In Latvia. All the more so since the author himself devoted an entire section to describing Lithuanian language islands and traces in Belarus and Poland (pp. 386–388), where he also mentioned the unmarked dialects.

Among the minor remarks, it may be noted that on p. 420 Daukantas’s Būdas is not transcribed accurately: instead of Daukantas’s ī (the diacritic resembles a circumflex), representing a special widespread Samogitian sound [ę], ī is used throughout (pirm gimimo). Apparently the author did not dare to use a circumflex, and the appropriate diacritic was unavailable. Nevertheless, to an Italian reader this notation will be indistinguishable from that used on the facing page (p. 421) for the words anksti, pirmą in the song Mėnuo saulužę vedė, which are marked with a grave accent. Likewise, in rendering the Samogitian text in the Aukštaitian dialect, the word jau was omitted (p. 421, line 1). There are very few typographical errors, though some do occur (on p. 296, Drotivinas is printed instead of Drotvinas; on p. 440, Ramonienė appears instead of Ramonienė; on p. 511, Vanagieni appears instead of Vanagienė).

None of these remarks should detract from the work; they will be important to bear in mind when preparing future editions. Incidentally, among Baltic linguists it is already becoming commonplace to say that Dini’s work is crying out to be translated. Introductions to Baltic philology have been written by Ernst Fraenkel (in German, and translated into Lithuanian by Simas Karaliūnas) and Jonas Kabelka. Dini’s book, however, is a much broader and more comprehensive work. From what has already been said, it is clear that Dini is no stranger to a sociolinguistic approach, as even the titles of some subsections show: “Limited linguistic purism,” p. 365; “Interference with Russian,” p. 369; “Language contacts,” p. 381. The book also includes presentations of cultural theories (by Vytautas Kavolis and Tomas Venclova, pp. 298–300), as well as archaeological data (by Marija Gimbutienė, Rimutė Rimantienė, G. Česnys, and V. Šimėnas, pp. 12–16, 188–190). Today, in the absence of encyclopedias of the Baltic languages, Dini’s Le Lingue Baltiche could also serve as a handy reference work. In keeping with the author’s own inclinations, the work is encyclopedic in scope. Just as it is impossible to cover everything in a review of any encyclopedia, so all reviews of Dini’s Le Lingue Baltiche are bound to remain incomplete. No other language has seen the publication of a book on the Baltic languages of this caliber. Therefore, at the risk of sounding trite, one is tempted to say that it would be important to translate it at least into the languages in which Baltic studies research is most often published: Lithuanian, Latvian, Russian, Polish, German, and English. This is a landmark book for the study of Baltic philology.

Giedrius Subačius

University of Illinois at Chicago

IN MEMORY OF RŪDOLFS GRABIS

Latvian linguists paid a fine tribute to their senior colleague Rūdolfs Grabis on his ninetieth birthday by publishing an interesting collection of articles, “Savajai

257

kalbai“ (Savai valodai. Riga, 1997). Tiesa, knyga pasirodė jau po jubilijato mirties, tačiau švęsdamas savo gimtadienį jis dar spėjo pasidžiaugti korektūriniu jos egzemplioriumi.

In addition to R. Grabis’s own memoirs (Atmiņu druskas, pp. 8–67), completed in 1991, and his bibliography (pp. 306–312), the book contains 18 articles on various topics in Latvian linguistics. Some of the articles may be of greater or lesser interest to Lithuanian linguists as well: Laimutė Baluodė’s “’Exotic’ Borrowings in Latvian Toponymy” (“Eksotiskie” aizguvumi Latvijas toponīmijā, pp. 68–72); Maija Baltinia’s “Word-Formation Variants and the Authority of the Text in the History of the Written Language” (Vārd darināšanas varianti un teksta autoritāte rakstu valodas vēsturē, pp. 73–77); Andrejs Bankavs’s “On Linguistic Terminology” (Par valodniecības terminoloģiju, pp. 78–82); Aina Blinkena’s “Attitudes toward Foreign Words in the History of the Latvian Standard Language” (Attieksme pret svešvārdiem latviešu literārās valodas vēsturē, pp. 83–96); Inese Edelmanė’s “Microfields of Certain Lexemes in the System of Latvian Plant Names” (Dažu leksēmu mikrolauki latviešu valodas augu nosaukumu sistēmā, pp. 131–140); Jānis Rozenbergs’s “Implied Actualization” (Implicēta aktualizācija, pp. 240–246); Marta Rudzīte’s “Dialect in Place Names” (Izloksne vietvārdos, pp. 247–259); Anna Stafecka’s “The Pronoun in Old Latgalian Texts and Present-Day Latgalian Dialects” (Vietniekvārds senākajos latgaliešu rakstos un mūsdienu Latgales izloksnēs, pp. 272–281); and Pēteris Vanags’s “Variants of the Diphthong au in the Oldest Latvian Texts—A Question of Phonetics or Orthography?” (Divskaņa au varianti visvecākajos latviešu rakstos–fonētikas vai rakstības jautājums?, pp. 282–295).

The book also includes articles by Brigita Bušmane, Elga Kagaine, Regina Kvašytė, Sarmīte Lagzdiņa, Daina Nytinia, Kornelija Pokrotniece, Iveta Pūtele, Valentina Skujiņa, and Anna Vulāne.

Those interested in Latvian linguistics or, more broadly, in the history of Latvian culture will read with great pleasure the already-mentioned memoirs of R. Grabis: they offer a vivid portrait of Jānis Endzelīns, the cultural life of students at the University of Latvia, beautiful scenes of the old Latvian countryside, and the hardships and joys of the staff of the Language and Literature Institute of the Latvian Academy of Sciences in the postwar years. Also emerging here is the image of Rūdolfs Grabis himself, a very warm and friendly, perhaps eternally optimistic man. One is tempted to quote the final sentence of his memoirs: “Even back then, when my mother still washed me in a washtub, and later too, she liked to say: ‘Little Rūdy will have an easy life: his washed hair dries quickly.’ And now, as I am turning eighty-five, I would dare to say of my mother’s prophecy that it has held true so far.”

Scientific editor of the book: Aina Bl inkena.

Algirdas Sabaliauskas

258