Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos ir tarmių santykis XVIII a. LDK

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXIX (1998) Jonas PALIONIS Vilnius University LITHUANIAN WRITTEN LANGUAGE IR TARMINGS RELATION XVIII a. LDK $ 1. Beginning of the development of the church writing tool LDK Already speaking about the ratio of dialects of the ir Lithuanian written language XVIII a. Eastern In Prussia it was mentioned that until this century in the development of the Lithuanian written language the LDK distinguished two branches: the central and the eastern — Dzūkiškasis. But from the beginning of the 18th century, the latter clearly began to decline and the Middle Eastern dialect, or, more precisely, a kind of ecclesiastical written language* was being developed on the basis of the Middle Highland dialect. The creation of such a coine can be linked to the Calvinist publications of the second half of the 17th century, in which the phonetics and morphology of the middle Highlander dialects are contradicted by the occasionally occurring genders of the Žemaičių and Lower West Highlander dialects- .” However, the creation of such a coine is especially clearly reflected in the 1705 edition of the Gospels (,,Ewanielie Polskie y Litewskie“), in which most of the Eastern and Dzūkian genders of the previous editions were replaced by the Medieval ones. For example, it extends the genders with the eastern pontic diphthongs [um], [un], [im], [in], cf. the 1690 edition n. sg. m. /umdinikas 78,7, g. pl. duntu 31,19, Vnt untros 14,5, Vnt pinktos 33,4... and the 1705 issue lamdinikas 71,8, dantu 27,18, On the second 11,24, On the fifth 29,2... 1690 edition gieru 28,8, runku 29.9, galiby 17,9, įšway3dy 21,8... and 1705 edition gierą 24,2, ranką 25,12, galibę 14,12, jway3dę 18,2—3... See also 1690 edition i. sg. duonu 46.7, lu giedu 126,7, lu galiby did3u 4,4-5... and 1705 edition bread 41,6, fu gieda 119,24, fu galibe didžia 2,3—4..., 1690 edition in. s.g. kami 215,5,mielty 135,2,jiwati 174,5... and in the 1705 edition kame 201,5, mielte 127,14, šiwate 163,16... In addition, in the 1705 edition the conjunction adunt is regularly replaced by idant, the preposition and the prefix ažu in (Palionis J. Lithuanian written language and dialects in relation XVIIa. East Prussia. —LKK XXXVIII, 38-62. *7. Zinkevičius calls it an undefined and inaccurate term for the “traditional written language- ”, see his “History of the Lithuanian language” 4, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1990, 24 and elsewhere. 3 For more details, see Palionis J. Lithuanian literary language in the 16th and 17th centuries, Vilnius: Mintis, 1967, 75— 77. Since the 1781 edition of Knygos Nobaznistes Krikščioniszkos, edited by Mykolas Cerauskas (mainly in terms of spelling and punctuation), did not substantially correct the language, the relationship between language and dialects in this edition is not mentioned here. 101 for, prefixedspace į between. However, the su Mediterranean (resp. Westernization) tendency did not fit very well with the fairly regular 1690 m. change of the unpronounced ending of the -o i -a 1705 m. permission, e.g. g. sg. m. giero noro 14,4 > giera nora 11,13, giwo 187,14 > giwa 175,23..., praet. 3 dtaio 17,6 > ateia 14,4, buwo 12,4 > Buwa 9,17... Such a change probably indicates that 1705 m. the edition editor was from the northern iš The Lithuaniaar ns wanted to adapt to the latter. $ 2. the Oriental Gospels the problem of the Middle Į Eastern question of why 1705 m. the gospel edition was made a sharp turn from the eastern Highlands to the middle Highlands dialect, not į easy to answer. This is usually explained by the bowing of the Lithuanian nobility in Vilnius region and the lack of anyone to take care of the publication of Eastern ir writings." However, although this interpretir ation is well founded, it is nevertheless of an aprioristic nature and ir is too general. The fact that 1713 m. was released in Vilnius fifth K. The Oriental Dictionary of Sirvydas, that ligi From the end of the third quarter of the 18th century, Eastern formulas for baptism and other ceremonies („Ritvale sacramentorvm“) were printed here. ne At the a. beginning of the 18th century (Contiones Litvanicae)- ir *, but at the end (1797 m. The collection of sermons of Cyprianus Lukauskas” shows that the need for Eastern religious writings, especially the texts of the Gospels, could not have completely disappeared in the bishopric of Vilnius. On the other hand, a priest not necessarily from Vilnius region was required to take care of the publication of the Eastern Gospels. It was not difficult for a Lithuanian-speaking cleric from any region to prepare a new Oriental edition, unchanged or little changed in terms of language, based on the previous ones. And there must have been quite a number of such priests, who graduated from the diocesan seminary of Vilnius, established in 1582, and worked among the Eastern Highlanders, and they would undoubtedly have benefited from the Eastern texts of the Gospels, because they would have been more understandable to the local people. Therefore, there were obviously other reasons for the westernization of the language of the 1705 edition of the Gospels. One of them might have been the desire, especially of the seniority of the Diocese of Žemaitija, to return to the previous tradition (M. Daukša, Calvinist writings). Such a desire may have been encouraged by the desire of the superiority to expand and strengthen Catholicism in the southeastern part of the bishopric, where (especially in Kėdainiai and its surroundings) in the second half of the 17th century *Zinkevičius Z. Eastern Lithuanian written language of the 17th century, its origin and disappearance. —Baltistica 8(2), 1972, 98; On the Origin of Lithuanian Writings. —n.p. 13 (1), 1977, 243; Lithuanian Language History 424; Jonikas P. Lithuanian Language and Nation in the Ages, Chicago, 1987, 128. > See Palionis J. About the Contiones Litvanicae. —„Kalbotyra“ 23 (1), Vilnius, 1971, 37—42. *See Karaciejus J. A few remarks on the language of K. Lukauskas's "Preachings". —Lukauskas K. Pamokslai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996,19. 7 In the 17th century, the Zemgaly bishopric included not only the real Zemgaly residential areas, but also a number of parishes of the Vysoké Tatry: Joniškis, Šeduva, Smilgiai, Radviliškis, Pakruojis, Klovainiai, Lygumai, Smilgiai, Rozalimas, Krakiai, Baisogaia, Krekenavos, Surviliškis, Dotnuva, Kėdainiai, Josvainiai, Pašušvio, Veliuona, Jurbarkas, Betygala, Ariogala, Vilkija, Joniškėlis, Kriukai, Pašvitinis, Linkuva, Saločiai, Šiaulėnai and others (see Czersky St. Opis Zmudzkiey dyecezyi, Vilnius 1830). 102 The reformers had strong positions ir here and published a number of their writings based on the middle Altay dialect. Another possible reason is that the Middle Highland dialect, being a transitional dialect between the Eastern, Western and Southern Highland dialects, could better than any other suit the need for ecclesiastical practice: it had only older traditions of printed religious writings, but many common structural features with non-Eastern Highland ji dialects and ne dialects. Finally unrelenting eyes still possible ir su iš 1705 m. the case of the middle Highland iš dialect of the author of the edition, although this could hardly have ar had a decisive effect: the texts of the gospels, like other ir religious writings, had to be approved by the church seniority. True, 1705 m. The title page of the publication does not indicate approval, but this does not mean that the publication appeared with the be knowledge of the ecclesiastical superiority. 1647 m. (perhaps the second?) edition of the Gospels, the approval is expressed in the words „Wydane dozwoleniem za [tar[3ych’ (plg. otherwise similar M. A postcard į of a postman ‘Wireless data with ir wala’ or K. Sirvydo „Punktų sakymų“ entries: “z dozwoleniem starszych wydane“ Id., „Za pozwoleniem Starf3ych“ d.). II By restricting the 1705 edition of the Gospels, the church superiority undoubtedly sanctioned the language changes made in this edition. It can even be assumed that she deliberately inspired the westernization of the language of the 1705 edition of the Gospels, in order to make them close in terms of language to the Reformed publications of Kedainiai and thus to spread more Catholic writings in the southeastern part of the bishopric of Žemaitija. However, regardless of the reasons for the shift to the Middle Highland dialect in the 1705 edition of the Gospels, this shift was very significant for the development of the Lithuanian written language in the 18th century. It was also reflected in an anonymous grammar of 1737, which stated that the title of this grammar indicated the universality of the dialect used in it [Praefixus exili huic operae titulus, mon[trat Univerlalem huius (qua con!/tat) Dialecti per totam Litvaniam acceptationem*. It determined to a large extent the entire further development of this language, especially its church style, in the 19th century in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Many non-Eastern 18th century writings here also relied on the basis of the Middle Highland dialect, replaced with a greater or lesser amount of Lowland or Eastern accents. In particular, the 1705 edition was the basis for the later editions of the Gospels, of which more than twenty appeared in the 18th century. For a long time, perhaps in order to maintain the uniformity of the texts of the Gospels, their language was not changed. Only in the 1779 edition is there sporadically one more Žemaitija, for example: praet. 3 floors 63,25, cond. 1 p.g. Padaricius 49.7, Regetius 49.9-10, Imper. 2 pl. pafirodikiet 137.8, n. pl. Zodey 81.13 (the latter gender is already found in the 1774 edition). There are even more Žemaičių lyties in the 1794 edition, although you can only find them somewhere. For example, in addition to the lowlands of the 1779 edition just mentioned, which were transferred to the latter, the following are also to be distinguished: a. sg. 39.5 (//priešodi 100,24), praes. 3, pp. 98–104, 1994. 2 pl. tikiete 59,12, regiete 74,13, part. act. praes. 103 n. s.g. m. plaszanteys ‘predatory’ 111,21-22, fu munim 104, 9, adv. Tuja 55,4. Sitokiu ir other Zemaitybiy is also found 1797 ir 1799 m. in the permits that relied against them in the iS€jusiai. $ 3. Church foot "Sermon in the Christian" One of iš the first church shoes released XVIII a. booklets are 1725 m. appeared , "Pamokstas Krikščioni[(zkas)- ", dedicated to the believers of Žemaitijos Diocese. Iš the prefaces inserted in it could be concluded that it was written by ją bishop. A. Horainas: ‘No Beloved priest Alexander Horain, bishop of Žemaitija, wanting to see his soul as a pearl or a precious piece of earth, he encourages the people of his diocese.” However, it is believed that Horace only recommended the book to be printed, its tą author was o the former Jesuit preacher Pranas Šrubauskas (1620-1680). If it iš really was so, then 1725 m. "The first person to be ne appointed be to the position of Chief of Staff". Kad 1725 m. "Preaches..." in phonology, ir morphology predominates the medieval genders, it indicates, on one hand, maintained iš solid [t] before [e] type balsius, o iš second in — most cases not narrow [a, e + m, n] first syllables of diphthongs, cf. : a) inf. attaylt 31,6, adv. ikšiotay 2,2..., inf. gayletis 37,24—25, n. sg. f. meyte 22,13, imper. 2 sg. 22,10..., b) adv. amžinay 48.11, g. sg. f. Perpetual 27,11..., in. s.g. f. Antro 20,14, i. sg. m. Brangiauliu 16,19, in. s.g. m. danguy 7,14..., n.s. f. shrine 4,10, n. sg. However, it cannot be said that thesetwo features, especially the latter, are consistently maintained. Apparently, due to the influence of earlier Eastern texts, there are also some relative genders with the pointinistic [um], [un], e.g.: praet. 12,20, fut. 3 palumdis 46,16, g. sg. f. pinktos 45,16, a. pl. m. žinktus 40, 3. In later editions (1743, 1762) of „Pamoksto...“ almost all these genders are replaced by Middle Eastern (respectively Western) ones: nužėngie 11,13-14, nužiengie Pkr“*, žienktus Pkr“..., 29,8. On the other hand, in later editions, especially in 1762, there are some genders that can be considered as inferior: g. pl. draudenčiu 19,28; 22,13-14, mitaširdingu etc. p. 24,19, g. sg. f. mileftas t. p. 17,23, g. pl. nupelnu 29,23 (//praet. 2 sg. nuopelniey 29.6), pryilz muni 18,19, n. sg. m. prilztarawimas 23,2-3 (next to priefz 20,24, inf. prielztraut 43,1), inf. faugotyis 32,21, praet. 3 people 15,25, imper. 2 sg. [zwelkies 41,12-13... This suggests that the edition of 1762 was probably prepared by a representative of the Žemaičių dialect (douninkas- ), using previous editions. More details can be found in the extended 1781 edition, cf. praes. 3 doud 38,12, a. sg. muni 71.9, praep. nug 35,19, d. pl. wylyms 39,4, adv. Tonkie 17,24 cond. 3 ilzgielbietum 10,19. 8 Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 1, Chicago: JAV LB Kultūros fondas, 1960, 322; pg. Bibliography of the Lithuanian SSR [hereinafter —LTB], Vilnius: Mintis, 1969, 409. IM. She called Valančius Zemaiciu (see Valančius M. Raštai 2, Vilnius: Vaga, 1972, 271), and in LTB 403 he is derived from Kaunas. 104 $ 4. The Church of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy ir 1726 m. Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross of the Holy Cross (not be certain doubts) mentioned Ms. The ir Screwdriver. XVIII on a. permits10 ". Since most of the songs of this hymn are taken from iš 1646 m. S. Slavočinskio Translatio ons of the Psalms, some psalms — iš S. "The Book of Nobles" prepared by Jaugelis-Telega (only more or ar less edited individual verses of hymns and psalms)", so it may have taken over a lot of the language elements of those prototypes. For example, from the latter some lowland songs could have entered the 1726 hymnal (a. pl. f. Gieydenčias BS 235,11, imper. 2 pl. giedokiam t. p. 41,2, adv. /kayltey, in. sg. f. winibey t. p. 150,8 and others). However, in many cases, the Žemaičių genders of Slavočinskis’ hymn were replaced by the Vysočinių genders in the hymn of 1726 (cf. 2 pl. džiaukiates SIG 85,13> džiaukites BS 20,24; g. sg. f. Iwas 68,16> Jewos 7,5; n. sg. f. mitaSirdinga 69,12> mietaSirdinga 7,16; praep pri 7,5> prieg 13,5; d. pl. m. Willims 67,15> Willims 6,18). Especially often, the -a | -o of the non-conjugated ending was changed, e.g.: praet. 3 atwaddwd GIS 70,4>atwadavo BS 7,25-26; Buwa 76,12>buwo 13,12; fawd fawo 75,14> tawa tawo 12,16; 69,7> 7,13... In addition to the occasional Zemaitybiu, "Batse sirdies" also contains certain genders with -u, -i (<-a, -¢) typical of the eastern Altays and Dzyuks: a. sg. gie/mi linkfmu 107,15, koznu človu 142,11, kunu i krvu 108,11, stolu 108,10...; n.d. dawis 72,15, jausmas 40,5 adv. friends 73,11... But such genders are not many in the 1726 hymn, and they are more common only in some hymns. It is therefore possible to assume that this is a language reflex of earlier Eastern religious writings. The language of the “Voice of the Heart” is linked to the central (respectively western) Highland dialect by essentially the same phonological and morphological features as the above-mentioned scripts, namely: (a) the solid [t] before [e]-type vowels, on one side, and b) diphthongs [a, e + m, n] with unconstricted first syllables — from the second. But in general, in the phonology and morphology of this hymn there is a larger than in other writings of the first half of the 18th century jvariariatarmiy mosaic of genders, more all kinds of similarities, cf. praes. 2 sg. alli 194,19 //Eph 200,12; a. sg. ka 111,24 //ku 5,22; n. sg. f. knigiata V,12 //knigiate V, 25, praet. 3 ataja 32,14 //n. s.g. 26:16; d. pl. mums 876 //mumis 92,4; praes. 3 larktis 118.8 //fergt 118.12; imper. 1 pl. giedokem 96,10 //nia parltokim 96,11-12; g. sg. wandenio 54,9 //wandenia 54,19... Perhaps most of these similarities were caused by the author of „The Voice of the Heart“ using the aforementioned earlier hymns. This is shown, for example, by such facts. In the psalms included in this hymnbook, taken from the “Book of the Church”, the verb genders with the enclitic pronoun mi are usually replaced by non-enclitic ones, cf.: praet. 2 sg. 136,12, pres. 3 iGmisekina t. 0 Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 1, 321; LTB 1, 403,406. "L ebedys J. S. M. Slavočinskis. New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999. 1958, 52. 105 p. 35,15 — man i/zgayshina t. p. 138,20. But in some places they are unchanged: ir imper. 2 s.g. atmitay(k KN 55,21 : atmitay[k BŠ 153,23. Or again: "Book Church" switch bat ir jo older version batayg most often changed "The Voice of the Heart" but, cf. : Bat KN 29,23 — Bet BS 134,11, Batayg t. p. 41,7 — Bet t. p. 141,9. But wherevene r, apparently, due to the influence of the prototype instead of KN Batayg 41, 30 BS type Betayg 142, 21 (here only replaced a by e). į It is interesting that in the earlier hymns the [e-] at the beginning of the word “Batse sirdies” is changed to [a-], cf.: n. sg. m. deer SIG 235,19; KN 47,21 and moose BŠ 143,10, i.p.m. 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 210, 211, 211, 212, 212, 213. 3 eft SIG 73.16 ir aft BS 13.46. Some of the genders with [a-] may have been taken from the Slavonic hymnbook, where this vowel is particularly often found in the forms of the verb be (a. pl. m. Afancius SIG 129,13, d. pl. m. afantiemus etc. p. 164,7, d. sg. m. alanciamuy etc. p. 254,23...), but others are probably introduced by the composer of the hymnbook himself, especially if the composer came from the central northern part of Lithuania"*. Some traces in the 1726 “Voice of the Heart” speech jo may have been left by presumed earlier editions (1679 ir 1701)" anonymous editors. In addition, the subsequent editions of this hymn also contain a considerable mixture of different genders and dialects. In addition, in those published at the end of the 18th century (e.g., 1790 and 1793) there are already a lot of phonetic and morphological changes. Priefz 68.3 i. pl. Arlzkieciays 61,22, zodziays 9,9, a. sg. f. Sauld 19, 3, cond. 1 p.g. I'd get 17.17, I'd get 143.9, imper. 1 pl. decawokime 233.4, in. pl. wylokiuole reykatuose pr. II,19—20... and the 1793 edition: Utas 79,2, prilz 134,2, Erfzkieteys 60,13, žodeys 9,15, Sauli 16,2..., gaučio 14, 3,faugočio 133,25, garbinkiema 213,24, žodžiusi 144,2...The same Žemaitijos genders are also found in the 1793 and 1798 editions, which differ little from 1790. In the 18th century, smaller hymns were also composed based on the Batsu sirdies. One of these is the 73-page hymnbook „Giesmes ape szweciausy panna Marya“, prepared by a monk of the Žemaičių Kalvarija monastery, who signed with the cryptonym N. W., the first edition of which bibliographically dates back to 1765. As can be seen from the comparison of the late 18th century editions of this hymn, the later editions contain more low-handed words (e.g., in the 1796 edition it is used: i. pl. Erfzkieteys 10,15, praes. 1 pl. ilzkom 16,23, praep. Pri 12,1,9 pl. Waku 23,1... instead of the 1784 edition Erfzkieciays 3,7, jelkom 13,13-14,5, 6, Wayku 24,1...). However, some of the hymns in the 1781 edition also contain oriental elements: unt kralzto 46, adv. umžinay 47, a. sg. Dienu 46, gielmi 49, Par tu gielmiu 51, ilz runkos tawa 54. 12 pp. Language Atlas of Lithuania 2. Fonetika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982, žem. No. 9. 1995. pp. 321–322. '* However, to claim that "the 1790 edition is already too Žemaitinis" (Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių kalbos istorija 4, 36-37), is too categorical. 15 See. Biržiška V. Lithuanian Bibliography I d., Kaunas, 1924, 69-70. 106 The “Spasabas giedoima nabaznay...- ”, printed in 1797 in the Vilnius Academy printing house and preserved in the rare prints department of Vilnius University, stands out from other small hymnals with its distinctive oriental layer. It is a 15-page booklet, which, as it is assumed, could have been prepared by Antanas Strazdas." In it, in most cases, the diphthongs [ie], [uo], e.g.: a. sg. uz fniegu 3,5, wienas Ponas 6,6, Priefz 6,11..., duok 6,13, a. sg. 8,10, n. pl. pusty „padły” 13,9. It is also known as: N. sg. undo “water” 4,1,doc 11,17; 14,8. Irregularly, it also uses pointinistic genders: for acceleration with g. pl. dungu 7.6, fu for student brungu 7.7, in. s.g. f. [zwintibey 12,17... are also found in g. sg. Sky 7.16, in. pl. dangofe 7,18. So obvious dialect mixture. $ 5. Church foot in Catholic prayer books a) "In the Rosary of Our Lady of... " In the 18th century in Lithuania, various prayer books were often published in church coina. Of these, the most popular was "Rožancius Szweciausios Maryos Panos yr saldziausy warda Jezusa...", which was published in 19 editions in that century. It is a prayer book prepared by the Dominican monk Jurgis Kasakauskas, whose first two editions (1681 and 1691) appeared at the end of the 17th century. In the first edition there were very few Žemaitijos genders (such as cond. 1 pl. karalautumim 25,7, g. sg. f. mitaSirdiltes 6,6—7, prifz 3,18, n. sg. f. luopulinga 34,34). But in the 1726 edition they were already replaced in many places by high-Tibetan (karalautumem 31,9, mietaširdiftes 2,17-18, sopulinga 48,8...). Here too, instead of the genders with the ending -a often used in the first edition (g. sg. mana 18,2, tawa 49,11, ftutpa 22,3, duonas 70,4...) we find genders with -o (mano 18,20, tawo 59,9, ftutpo 22,3, duonos 104,13...). However, in later editions, especially those published in the late 18th century, the lowlands were introduced again. For example, the 1779 edition replaced some of the 1726 edition's African genders with non-African ones, e.g.: g. pl. meldžiančiu 107,16> meldenciu 159,22, i. pl. eršzkiečiays 26,3; 27,22 > Erlzkieteys 90,3,pečieys 133,11 > peteys 177,15. There are also declined [uo], [ie] diphthongs in this edition, e.g.: part. n. sg. m. bared 24,5-6 > bared 88,5, v. sg. Juozapay 149,14 Juzapay 191,12,nuog 2,1> nug 61,15..., g. sg. Jewos 2,20 > Eywos 62,11, praep. prie 23,16 > pri 87,18, Prielz 21,2 > Prifz 85,7... But not all —the more common high-grade or hybrid (inf. duoti 71,13, praes. 1 pl. puotam 81,14, part. n. sg. m. sold 84,2, n. sg. Shepherd 125.17, n. pl. days 74.5, I. pl. days 116.6, g. sg. heart 93.16, in. s.g. wienibiey 104,19, n.s.g. VIENIOLEKTA 174,10...). In many places in the 1779 edition the plural nouns are also lowered (e.g.: pakaniems 11,14 > pakanims 77,9, warkltantiems 73,12 > warkltantims 128,25// pralzantiems 138,27...), the plural inesyves tuole dauktuole 11,8 > tuli dayk- '® Zr. LB 66. 17 For more on them, cf. LTB, 182-185. 107 tuli 77,5, gieruole darbuole 23,1 > gieruli darbufi 87,16—17...), certain forms of regressive verbs (e.g.: imper. 2 sg. teikis 5,14 > teykias 71,13, 1 pl. Mellkimes 18,7 > Mellkemos 81,24, cond. 1 pl. /totumemes 18,5 > [totumemos 81,23...)) and others. From such genders as part. cont. dejuwdami 62,12, d. sg. Atpirktojuw 85,16, Sutwertojuw 85,15, it is possible to conclude that the author of the 1779 license was a Siaures Žemaitis (a monk), probably a monk of Kretinga monastery. There are comparatively fewer vulgarities in the 1779 edition than in the 1791 edition. In the latter, some genders are elevated or taken from earlier editions, e.g. g. sg. Jewos 4.4, praep. nuog 3,18, prie 11,15, Priefz 2,4... ma, because the originals of many of them are only known from bibliographical sources and therefore not available to researchers. In 1797, i.e. in the last edition of the 18th-century „Rožanciaus...“, the opposite phenomenon is again observed: in it some of the uppercases of the 1791 edition are replaced by lowercases, e.g.: g. sg. Jewos 4,4 > Eiwos 4,4, meiles 6,17 > meilis 6,17, in. pl. kaliniuole 7,31 > kaliniule „jailhouses“ 7,31, fawuofe 12,8 > fawufe 12,8... On the other hand, the 1797 edition also contains hypernormalisms (n. sg. zodzis 11,7, Zodzis 15,2), which indicate a tendency to exalt certain sexes. Thus, in the texts of the Rosary, which were often published and widely used in religious practice in the 18th century, the ecclesiastical foot was not realized equally. In some of them the Low Countries formed a larger, in others a smaller layer. A larger layer of inferiority is characteristic of some editions of the end of this century. b) "Attoriuje duchauname..." In the 18th century, the LDK published not only a prayer book of the Rosary type, but also an even more popular one, “Altorius duchaunas alba afierawone kwepencio altariaus- ...”, the first edition of which was probably printed in the Vilnius Franciscan printing press in the fourth decade of this century’- ®. From the surviving title page of the third edition (1759) we learn that the second edition appeared in 1752. Among the more characteristic modesties of this prayer book (more precisely, a large, almost 600-page collection of prayers, hymns, psalms and litany) are mentioned: a) fairly common genders of adjectives, pronouns, participles in the plural with -ims, used for acceleration with -iems: kitims 37,13 //kitiems 37,8, numirulims 50,13, Swetims 40,7, wilims giwems 32,17 //wiliems 181,20, tiems 23,10..., b) also common and also nearby plurals of nouns in the inesive with -use instead of the high-level -uose: artimule 11,13, rupelniule 142,18 //krizkeluose, (kerlkeluofle 166, 22, [unkiuole priepulule 393,7, wilule pripuolimule 22,15-16 //wilokiuofe nuliminimuole 393,6..., c) regularly used verbal nouns in the plural with -ims From See. LTB 1, 14. 108 su -cio: daričio palitaysičio 23,11, turečio 7,3, weščio 11,16, 18,9..., d) su [ė], [0] diphthongation: conj. juog 18,13, g. s.g. ku. in. 32,11, pl. rankuofe 127,6..., g. s.g. f. The 174,13, yellow man speaks. 2 s.g. noriejey 18,18-19, praet. 1 s.g. I didn't 6,10-11, believe part. cont. having 18,18... Anyway other Zemaitybiy (beafrikaciy genders, gender su singulars [a], [i] instead of the high-pitched diphthongs [uo], [ie], cases of Žemaitijos limb abbreviation) 1759 m. In the edition „Altoriaus duchauno...“ there is not much. Except in rare cases (such as pl. a. m. kurius 50,17, fut. 1 s.g. Melfius 10,9, n. s.g. f. nupulufi 33,17, praep. about ‘prie’, sg. g. f. prizalties 39,11), in this edition fairly consistently used genders in diphthonsu gs [ie], [uo], e.g. sg. g. f. day inf. 40,11, jelzkoti 81,17, a. pl. f. liepfnas, n. sg. m. piemo 61,12..., n. s.g. m. stripped 102,22, g. s.g. f. bread inf. 46,7, give a 28,3, long laugh 91,7... The same goes for ir 1793 m. The edition of „Altoriaus duchauno...“ printed at the Vilnius Basilica Press, which is not more distant than 1759 m. authorization, nor from the earlier phonetic and morphological system of the ecclesiastical written language. Apparently, that 1793 m. The editor of the new edition built on the work of his predecessir or and did not hesitate to neither degrade nor exalt the language of the new edition. Little differs in terms of dialectal basis from 1759 ir 1793 m. permits ir 1778, 1746 reprints with a slightly different title —,,Attorius duchaunas kwepiancia smilkima...- “, printed in the Vilnius Academy printing house. They contain many of the same lowercases as the 1759 edition, and some of them are even replaced by uppercases, cf.: d. pl. m. wifims Ad** 7,4 and wifiems Ad"“ 8,12, praes. 1 p.g. gayluws AdTM 5,12-13 and gayluofe Ad? ** 5.16, pres. 3 katb Ad"“ 18,5 ir araka Ad* 20,10, in. pl. f. fg/pudoly AdTM 11,6 and fulpaudofy Ad** 10,13, in. e.g. namufli AdTM 24,15 and namuofi Ad* 24,9. ¢) “On the golden altar...” Based on the "Altoriumi duchaunu..- .", the prayer book "Aukso altorius..." was also prepared, the first edition of which appeared in Vilnius in 1787. The surviving copy of the 1793 edition shows that this prayer book, compared with the 1778 "Altoriumi duchaunu..- .", contains a number of textual and linguistic changes. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider it as a separate publication, rather than a new edition of „Altoriaus duchauno..- .“, as is done by LTB. Among the linguistic differences, particularly striking are certain differences in the 1778 “Altar duchauno..- .” replacing inferiority with superiority, cf.: d. sg. m. artojuw Ad” 407,17 and artojuy AA 442,10, imper. 2 pl. Eykiet AdTM 214,13 and Go AA 125,13, Garbinkiet Ad” 216,10 and Garbinkit AA 127,15, Nebukiet Ad” 66,6 and Nebukit AA 89,26, a. pl. f. Utas Ad” 368.4 and Uolas AA 396.12, paes. 1 p.g. Wyluws Ad” 16,11 and Wyluole AA 21,6. However, such change is irregular: in many cases, the low qualities are retained, and in addition, there are also opposite things —Ad” high qualities kituole dayktuofe reykatuole 19 See LTB 1, 16. 109 2,2..., c) in. pl. 88,12-13, 34,12..., d. pl. m. for elephants 155,17, and humans 50,17-18..., d) n. s.g. giwas 84,7, wiras 155,21, part. cont. given by 75,16, mouth 43,22-23..., e) n. pl. dayktay 12,12, 1. pl. gierays darbays 7,22, adv. field 55,10... However, on the other hand, the book often contains ir various lowliness. Iš jų fairly regularly used genders su with unstressed [¢] vowels instead of [i] in word endings, especially in communicative endings -ti, e.g. memory "remember", do 44,2, give have 75,25, 44,3...3*, n. pl. m. yellow "Young" 55,13, teach „mokyti“ t. p., wyle /(in the second verse “all saints” 191,20, adv. tuole „far away“ 177,3... also many noun plural inessive genders with [u] in the stem, sometimes used as accelerated diphthongs, cf. : su Didziufe reykatuole 30,25, kituole reykaluole 74,21-22, wilule dayktufe 18,5, metuofe 94,13 // butterfly 95,3. Sporadically, in "Pawinastese...", there are other ir inferiorities: some non-African genders (part. a. sg. f. priederante 73,19, priegulinte 73,21, i. sg. firde "heart" 9,24; 29,3, n. sg. žodey 33,13; 86,8, i. pl. Zodeys 9,23...), genders with shortened limbs (part. cont. mirdams 19,25, praes. 3 tur 1,15, in. sg. f. burno 31,7, dieno 96,26, neapkanto "hate" 169,3, toi pacio ligo 142,24...), the la of the pronoun. genders with -čio (bucio 51,18 milecio 186,19, žinocio 113,23...),ja-stamenių pronoun genders (2 pl./udikiet 89,12) ir t. ©.3, Among the dialects, we should mention the present tense 3a. genders with the formant -ai (-ei), which are often used in the spoken booklet: galey „can“ 48,14; 80,1, norey „wants“ 55,15, /(towey „stands“ 96,12; 101,6, turey 37,3 //turi 37,8 //tur 40,2, weyzay „face“ 29,8… These genders most clearly show that the author of the booklet was a coastal Žemaites, because they are particularly characteristic of the Kretinga — Skuodas region dialect*. However, the author, apparently, deliberately made a great effort to exalt the language of his booklet, because he used many hypernormal prepositional genders (with from-, instead of nu-, pri-): n. sg. mulched 75.17, washed 24.26 i. sg. 126,3, inf. nuowilti 10,21, praes. 3 nuonelza 40,20..., praes. 3 prieduoda 35,19, priefako 78,1, i. sg. 76,26... In this respect, the author of the booklet K. Klimavičius differed from his contemporaries, the translators of Ziwato, who preserved the system of the coastal Žemaičių dialect much better. § 12. A comparatively different, not as degraded as “Ziwate- ”, variant of the church coine can be found in Simonas Jakštavičius (Jakšto)- ’s “Spasabe Nabazenstwu...”, published in 1771. In this collection of prayers, hymns, sermons and passages from the lives of saints there is relatively little humility. In 1765 the communicative ending of „Pawinastiene...“ (as in „Žyvate- “) was written -ty: Duoty 15, 3, mokiety 9,3, turiety 15, 14... 5 See also Zinkevičius Z. LKJ 4, 39-40. 3% Zinkevicius Z. Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966, 431. 116 only implied statements a) 1a. forms su -čio(s): galečio 14,8, norečio 17.9, palikloniocio 77,8, mokicios 15,6, fergietės 15,5... (// dekčiau 165,9), b) ja-stame verbal noun forms: ataduokiem 92,20, Garbinkiem 160,23, padarikiem 85,8, patepkiem 130,17, pribukiet 160,21... (next to i-stems: je/zkokite dziaukities 35,15, link/minkities 45,19, genders with 45,19-20...), c) diphthongs su [uo], [ie] instead of western highland [o], [ė]: g. sg. f. anuos 52,3, tuos 25,25, g. sg. m. juo 82,16, tuo 3,2, conj. juog. 3,2, inf. gieduot 131,26..., inf. dieti 66,10, praet. 3 atfakie 47,23, kintiejo 42,9... and d) genders with a broadened [e] instead of an unpronounced short [i]: a. sg. dwileką 80.6, gulenti 44.24, fiedenti 42.4, g. sg. mileftos 10.28, praes. 1 pl. negalema 89,11... And otherwise the other Žemaitija "Spasabe..." is a rare, sporadic phenomenon (e.g. only somewhere it is possible to detect Žemaitija non-African sex: n. pl. jaunikaytey 149,1-2, paukiztey 86,10, a. sg. f. fergunte 112,4, sex v. sg. milaufis 13,29, praet. 3 apdovenoja 3,1-2, i. pl. f. duowenomis 3,8, g. sg. Meylos "meat" 95.28, pr. Apey 103,16, n. pl. numay 112,8). A more than Žemaičių S. Jakštavičius' booklet contains genders typical of the middle and eastern Vysočiniai dialects, cf. : (a) a. sg. attaydima 11,15-16, n. sg. 51,24, a. pl. Awetas 113.9, i. pl. tadays 140.4, tancugays 69.1, n. sg. Panieta 64,28, Sauta 151,21, praet. 46,2..., b) prp. butter 6.12, fried. 3 palkundino 3726-27, a. pl. pazundes,pazandes®, pinkius 6,12, praes. 3 kincia 64,4, a. sg. Zinklu 23,5..., c) a. sg. 20,28, bread laulu 143,21, good atgu 37,17, [zwieliu žvaki 63,3, Zuweli wienu 57,22, aclibi i garbi 95,13..., d) i. sg. fazdu 129.8, fu fmatu 69.8, wilu liep/nu 109.8, fu rultibi 40.1, fu... Iwielibi 72.27..., e) adv. kadu 7.5, tadu 23.8, niekadu 26.18, wilfadu 7.16..., f) a. sg. day 93.4, giwo 68,5,ing Mielto 47,12, karuno 68,18, newalo,,- navalia“ 37,6,wilo 55,30... and others. However, the oriental verbs,,Spasabe..- .“ are used also inconsistently, often as parallel verbs with the genders of other dialects, e.g.: unt 3,9; 18,1; 37,30... //ant 7,16,44,22.- .., kadu 7,5; 49,26 //kada 63,9, tadu 6,29; 23,8... //tada 50,1, wiladu 7,16 //wilados 19,15, pafitaidis 103,2 //pafitaydes 102,30 and others. In general, the phonetics and morphology of S. JakStaviCius’s “Spasabo...” contain a large dialect mixture, which makes it difficult to establish the connection of this writing monument with individual dialects. This mixture is further enhanced by the relatively abundant hypernormalisms, which show the author’s desire to exalt-medium and westernize the language of his book. In particular, hypernormal genders with [-0] instead of [-a] at the endings of verbs are common, e.g. praes. 3 atimo "atima" 158,20, iro "yra" 76,27, ifzeyno 55.4, (//eyna 8.29), katbo 96.4, kincio 86.9 (//kincia 64.14), lejo 21.11 (//lieje 157,14)..., praes. 1 pl. efmo 47.8, turemo 58.29 (//turema 9.28, turima 153.22), dukfaujemo 157.19... fut. 1 pl. neturefmo 59.1, prapuldifmo 59.3..., imper. 1 pl. duokiemo t. p. (//ataduokiem 92,20), part. cont. matidamo 51,28... many also such hypernormal genders, as inf. ikuolti „inbisti“ 101,30, a. sg. with "What" 15,16; 116,10... with "that" 13,15 and so on. The origin of this dialect mixture can be explained by S. Jakštavičius' biography. Vac. Biržiška guesses that he was originated 117 iš "Brown's ir long-time crew". If this assumption is correct, then the tą dialect mixture could have been iš determined, on the jo one hand, by the influence of the native middle highland dialect, o iš second — desire to adapt to their workplace (Eastern Highlands) people's languages. Be of the lowliness he could see from the ir iš writings of that time with a distinct lowland layer (especially "Ziwato" (in Spanish). $ 13. S. Jakštavičius- ’s “Spasabo” in a new version Almost complete S. Jakštavičiaus "Spasabas..." was reprinted in a booklet 1779 m. entitled "Ziwatas Madame Mouse Jesus Christa ir szweciausias Marias Pannos..."**. The latter differs from 1771 m. “Spasabo...” textologically only in that a different prefix is added at the beginning, the sections “Ziwat” Pona musu Jezusa Christusa” and “Ziwatas szweciausias Marias Panos”, “Giesme Pannos szweciases” are not short Polish ir and Latin texts. (all this is given in separate numbering and comprises 30 pages; this part is joined on p. 32 by the custod PA — PAWINASTES with the main one, which coincides with S. Jakštavičius’s „Spasabu- ...“ and has pages). In terms of language, the 135 repeated text also differs very little from S. Jakštavičius’ original “Spasabo- ...” It is rarely possible to detect a different phonetic, morphological or syntactic gender, e.g. "Spasabo- ..." : inf. atgrif/zti 23,11, part. cont. /iuzdam 77,5-6, n. pl. mc. ilzktauli 77.9, praes. 3 iro 77,3, i. sg. f. [wielibi amžinu 27,23, g. sg. Tawo 13,29,... we came to lay him down, and the long-hearing King Herod ligando 76,27—29... and in 1779 "Ziwato..- ." : atgrin/zti 19,11, fiunzdam 73,16, ilzktause 73,19-20, ira 73,13, [wiefibie eternal 23,15-16, [awa 10,2,... we came, to be crucified with him? And the long-hearing King Herod ligando 73,9— 10… Therefore, it is impossible to decide whether this,,Ziwato...” was prepared by the same S. Jakštavičius, without special philological research. § 14. It should also be noted that from the latter "Ziwato..- ." the two mentioned texts of its beginning — "Ziwatai..- ." were reprinted in the booklet "Nowena szweta Antona...", published probably after 1779.*' Comparing the texts of these two booklets, it is clear that in "Nowena" only some proofreading errors have been corrected (e.g. instead of "Ziwao..." the past tense has been replaced by the present tense). 3 returns 6.10, it returns 73.14, instead of adj. not small 75.26 —nemažo 87,15...) and some changes in the spelling of some words (e.g. instead of praes. 3 Jjelzkojo 11,17, Jr 3,16 it prints ie/zkojo 70,20, Ir 69,18, instead of Zidu 4,13 — zidu 70,15), and otherwise the whole language is retained as it is in 1779’s “Ziwate.- ..” However, between S. Jakštavičius’s “Spasabo...” and “Novena.- ..” new texts, which contain neither “Ziwate” nor “Spasabe”, there are some differences in language (prayers about St. Anthony, hymns). In those new texts there is no S. Jakštavičius' BS Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 2,159. *0 For a more detailed bibliographical description, see LTB 1, 147. 37 Considerations on the date of its publication are given in LTB 1, 290. 118 "For salvation..." characteristic of what (=what) ir is going on "go" type hypernormalisms (except, apparently, only deflated „nutilsta“ 46,4, which may be a press fault), ir there are no genders kadu, tadu, as well as undenio (there is only wandens 60,6, wandinio 128,22). But, on the other hand, in those new texts more than In "Spasabe" there are lowercases (more common lowercase plural inesives: 3,19, liežuwiufe 12,19—20, tokiule reykatufe 23,3..., also plural nouns efantims efantiems kuriem 13,7 // prafzantims 26,4, 34,3, 60,21). With all this in mind, it does not seem that "Nowena..." could have been S. Jakštavičius' work, as assumed LTB 1,290. $ 15. J. The dialectal characteristics of the "Knygelės aprašančios broctvą..." of Bukota were released in su Church coinė with a large Žemaičių ir layer with a pronounced high-level tendency. 1773 m. ir Tado "Knigiale apraszanti broctwa". In terms of the abundance of lowliness this 300 p. book (although ir named "booklet") can be compared su 1753 m. "Zyvatu". Its author and translatbe or, doubts, was a Zemgalist, although so far jo unknown place of birth (supposedly in the vicinity of Šiluva)**. Samogitian, Donegan T. The origins of Bukoto are indicated by genders such as praes. 1 pl. two ‘we give’ 283,26, a. s.g. kou what 289,18 (ir kuow 147,1), n. s.g. Piemou 81.2 (//example 50.4), Wanduow 107.20 (//wando 99.4), n. pl. juns "you" 236.26, a. pl. Gin/tas 272,3; 274,21, trins „trys“ 215,5, g. pl. tun 238,27, a. pl. žodžius 262,5 ir kt. However, there are relatively few such genders in the Knigiale...: more are those characteristic of all or most of the Žemaites, e.g. : a) genders with diphthongs [un], [in] —nufiunzdamas 278,15, n. sg. ilzgrinftas 237,24, In „it“ 141,1, kurin „which“ 29,14..., b) with the extended [e]: praes. 3 dziowen "drying" 237.17, v. sg. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80. szalen 134,24,..., c) with [t'], [d'] instead of the Afrikaans [č], [dž]: in. s.g. M. bulentemy 239,18-19, d. sg. patem 59,12, i. pl. pateys 84,8-9, Zodeys 22,3; 75,6..., adv. [kayltey 259,10 (//lkaylte 176,1)..., d) with shortened endings in present tense 3 a. duod 11,22, mazgo 79,21, put „pučia“ 217,14, fied 13,11, tor 22,16 (//turie 20,26)..., e) with kamiengalio [u] instead of [uo] plural inesyve: anuly aktuly 87,20, Dangilzkuly dayktuly 65,11-12, Koznule tule Poterule 47,12... //darbuole 235,21, f) with a [i] instead of a [ie]: praep. pry 17,39//Prey 21,15; 29.190, fut. 3 ilzkas,ieSkas" 168,14; g. sg. f. mitaiSirdiltes 39,21. In Bukoto’s “Knygialeje...”, the marked tendency toward ascendancy is shown not only by such (though rarely occurring) sexes as a. sg. f. bread 79,9, a.p.m. Nude 232.6, n.d. m. wienas 3,7, g. sg. f. wietas 235,22, d. pl. m. aniems 53..., but especially abundant hypernormalisms, which have arisen by translating non-African genders into African, by diphthongizing consonants: n. sg. m. didzis 287,14, prt. 3nuowedzie „nuvedė“ 135,19, pražudzie 135,17-18, n. sg. f. Žwayždzie 54,21, a. pl. f. Swedish ‘šventes’ 217,12, 318. 1. 88. 119 n. pl. m. duomoimay ‘smoking’ 285,21, i. pl. m. Coocaleys ‘kūkaliais’ 5,18... Therefore, it is not very accurate to say that Bukotos "Knygiale..." in “too much Žemaitiška”*. It would be more accurate to describe its language as based on the Žemaičių dialect, but mixed with a few highland dialects. $ 16. The expressions of the church coine in the manuscript sermons a)In the collection „Contiones litvanicae“ From the a. beginning of the 18th century, it prevailed only in ne printed works of this century, but in manuscripts, especially sermons, of ir which a considerable number have survived to our days. Vilnius University, Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, ir etc. in libraries ir await the attention of researchers. One such iš anonymous collection, Vac. Biržiškos named „Contiones litvanicae““* ir is attributed 18th a. century, is preserved in the Vilnius University to Manuscripts (I Department, D23). Although there are still some oriental elements in this set (e.g. genders with the “punk” [un], [um], [in] diphthongs: a. sg. section 73, present. 257, pp. 257. f. kimpine „kempinę“ 258, a. pl. marks „marks“ but not much. 57...), jų The most prominent here is the Dzūkian layer, which is characterized by: a) irregular use of Afrikaans [c], [dz] instead of [č], [dž] and [t] before [i], [ie], e.g.: cia „Čia“ 29, a. pl. efuncias „esančias“ 26, i. sg. f. marciu 155, n. sg. medzias ‘medis’ 32, praes. 3 /(zyldzia „heats“ 154..., adv. cieliogiay 24, d. pl. alanciemus „being“ 102, inf. pakutawocie 23, žiurec „to look“ 28; b) frequent narrowing of the [a], [ę] noses both at the roots and at the ends of words: adv. drufiay 28:51, cond. 1 p.g. multitau "I would think" 118, g. sg. Funaria 78, praes. 3 Izula „šąla“ 300..., inf. kiftie „kęsti“ 97 (but also: adv. drąfiay 47, g. sg. kąlnia 268, inf. kigltie 76)..., a. sg. amžynu 23, aukfu 100, garbi 58, giarkty 259 wiru piktu 52 (but also: a. sg. second time 182, drufibe 321), c) quite common vnsk. narrowing of the inner and outer limbs: i. sg. 69 bread, 118 sticks, 51 fire, 119 wines... in. s.g. d) noun forms with the adjective [j]: n. pl. iey „jie“ 19, kuriey 13, tiey „tie“ 20 e) the 1st and 2nd person forms of the pronoun with -tau, -tai: butau 181, palakitau 139, prafzytau 187...,izgiditay 21, pryliziuretay 78, tarnautay 102), f) the i-stame nouns vnsk. noun forms with the ending -i: punti 263, po /merti 13, wielzpati 109, g) non-African forms: praet. 1 p.g. /kaitiau 34, fuediau 145, g. pl. paukiztiu 23, g. pl. tarnaytiu 129, k) imperative clause vnsk. 2 a. forms: atminkie 68, darikie 42, mokikie 235 ir kt *!. Some of these phonetic and morphological genders (with narrowed [a], [ę], with adjective [j], with d. sg. ending -i, etc.) are not known to be used in the area399 Zinkevičius Z. LKJ 4, 47. “0 More about his historiographical data zr. Palionis J. About the Contiones Litvanicae. —Kalbotyra 23(1), 1971,35-37. #1 See Ibid., 38-41. 120 It also includes the larger, smaller areas of the middle, eastern Highlands. ar However, the fact that in the spoken sermons there is a whole complex of Dzūkijos dialects, the fact that in be them, as in the printed works of that time, one dialect ir system is not strictly maintained, a certain dialect mixture prevails, allows us to classify the sermon language as the type of church 0 written koinė. tų b In the kit ‘Contio’ Another stamboc (221 of leaves in 4°) anonymous collection of Lithuanian, ir Polish Latin sermons written by one ne author, in bibliographies conditionally called ,,Contio”*2. It is stored in the Vilnius University Manuscripts Department (F3-9*) and also has elements of church coine, although these are overshadowed by a very prominent Žemaitijos layer. The collection contains about 20 Lithuanian sermons and their beginnings, 73 Polish and 1 Latin with a second piece, and at the end — a string of Latin moral theological texts “Sumula Theologiae Moralis”.- ..” The Lithuanian sermons are written in the Žemaičių dialect, which is already strongly influenced by Polish, and their text is often underlined, drafted, and difficult to read. Some Polish sermons are marked with the year of their preaching (1718, 1719, 1720, 1739, 1749), as well as the place of their preaching (Postov = Pastova, w Krokach = in Krokach or Krękach, w Mulnikach = in Mūsnieki, Grodnae = in Hrodna). This variety of preaching places indicates that their authors were most likely monks—missionaries. The Žemaitija layer of Lithuanian sermons is characterized by: a) genders with the Žemaitic equivalents of the diphthongs [ie] and [uo] (e.g.: a. sg. dina ‘day’ 1/1**, i. sg. lizowio „tongue“ 6, Jsz witas „out of place“ 10, in. s.g. wieyto ‘place’ 23, g. sg. weyna ‘one’ 27..., a. sg. Juzapa 30, Praet. In 3 pule „puolė“ 45, a. pl. kurius 67, b) genders with ¢ instead of the africate [č]: d. sg. efątem 2, patem „pačiam“ 5, in. s.g. c) genders with expanded [0], [e] instead of [u], [i]: n. sg. kors ‘kuris’ 5, g. sg. lizowio 6, fut. 1 p.g. benksio „baigsiu“ 10, g. sg. ognies 13, praes. 1 p.g. turio 21, n.e.c. zmogos „man“ 6..., past. 3 walked, moved® 10, foot. 3 stoses 12, praet. 15, pp. 13, 15, pp. 15. 3 derb "dirba" 29, wadena 66, n. sg. Poem 16, d) genders with the vowel [a] instead of the diphthong [ai]: tap „taip“ 5, tykta „tiktai“ 10, kursa „kursai“ 11, aba „Jabai“ 28, n. pl. dakta,daiktai“..., e) genders mas „mes“ 5, praes. 3 rek „reikia“ 6, in. s.g. dongo ‘danguje’ 7, in. pl. darbulu t. p., praes. 1 pl. turiema t. p.,eyta „eina“ 15, n. sg. kraus "blood" 16, apley "about" 67, kun "what" 3, adv. tonkie 11, praes. 3 spend,spendzia" 15, a. sg. moni ‘mane’ 22 etc. However, through this ZemaitiSkaji layer in sermons often echoes also the high-Tibetan (Middle-Eastern and Western) genders, which as adjacent genders are often used in the sermons. ** LTB 1, 499; perhaps it would be more accurate to call this collection "Contiones" or "Contio pro Festo" (this is the title of the second sermon in the collection). * Some Polish sermons, judging by the handwriting, may be of different authors, but such a guess requires a special graphological analysis of those sermons to confirm or refute. ** The sermons are not numbered by the author or authors, the pages are marked with a pencil by the manuscript curator, there are 224 in total. 121 taliojasi su žemaitiskais. Iš of the highland probably most often occurs gender diphthong su [ie], e.g. : sg. a. day 4, Vienna 5, n. s.g. right p., t. milk snow, pl. 16, g. days 15, ir su without releasing the limb with the "moving" [a]: sg. n. John's 1, Legs "nude" p., t. wienas noriedamas 7, wardas 11, giwenemas 21, ponas 30, Diewas 46... c)S. Sabulevičius' Lithuanian sermons Comparatively smaller Žemaitija layer than In the Contio ir collection more elements of the church writing foot are Steponas Sabulevičius in Lithuanian sermons, preserved in the manuscripts department of Vilnius University Library (F1, C48). Jų iš total 11 (including ir one with only the beginning in Lithuaniao n, the — continuation in Polish). Po A large number of sermon texts were recorded in Grūšlaukės (Kretingos raj.) ir names and surnames of people in other places (per 200), be to, a Polish entry which determines the iš authorship of the collection of sermons”*: Roku 1728 26 28 date of the plates struck Francifzko Szakinowi tynfow twenty-four to look Peter Grycewicza w The Lips of a Dead Man y w reason chosen Stefan Sabuttowiez“ (p. 55). The following examples can illustrate the Žemaičių layer of Steponas Sabulevičius' sermons: apley „apie“ 5, n. sg. Pons Dyws "Mr. God" etc., Trety dyna "on the third day" 6, ne pule "did not fall" etc. 10, a. pl. tris dynas "three days" 21, pres. 3 mil 46, g. sg. Szaltine 44, cond. 3 ktaulitum 17 in. pl. wylufly darbufly 20, d. pl. tyms „tyms” 8. Such a layer appeared not only because the author of the sermons worked in Žemaitija (Grūšlauke, Salantos)**, but also because he was probably a descendant of the Žemaitija. However, in comparison with Žemaitija (Dūniniškiai) genders, there are also high qualities in S. Sabulevičius' sermons, cf.: g. sg. dienos 6, Diewa 22, a. sg. [karbu arbameyty 12, par anu upy 17, skilely 27, n. sg.dayktas 25,27, skarbas „turtas“ 27, prasitas „prašytas“ 3, praes. 3 geydze 44, katba 23, prt. tyktay 21, n. pl. ubagay 5. Some of the highest qualities may have been used as a result of the influence of the texts of the 17th-century Eastern and 18th-century Middle Eastern Gospels. f)Javorovskis’s collection of sermons. A significantly different collection of Lithuanian and Polish sermons written between 1786 and 1795, which is also in the Vilnius University Library (F3, No. 1487), differs from the aforementioned in terms of dialectal basis. It contains 6 Lithuanian and 29 Polish sermons (at the end of the first Polish sermon in bold ink is written: “Jaworowski Posessor” — the name of the owner). The Lithuanian sermons of this collection differ in that they are quite consistently adhering to the norms of the church’s written code and contain very few vulgarities, cf. : Zr. Biržiška V. Unknown Old Lithuanian Texts —Tauta ir žodis 7, Kaunas 1931, 263. ** Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 2, 41. 122 a) Praet. 3 aplayde 31, d. s.g. awelay 137, v. s.g. duliate ‘heart’ 45, 139, 158, n. pl. laday 32, a. pl. tangwus 67, n. s.g. sauta 29, b) a. s.g. bread to 30, pass. 3 giving in. 67, pl. dayktuofe mazuose 31, wisole alzarose 44..., iefzka šwiesibes 29, n. s.g. snow p., t. wien bajor 30, a. s.g. day p., pl. t. d. aniems 32..., c) d. pl. per word 30, i. pl. the word 68, praet. 3 geydzia 67, d) imper. 2 pl. Aim to ask 29, questions. 68... Only sporadically occurring sexes are ne considered inferiorities. 1 pl. galem 31, praes. 3 left 42, a. pl. 2004-2005 137, pl. Greek 139, fries. pry ‘prie’ 158 (// Prielz 164). In some sermons, the following passages are ir ju marked: Ragusa, Siluva, Panevėžys, Radviliškis, Šaukėnai, Kelmė. O at the end of the po collection, the last sermon, in somewhat brighter ink: „1775 Citovianis Fr. Ant. Monkewicz", be therefore, some words which are readable iš anyway have been deleted: minister provincialis (?). Whether this record is by the author of the sermons, or some other hand, it is difficult to say (prof. J. "LeBron is the next". Word Citovianis here means ‘tytuvėniškis’. If it showed the origin of the author of the sermons, then we would expect more humility in the sermons, but probably this is the name of the parish of the author of the recording. d)Semaška’s sermons in other authors’ collections The Žemaitija layer is also evident ir in some Lithuanian sermons, compiled in one collection together with two Polish manuscripts related to the Reformation: „Pokrėtki Opis poczatkéw Reformacyi“ and „Mowa miana przez K. Leopolda Wannowskiego w Kosciele Stuckim Ev. Reform. on the day of the opening of classes“ (VUB RS F1 —D1268). There are 4 sermons in Lithuanian in this collection. One of them, dedicated to St. On the first page of the book is the date of 1732, and at the end is the name of the preacher Siemaszko (= Semaška). The authors of the other sermons are not identified, but the spelling and handwriting indicate that they were not written by the same hand. Of all these sermons, the most vulgar is the anonymous fourth one, entitled “Pamokstas apej Neczystata” and not dated. There are many different types of functional groups, including the following: functional group n. ipoules 21, n. pl. anij ‘anie’ 23a, praep. apej ‘about’, d. sg. norou ‘norui’ 19a, sutwerymou 17, adv. Paskou 20, wysumet 19a, greyta 17, g. pl. musa „mūsų“ 17, praep. Pri 19, prisz 17a, po smerte 17, g. pl. karalistiu 20a, praes. 3 beng „ends“ 20, nor 19, Nekent etc., užgen [used in the present form!] 17a, parjem 19a, d. pl. anims „them“ 18, g. sg. gimenes 19, praes. 1 pl. Turem t. p., regiam 17a., in. s.g. szirdieje t. p., fut. 1 pl. atimsma 17, drysma 17a, cond. 1 p.g. parodiczio 18, imper. 1 pl. bukiam 21a, Kariaukiam 23a, sergiekiemos... Only occasionally there are genders with high-speaking diphthongs [uo], [ie], e.g. praes. 3 surrendered 19a, sold 19, a. sg. wieta 18a, with a non-falling "moving" [a], e.g. : John the Apostle 18a, saying 17a, act 21a, with unequal [ai]: i. pl. artimajs 20a. These attributes are probably taken from the written tradition. “Lebedys J., Min. veik., 52. 123 In other anonymous ir be dates sermons there is little or no humiliation. ir In the first one, which is slightly different in its spelling (i-diphthongs are written in it su j, The — su y) remaining ones contain a number of g. oriental features, e.g. sg. umzinibes, umzinos // amzinos 1a, cond. 1 pl. giwintumime 1, a. s.g. brown shade ‘seeds’ 5a., golu ‘end’ 1a. walju “will” and 3, “preparedness” Sa, sg. n. %1 miles 2a, daughter t. p., kisdamj ‘tolerably’ (but kentejo 4), cond. 1 s.g. katbeciou 2a, Pres. 3 market 2a, sg. i. m. skumboncjo t. p., adv. never t. p. (// tada p.), t. praes. 3 raikja 3... As can be seen from iš the examples, this sermon contains the word. the sexes ir typical of the rotini and the dadini. Be of that, quite often it denotes the second diphthong [uo] accent in letter a (e. g. : imper. 2 s.g. aduakit 2, i. pl. Get 5, naked. pl. kapaose 1a// sg. g. Make fun of me. 4, i. sg Uoda "skin") indicates that the author's dialect was [0] spread here. The second, Semaška’s sermon, similar to the anonymous third “Pryktodas ir pry Numirelia”, is a translation of the coine genders codified in the grammar of 1737, among which there is one more low-handedness or hypernormalism (e.g. "About Us" 13. Jaunikaytcis 11, imper. 2 sg. Buok "be" p., cond. t. 2 s.g. inpuoltumey 12). e) In the sermons of the pupils of the Troškūnai monastery, the Church’s writing code is also based on the manuscript sermons of rhetoric exercises written by the pupils (students) of the Troškūnai monastery in the period 1774—1799, the collections of which have survived in the Vilnius University manuscript. In one collection (F1-F74), containing 296 pp. in folio, there are only two sermons in Lithuanian (others in Polish and Latin) written by Teofilius Liberavičius (=Lyberio?) and Feliciano Švėgždavičius (=Svégzda)*. In T. Liberavičius’ sermon for Great Saturday (na Wielka Subotę), the Middle Eastern and Eastern genders often alternate with the Žemaičių genders, cf.: n. sg. Sauta 204, g. sg. attaydima 208, meytes 207, a. sg. dideta 205, tironisty t. p., in. s.g. grabi t. p., inf. takioti 204 ir: praep. 205, a. sg. can t. p., i. pl. Zodeys 204, in. s.g. ugnie 207, cond. 2016. pp. 205. In addition, this sermon, whose author may not have been native to Lithuanian, is full of hypernormal genders with the prefixes nuo-, -pridėtitoj nu-, prie-: n. sg. nuoludys 204, praes. 3 nuoramda 207, inf. nuomažinti 204, n. pl. nuomiretey etc. ; n.d. 205, praes. 1 priepazistu 204, a. y. priekalta 207... In E. Švėgždavičius' sermon for the second day of Easter, there is no such dialectal mixture: here only one other orientality (e.g.: a. sg. antru spasabu 209, past 3 katbejo 208, g. pl. tancingu 209) or dzūkiness (e.g., žodzis priepazistu 209, past 3 katbejo 208, g. pl. tancingu 209) occurs here and there. 209). There are no hypernormalisms characteristic of Liberavičius’ sermon. In another large collection (F1-F31), containing 624 pp. in folio, there are seven more sermons in Lithuanian (others in Polish and one in Latin). Their language also does not know8 Their passages see. J. Min.veik., 38-39. 124 node. In some, the church writing foot is more repulsed by lowliness, in othersse — orientals. For example, 1789 m. Fidelio Mažeikos (Mažeika) in a sermon devoted to St. Petro ir There are many different types of sexes. (such as in. pl. Amziuse 116, Preep. apley ‘about’ 119, n. pl. žodey 116, praes. 1 pl. Weydziekiam 118, 2 pl. Listen to me. 121). However, 1791 m. Klemenso Vonenbergo (Windsor, St. Louis). Jono In the sermon dedicated to the day of Nepomuk there is a larger layer of orientalisms, sometimes alternating with lowliness, cf.: adv. su Doug. 125, g. s.g. wirlzows ‘top’ 122, a. pl. brungiausus 123, d. pl. klausantems 122, adv. giarey t. p.,tabey p., t. prielzingey tey tey t. p. ir 124, i. s.g. pamacziu "see, help" 122... (but is: pl. i. Zodeys 122, cond. 1 pl. garbinkiem t. p., praes. 1 pl. Niagale 124). Apparently, the author of the sermon (judging by the surname of former ne Lithuanian origin) more had to learn Lithuanian language eastern iš They are also used in the agricultural fields, where they are used for the production of fertilizer. g) R. Šimkevičius, P. Bukantas et ir al. in the kit Already much more lowliness is in the other End of the a. 18th century (art. 800p. in 4°) in a collection of Lithuanian sermons, 1790-1793 m. ir written also in Vilnius University Library Manuscripts Department (FI, No. C200). It can be said that this collection of sermons written ne by one man (with the names of Rudolfas Šimkevičius, Petro Bukantas, G. Monkevičius)®, the language is a mixture of Žemaitijos and Aukštaitijos dialects, and only a special analysis can show which dialect elements are more present. Since the sermons were preached in Žemaičių and Pažemaitės Highland parishes (Telšiai, Tytuvėnai, Viešvėnai, Kiaunoriai, Šiluva, Šiauliai, Pašušvyje, Dotnuva), the abundance of Žemaičių dialects can be explained by this. But here, as in other cases, the origin of the authors of the sermons may have played a significant role, although we know little about it. ką Among the more characteristic inferiorities of the collection, the following are to be mentioned: a) the Zemiatic abbreviation of the extremities (n. sg. gafs 21, Jons 89, kials „way“ 101, Pons Diews 13, kraws „blood“ 89, dodams 241, eyds 46, dodams 241, praes. 3 giwen 102, nor 143...), b) the 3rd gender of the ja-stame verbs (prees. gale 15, girdzia 115, penie 125, nore 120..., praet. 3 galeje 44, kientieie 126, nieturieje 46...) c) the genders of the imperative clause of the ja-stame (1 pl. imkiem 16, putkiem 38, eykiem 113, Praszikiem 151, kalbiekiem 299., storokiemos 302...), d) the genders apley „apie“ 13, 34..., a. pl. kurius 16, tus 99, duowanas 136 (//n. sg. dowana 216), i. pl. Zodeys 489, praep. part 13, inf. talk 16... However, it should be noted that the main distinctive features of the Žemaičių dialect are few in the spoken collection. It has preserved the high-Tibetan diphthongs [uo], [ie] quite consistently, e.g.: inf. duoti 123 (ir fut. 3 duos 13, imper. 2 sg. duok 25), g. * Example, Lebedys J. Min. veik., 52. 125 mentors, administrative letters). All this, as well as the hypernormalisms that rarely occur ne in the writings of the century, clearly show certain to tendencies of unification of the church style of the Lithuanian written language. Interestir ingly, in some of both Both early a. and late 18th-century writings reflect ir certain characteristics of the eastern Altay and Dzūkian dialects, which add even more dialectal mosaic to the church language. Received 21 April 1998 ABBREVIATIONS AA - Auksa The actor... 1793 Ad” — Altorius Duchaunas... 1759 Ad” by Altorius Duchaunas... 1778 Ad’ —Altorius Duchaunas... 1796 BS — The voice of the heart... 1726 KN -Kniga Nobaznistes Krik$¢ioniszkos... 1653 LB —Lietuvos bibliografija 1, 1547-1861. New York, 1990. LDK -Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė LKJ -Zinkevičius Z. Lithuanian Language History 4, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1990 LKK -Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 38, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 1997. LTB -Lietuvos TSR bibliography 1, 1547-1861, Vilnius: Mintis, 1969 Pav! —Pawinasties Krikscioniszkas...1765 Pav' -—Pawinastis Krykscionyszkas..- .1781 PKr* —Pamokstas Krikščioniszkas...1743 PKr* —Pamokstas Krikščioniszkas...1762 RS — Manuscripts Department SIG —Slavočinskis M. Giesmes.- .. 1646 VUB -Vilniaus universiteto biblioteka THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE LITHUANIAN WRITE LANGUAGE AND THE ORALS IN THE GRAND PRINCIPALITY OF LITHUANIA IN THE 18TH CENTURY Summary In this paper, the phonetic and morphological analysis of the evidence from the written monuments of the 18th century will be used as a basis for the analysis of the The oral basis of the Lithuanian written language was examined in the 19th century in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the hymnals, prayer books, gospel texts, manuscript sermons, fibulae and chancellor's documents. The study shows that the heterogeneous oral base of the 16th-17th centuries Jhs from the 18. In the 19th century, the East-Ukranian variant of the written language was replaced by the Middle-Ukranian (or West-Ukranian). This turn is particularly evident in the edition,,Ewanielie Polskie y Litewskie* 1705 as well as in the grammar „Universitas Lingvarum Litvaniae® 1737. A large number of other religious writings of the 18th. In the middle of the 19th century, the Middle-Laukstaitian dialect was also found, which, however, contained certain elements of the Zemaitic or Aukstaitischen enthilt. Exceptions are the translations „Ziwatas Pona yr Diewa musu Jezusa Christusa® 1759 und, Knigiale apraszanti broctwa“ 1773 from Polish, in which many Zemaitic elements are found. 132 present. In general, the Lithuanian written language of the 18th century is a mixture of different dialects, which is why it can be called ecclesiastical script. It should be taken into account that such a koiné was not only in the 18th century, but in the religious writings of almost the entire 19th century. century was needed. 133