, Riga

DAIKTAVARDŽIŲ MORFOLOGINIAI VARIANTAI G. MANCELIO „LETTISCHE POSTILL“ (1654)

The grammatical variation of word-form classes is characteristic of old writings; it may be discussed as a phenomenon in the history and development of language. Morphological variants of nouns are surveyed in a fragment of G. Mancelis’s Postil (Postiles I, a 100-page fragment). The study used the old-text database of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Latvia.

G. Mancelis (1593–1654) buvo išsilavinęs XVII a. žmogus Žiemgaloje ir Kuržemėje, turėjo humanitarinį ir humanistinį išsilavinimą ir, aišku, gerai mokėjo lotynų kalbą. 1637 m. hercogas Frydrichas pakvietė G. Mancelį sugrįžti iš Terbatos (dabartinis Tartu), kur jis tuo metu ėjo universiteto rektoriaus pareigas, į Jelgavą. Atvykęs G. Mancelis tapo rūmų pastoriumi, o vėliau generaliniu superintendentu. Čia dirbdamas jis parašė Postilę, kuri buvo išspausdinta 1654 m.

Several monographs and articles have been devoted to G. Mancelis’s life and work. In his monograph “Veclatviešu rakstu valoda,” A. Ozolas mentions G. Mancelis as the most important author who introduced orthographic standards. Thanks to him, the Zemgalian dialects were chosen as the basis for the written language. G. Mancelis’s authority was not even undermined by K. Fūrekeris, who proposed an even more rational orthographic system for Latvian. The translators of the Bible adopted G. Mancelis’s spelling conventions as the basis for their work. Thus G. Mancelis’s spelling system was established; it was revised only in the 18th century, when the second edition of the Bible was prepared for publication.

E. Lamė (1933) rašė apie G. Mancelio rašybos principus, A. Augstkalnis (1930) nagrinėjo tekstologiją, P. Šmitas (1895) G. Mancelio kalbos leksikos, morfologijos ir sintaksės klausimus, o L. Berzinis šias problemas nagrinėjo stilistikos aspektu¹ (1944). Iš naujesnių tyrinėjimų, skirtų

¹ Lamė E. Loģiskais princips Glika rakstībā. – Filoloģijas materiāli, Rīga, 1933, 104–110; Augstkalns A. Veclatviešu rakstu apskats. – RLB Zinību Komisijas Rakstu krājums 20, 1930, 92–137; Ш м и д т П. Особенности языка латышского писателя Г. Мансели. – Живая старина. Выпуск 2. Год пятый. Санкт Петербург, 1895, 162–170; Bērziņš L. Valoda un izteiksme Manceļa rakstos. – Izglītības Mēnešraksts 1, 1944, 8–12; 2, 1944, 29–31; Darž. Endzelīne M. Apcerējums par Jūra Manceļa dzīvi un viņa literārisko darbību. – Rakst-

With regard to G. Mancelis, one could mention J. Krēsliņš’s work “Dominus narrabit in scripturis populorum: A Study of Early Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Teaching on Preaching and the Lettische lang-gewünschte Postill of Georgius Mancelius” (1989). It surveys G. Mancelis’s biography on the basis of archival material².

When the nouns in the fragment under examination (100 pages)—300 masculine and 336 feminine nouns, including their grammatical forms—are classified according to the stem system of contemporary Latvian, morphological variation of the stems becomes apparent.

Nouns with o- and ā-stems o ir ā are stable, with almost no morphological variants.

Paradigm of the o-stem:

the jo-stem paradigm:

In older writings, there is evident spelling variation in the ending of jo-stem nouns. Depending on which consonant is used to indicate palatalization, one can state that in XVII-century Latvian it had not yet finally

nieku sejas. Serija skolai un jaunatnei. A. Dauges and V. Plūdons, eds. No. 1. Juris Mancelis, Riga, 1927; Blese E. Latviešu literatūras vēsture. Vecākais un vidējais posms. No XVI g.s. vidus līdz XIX g.s. vidum, Gaismas pils, 1947, 317.

² J. Krėslinis supplements Blese’s claims in his work, noting that A. Gecelis, one of the most prominent translators of earlier religious texts, was the director of the Jelgava Latin School. K. Krėslinis writes that it is difficult to prove what influence A. Gecelis had on G. Mancelis, but emphasizes that G. Mancelis was a pupil of one of the first pioneers of Latvian spelling. J. Krėslinis’s work also offers a panorama of historical events that helps us better understand the vicissitudes of G. Mancelis’s life. The literature cited here, most of it published and held abroad, is very useful for learning as much as possible about the cultural and historical situation in the Baltic countries and Europe in the XVII century.

the assimilation process had taken place³. Mancelis writes viñs, vīriñs, vārdiņš, while before the consonant -š he used a consonant that had not yet been palatalized, e.g., celš, kumelš⁴. The noun jēzulins, which has a different suffix, could also be a morphological variant, but it is the only noun of this kind. Therefore, one may suppose that this noun is a loanword from German with the entire affix, rather than a systematic phenomenon.

It can be argued that the listed spelling features also reflect morphological features⁵.

the ijo-stem paradigm:

³ A. Ozols examined the spelling in Mancelis’s texts in his monograph “Veclatviešu rakstu valoda,” noting that Mancelis marks the sound [ŋ] inconsistently [Ozols 1965: 167]. However, words ending in -ņš are always written with -ngs in the texts. This may be regarded as a spelling norm.

⁴ Forma celš randama taip pat ir G. Mancelio žodyne „Lettus“ [Fennell 1988: 15]. Reikia pridurti, kad kituose linksniuose vartotas minkštasis priebalsis, tai patvirtina ir Postilės knygos fragmento medžiaga, taip pat „Lettus“ žodyne minėti pavyzdžiai Gen Sg: cela barība, cela lapa, cela rādītājs, cela vīrs, Acc Sg: ceļu griezt, Nom Pl: divi ceļi [Fennell 1988: 16]. Taip pat Nom Sg sutinkama forma kumeļš, o Acc Sg forma yra kumelu, panašiai ir minėta forma „Lettus“ žodyne: kumeļa pēdi [Fennell 1988: 43].

⁵ M. Rudzīte, describing consonant palatalization in dialects, notes that -s after -ņ- at the end of a word has changed to -š throughout the language, e.g., viņš, vīriņš. It is further explained that in 1638 G. Mancelis still wrote wiņgs (=viņš) and Wierings (=vīriņš). According to M. Rudzīte, “at that time assimilation had not yet occurred, at least in some area” [Rudzīte 1993: 324]. The author explains that -s after l at the end of a word has changed to -š in many dialects, e.g., celš, žalš. At the end of a word, G. Mancelis uses -š after -ļ-: Zellßch (=celš), diwi Zetti (=ceļi).

⁶ The form bausles could reflect an earlier written tradition, since there is no further evidence to treat it as a morphological variant of the noun. Since the German noun das Gebot ‘commandment’ has the genitive singular ending -es, one might suppose that the latter influenced G. Mancelis’s writings. Moreover, the noun bauslis has a different dative singular ending, namely bauslei. This suggests that at the time the noun bauslis had ē- and io-stem variants. I believe that another form confirming this hypothesis could be found in the Postil book as a whole. Since neither the “Lettus” dictionary nor the Mīlenbachs–Endzelīns dictionary records an ē-stem noun bausle, these genitive singular and dative singular forms cannot be definitively explained.

⁷ The form provietes could be interpreted as a form of an ē-stem noun; in one context, masculine and feminine endings occur side by side: (..) Tādeh wōgālawōb 20. Seitnbh mißi šmābti Prometees air allasch waigādami waiga- 21. jušchi / [28, 19–21];

Alongside nouns with an ijo stem in Nom Sg forms, o-stem endings are also found. This feature is noticeable in other cases as well, e.g., Nom Sg bauslis, Gen Sg bausla, Acc Sg bausli, bauslu; Nom Sg engels, Dat Sg engēlam. The Dat Sg forms of the ijo stem show that the modern Latvian form in -im was not yet widespread in G. Mancelis’s Postil, while forms in -am/-'am predominated, e.g., bauslam, engēlam, sulainam, vāciešam. Alongside the ijo-stem paradigm, nouns with an o-stem form are found in Nom Sg, e.g., apuztuls, blēds, ēzels, engels, proviets, timermans, vilizters. One might argue that this represents reduction of the short vowel in the final syllable, but it remains unclear why the reduction does not affect other words as well. All the nouns listed are loanwords, so this morphological feature may be associated with the adaptation of loanwords within the Latvian language system.

u-stem paradigm:

Nom | Gen | Dat | Acc | Loc Sg | ſeetus; Chriſtus; Chriſt; Ieſus | 2llus; Chriſti; Ieſu Chriſti | (tam Kunaham); Ieſu Chriſto | Wāddus; (Kunahu) Ieſum; (Koninju) Chriſtum; Ieſum |

There are not many consonant-stem and u-stem nouns in Mancelis’s Postil; alongside ordinary u-stem nouns, e.g., medus, proper nouns such as Jezus, Kristus, among others, are also found; these have a Latin declensional paradigm. (The Latin system is used for the declension of proper nouns: the Gen Sg ending is -ī; Dat Sg -ō; Acc Sg -um. It should also be acknowledged that the declension of proper nouns is not entirely regular, since alongside the Gen Sg form in -i, e.g., Kristi, there is also a form in -u, e.g., Jezu; likewise, alongside Dat Sg in -o, e.g., Kristo, there is a form in -u, e.g., Jezu, whereas Acc Sg uses the Latin Acc Sg ending in both Jezum and Kristum.)

ē-stem paradigm:

(..) Schis Deſitais gir Chriſtus taſ 26. Kungs / taſ Deſitais fattnu tee ſwahki Prometees und Koninji 27. ghribbeuſchi redſeht [561, 25–26].

ė-stem nouns have more morphological variants than a-stem nouns. Nouns of the ė stem have several morphological variants in Acc Sg: a) the most common are forms without an ending, e.g., brūt, dvēsel, mut, pasaul (26 instances); b) the less common ending is -u, e.g., atraitnu, nāvu, niedru, reizu (6 instances); c) the modern-language form with the ending -i is used only twice: nāvi, sili. It is claimed that the Acc Sg ending -u arose on the model of a-stem nouns, but this form is not very common in G. Mancelis’s writings, since the fragment of the Postilės reflects the establishment of the form without an ending. L. Berzinis states in the work “Valoda un izteiksme Mancel̦a rakstos” that word endings are not regular everywhere, and forms without an ending occur as both Acc Sg and Nom Sg (Berzin̦š 1944: 1, 142).

i-stem paradigm:

The greatest number of morphological variants occurs in the i-stem paradigm: archaic Nom Sg forms are found here, such as the word avis:

but the same must be said. 19. In the parish of Deema Wab̦ru, at first, with much effort, 20. the good Ahwis’s boldness was recalled, 21. to God for His glory, that it might not be attributed to the people, but 22. to God’s people, to make all praise known. [94 18–22] And the boldness is: Wings is with God in peace, 30. to him God is in the heavens, factah̦ affoh̦s, bountiful Bal̦knis 31. Turn̦eh̦y [46 29–31].

Nouns of the i stem in modern Latvian, cilts and valsts, are used by Mancelis as ā-stem nouns, while vēsts is an ē-stem noun. In the fossilized adverbial form kārt kārtim, an old noun ending, Dat Pl -im, is attested:

14. Ka nu / factu es / Leela Nabbafiba bn / to Kunghu Jefu 15. Christo peed̦fammoh̦t / jar-ah̦ds / tad leec̦t Wings tomahr sch̦o Lee-

16. thus say to the people with a great voice, 17. at every day with brightness so they shone / 18. all the laurel shone and was illuminated by the fire. [54 14–18].

Having examined J. Langij’s 1685 Latvian-German dictionary (with a brief description of Latvian grammar), E. Blese states that “in general, for authors of the 17th century, i-stem and consonant-stem nouns caused a great deal of headache; in Mancelis’s writings, too, these stems still have no strict system.”⁸

In the Postil several nouns are found whose gender has changed. They are also recorded in the “Lettus” dictionary or “Phraseologia Lettica,” e.g., Nom Sg balksne and balksnis; Nom Pl bėdas and bėdi; Nom Sg jūris and jūre. Some examples can be explained as Mancelis’s attempts, as an orator, to find an appropriate rhythm for his Postil, e.g., nolįkdami tos darbus tās tumsības un aplikdami tos brunus tās ticības; or: tu svētu dienu nesvėti un neei baznīcā / nemāceis pātarus un Dieva dziesmus; while some examples remain unclear: miela tapa (noun mieles) or: tiem citiem trim lieliem piliem. Thus, the form actiniem used by Mancelis (Acc Pl acis, Dat Pl acīm, acīms; but actiniem). The Mühlenbach-Endzelīns dictionary mentions the diminutive actina (Mülenbachs 1923–1925: I, 9), but gives no indication here that a masculine form might also exist. This diminutive is found neither in the “Lettus” dictionary nor in “Phraseologia Lettica,” but T. Fennell, discussing feminine nouns with masculine endings in J. Langij’s Latvian-German dictionary (1685), also mentions the existence of this form (Fennell 1991: 344). T. Fennell argues that such instances may occur under the influence of the Tamnieki dialect. In his “Grammar of the Latvian Language,” J. Endzelīns provides such examples because “in all Livonian dialects, feminine forms have disappeared” (Endzelīns 1951: 461–464). G. Mancelis also used the interesting Acc Pl form pūkus:

Do not give your youth to the devil, who seeks to deceive you; but raise your faithful thoughts to God. Therefore, do not turn away, O man, from the rejected ones. [96 5–8].

G. Mancelis knew the i-stem noun pukis. This suggests that the forms Nom Sg pukis, Dat Pl no pukiem, Acc Pl pūkus lasīt [Fennell 1988: 74] given in the “Lettus” dictionary, as well as the sentence given in “Phraseologia Lettica”

⁸ E. Blese notes that “in general, for writers of the seventeenth century, these two (i-stem and consonant-stem—ed.) groups of stems caused great difficulties in terms of stems and inflection, and Mancelis’s writings, too, show no strict system in these stems” (Blese 1936: 577).

dievs ģērb tos puķus [Fennell 1989: 94], Mülenbacho-Endzelyno žodyne užfiksuota G. Mancelio vartota forma puķis (Mülenbachs 1925–1927: II, 405). Tuo būdu yra paaiškinama tokia Postilės Acc Pl forma.

In the Postil fragment, variant forms of the o-stem and ā stem of the noun kurpes siksna and kurpes siksnus atraisīt are encountered; also, G. Mancelis’s Postil contains the i-stem noun solis in a form of the ā-stem sola, that is, Acc Pl soļas alongside the Dat Pl form soļiem. The ā-stem form sola is recorded in the “Lettus” dictionary [Fennell 1988: 87], while “Phraseologia Lettica” gives the forms: Nom Sg sola, sole, Acc Sg ne vienu solu viņš manis priekšā ne ir spēris [Fennell 1989: 94]. The Mühlenbach-Endzelīns dictionary gives the ā-stem form suola of the noun solis, used by G. Mancelis (Mülenbachs 1927–1929: III, 1137). G. Mancelis knew the forms of both stems and used them in the Postil.

In the fragment of Mancelis’s Postil under examination, two variant Dat Pl endings are found: the older -ms and the newer -m, e.g., acīms, durvīm̄s and acīm, durvīm, burviem, akmeniem. L. Berzinis explains that -s in Dat Pl forms had already disappeared by Mancelis’s time, but the written tradition preserves the older Dat Pl form. Yet even in old texts consistency is not maintained everywhere, since already on the first page of the Postil we read: “…nosūtīja Jēzus divi no saviem mācekļiem und sacīja uz tiem” (I 1), whereas in Reminis cere—the Sunday text—the wording is: “neklājas tiem bērniem to mais jem̄t und priekš sun̄iem mest” and “no drusciņiems” (I 296). L. Berzinis concludes that the ending -s in Dat Pl forms was still familiar in the seventeenth century, but was not obligatory, and authors could choose which forms to use (Berziņš 1944: 2, 30). There is a tendency for the newer ending -m to occur predominantly with masculine nouns; such forms account for 82%. The statistical data confirm that among the Dat Pl forms examined, feminine nouns preserve the older ending -ms better than masculine nouns, at a ratio of 33% to 8%. The material from the Postil suggests that the Dat Pl ending in -m was already predominant in the seventeenth century, while feminine nouns also retain the older Dat Pl ending in -ms.

In modern Latvian, a rule is known whereby one preposition governs a fixed case, while certain prepositions govern two cases; in the latter instance, however, this is associated with a difference in meaning.

An examination of the prepositions caur, iekšan, no, pēc, pie, uz, virsreveals two tendencies:

1) masculine nouns following a preposition in the singular occur only in the Acc Sg case;

2) for feminine nouns in the singular following a preposition, the Gen Sg case is predominant, although the Acc Sg case is also used.

D. Nytinia monografijoje „Prielinksnių sistema latvių raštų kalboje“ (Nītiņa 1978: 207) teigia, kad pirmuosiuose latvių raštų paminkluose prielinksnių vartojimas atspindi įvairias kuršių bei žiemgalių vidurio tarmių ypatybes. Tai parodo prielinksnių valdymas. Būtent G. Mancelio darbams būdingas toks Acc var-

the use in the singular after all genitive prepositions (masculine gender 100%). This pattern of government is found not only in Courland and Semigallia, but also in the north-west of Vidzeme; consequently, it persisted in written language until the second half of the nineteenth century. (Among other prepositional constructions in which one might expect the Gen Sg form of a masculine noun, only one example has been recorded – no nenieka. It is possible that this fossilized form was already familiar in the seventeenth century and that G. Mancelis, hearing people use such an expression, also used it in his Postilė.)

Morphological variants make it possible to investigate the linguistic features of one of the most important seventeenth-century authors; they also confirm that variation in spoken language is reflected in written language as well.

Received 1998 04 17

LITERATŪRA

A u g s t k a l n s A. Veclatviešu rakstu apskats. – RLB Zinību Komisijas Rakstu krājums 20, 92–137.

B ē r z i ņ š L. 1944: Valoda un izteiksme Manceļa rakstos. – Izglītības Mēnešraksts 1, 8–12; 2, 29–31.

B l e s e E. 1936: Nīcas un Bārtas mācītāja Jāņa Langija 1685. gada latviski-vāciskā vārdnīca ar īsu latviešu gramatiku. Pēc manuskripta fotokopijas izdevis un ar apcerējumu par Langija dzīvi, rakstību un valodu papildinājis E. Blese, Dr. phil., Latvijas universitātes profesors, Rīgā, 577.

B l e s e E. 1947: Latviešu literatūras vēsture. Vecākais un vidējais posms. No XVII g.s. vidus līdz XIX g.s. vidum, Gaismas pils, 317.

E n d z e l ī n e M. 1927: Apcerējums par Jura Manceļa dzīvi un viņa literārisko darbību. – Rakstnieku sejas. Sērija skolai un jaunatnei. A. Dauges un V. Plūdoņa redakcija. Nr.1. Juris Mancelis, Rīgā.

E n d z e l ī n s J. 1951: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīgā, 1100.

F e n n e l l T. G. 1988: A Latvian-German Revision of G.Mancelius’ Lettus (1638), Melbourne, 110.

F e n n e l l T. G. 1989: A Latvian-German Revision of G.Mancelius’ Phraselogia Lettica (1638), Melbourne, 150.

F e n n e l l T. G. 1991: Feminine Nouns with Masculine Terminations in Johannes Langius’ Latvian-German Dictionary (1685). – Journal of Baltic Studies, Vol. 22, No. 4, 339–346.

K r ē s l i ņ š J. 1989: Dominus narrabit in scripturis populorum: A Study of Early Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Teaching on Preaching and the Lettische lang-gewnschte Postill of Georgius Mancelius. – Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm, 123–131.

L ā m e E. 1933: Loģiskais princips Glika rakstībā. – Filoloģijas materiāli, Rīgā, 104–110.

M a n c e l i u s G. Lang-gewnschte Lettische Postill, Das ist: Kurtze un Einfltige, jedoch Schriftmässige Auslesung un Erklärung der Sonntglichen und vornehmsten Fest-Evangelien, so im Frstenthumb Curhland und Semmgallen, auch im überdnische Liefflande, so weit die Lettische Sprache sich erstrecket, gelehsen werden... Verfertigt Durch GEORGIUM MANCELIUM Semgallum... Erster Theil. Vom Advent biss zum Fest der Hochheiligen Drey-Einigkeit. Riga... 1654. 555 S. und 6 unpag. S. Druckfehler; S. 1–100. – Tekstas elektronine forma laikomas Latvijos universiteto Matematikos ir informatikos instituto Dirbtinio intelekto laboratorijoje.

Mūlenbachs K. 1923–1932: Latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Rediģējis, papildinājis, turpinājis J. Endzelīns, Rīgā, I, 1923–1925; II, 1925–1927; III, 1927–1929; IV, 1929–1932.

Nītiņa D. 1978: Prievārdu sistēma latviešu rakstu valodā, Rīgā, 249.

Ozols A. 1965: Veclatviešu rakstu valoda, Rīgā, 626.

Rudzīte M. 1993: Latviešu valodas vēsturiskā fonētika, Rīgā, 382.

Шмидт П. 1895: Особенности языка латышского писателя Г. Манцелия. – Живая старина, вып. 20, Санкт Петербург, 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^th century – G.Mancelius.

Some trends of Dat Pl ending’s development are mentioned. The fact that the modern ending -m was dominating in the 17^th 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.