Prano Skardžiaus laiškai Williamui R. Schmalstiegui

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) PRANO CINCH LETTER WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEGUI' [1] Washington, D. C. 1970.1.23. Dear Tamsta, J. Mikkola's Baltisches u. Slavisches (1902/3) is not in the Library of Congress; those booklets are not shown in the Union Catalog, so they are probably not in this region; maybe somewhere in a public library could appear? A few days ago I received the proofreading from Baltic Linguistics. - Thank you. Now I'm reading a little bit. Whether I will be able to write anything about it, I can only say later, when I am properly acquainted with the whole publication. In the meantime I have already reviewed and I am a little bit adding to my written linguistic work Lithuanian water names with -nt-. This work is about 100 pages in total. Because of the lack of direct sources of the Lithuanian language, I have, of course, not been able to properly solve all this greatly complicated and confusing problem — I have left a number of things open for the future — but I hope that I will have moved the whole question somewhat forward. It would be better to publish it in a foreign language, but I doubt that I can do so. Because I will work in the library for the last year, after that I will have to reorganize, and therefore I don't want to stay any longer; on the other hand, I'm really tired of it. Finally, the Lithuanians want to publish the work themselves, although for the wider Lithuanian public it is “too dry”, i.e. impractical. Next to this, another work of mine is already being printed — An earlier and a present use of the Lithuanian common language. It is a descriptive historical work, partly related to practice. I would like to highlight the similarities and differences between the pre-war and post-war Lithuanian common (literary) language. Su didžia pagarba * All published here Pr. Tin letters are written in Lithuanian. They are typewritten, except for the handwritten letter dated 11 May 1970. Spelling and punctuation of letters has not been corrected. The letters may be of particular interest to Lithuanian language researchers because of the problems of historical grammar of Lithuanian language that are discussed in them. They also provide some material for the biography of our famous linguist. Copies of these letters were handed over to the Lithuanian Language Institute by Prof. W. R. Schmalstiegas, and prepared for the press by A. Sabaliauskas. 27 [2] Washington, D.C. D. C. 1970.5.11. I am very grateful to Mr. That thing! Tamsta you have asked me this thing once, and I have answered Tamsta as much as I could; now I can't add anything new. This is quite a confusing thing. Chr. Stangas only uses A. Bezzenberger's BGLS,, but does not provide more information from anywhere else; does not critically discuss the same BGLS examples; and the examples of the present language, dialects, do not confirm this. Finally, here comes the whole bivolar ze (ei):ai origin problem. It seems to me that this has not yet been properly resolved. Aš I myself have touched on this in part in ZfslPh XXVI, 375-382(1958). It's a pity that Kazlauskas can't come here. If Tamsta will be in Vilnius this summer, please congratulate Zigmas Zinkevičius, K. Ulvydas, J. Kruopa, Vanagas from me. Ms. A. Coffins. Su didžia pagarba [3] Washington, D. C. 1971. III.12 I am very grateful to Mr. It is a pity that Tamsta, not having properly read all my booklet, you immediately concluded that “there is no need to blame A. Lyberis, J. Kruopa and others in Lithuania too much”, because “they are very nice people and do as much as possible to support Lithuanianness”. I know this very well: A. Lyberis, J. Kruopas and K. Ulvydas are my old acquaintances; the latter are even formerly my listeners. I have no doubt that they care greatly about Lithuanianness, and I do not blame them or attack them for that. I tried to talk with them in a professional way in the booklet, and where necessary, I even support or justify, for example, V. Ambraz, A. Sabaliauskas or K. Ulvydas. But where they classify us, the pre-war linguists, without any distinction among the bourgeois linguists, or simply call us so, impose on us anti-people, contempt for the popular language, or a primitive attitude toward the supposed Slavicness of words, and at least a few times accuse us of purism, there I have spoken a little more openly, and this only when speaking about linguistic matters and not touching on any ideology or politics at all. Anyway, I tried to be restrained, and in some places I even attribute great merit to Lithuanian linguists. I think that if Tamsta gets better acquainted with the whole real situation, with the actual development of that situation, maybe you will begin to evaluate something in a different light, not only in the current but also in the pre-war perspective. I can't say anything about the cause of Kazlauskas- 's death. I hear many rumors, but I can't believe them; unconvincing and /Freedom opinion. In the last issue of Pergalė, B. Savukynas writes very favourably about J. Kazlauskas as a linguist. 28 Everything could have happened on the other side: circumstances could have been such that J. K. himself could be heard in the Neris, but he could have been murdered so cleverly and then submerged in the Neris that no one could even think of anything suspicious. Meanwhile, in the reports of the other country, it seems that not everything ir has been said or not wanted to be said, and therefore some things remain unclear, suspicious. I am not drawing any definitive conclusions from this whole story yet: we have to wait for more authentic, more reliable information. Su didžia pagarba Pr. Skardžius NB. Today I finished writing and sent to Aidas a review of Lithuanian dialects (Chrestomatija). Maybe in April. [4] Washington, D. C. 1971.X.17. Didziai gerb. Tamsta, First of all, I sincerely thank you for the excellent translation of my article summary into English. Thank you also for the photocopies of the letters: sometimes those letters are interesting, especially as they sometimes show linguistic moods. After searching, I found several prints of J. Otrębski- ’s grammar review; I'm sending one of them to Tamsta. On that occasion, after reading your review, I started to be more interested in tomorrow. height. ds. in nominative forms like Avres, etc. This is a major problem that has not yet been properly resolved. J. Kazlauskas in his grammar (p. 198) believes that this ending -/6s over -eis < ide. -eyes (cf. ancient Indian avayas, Greek poleis, etc.). These opinions are V. Mažiulis, see his Relations of the Baltic and other Indo-European languages 297 etc. But it is not entirely clear why e before s, as in Chr. Stangas notes, would have disappeared very early, and meanwhile the same e of consonant stems ds. in the nomenclature in part still remains, e.g. Hearts, women, etc. — it is one; secondly, how could the abbreviated, unpronounced ending -eis later have become -/es? On the one hand, the analogy would be tomorrow. 29 height. adjective ds denominator ending -out (e. g. of the beautiful "beautiful"), usually derived from iš -awes, but close -aus is an ending ir -uos (e. g. beautiful “beautifuo l”), next to nom. pl. limbs -/es is no longer used anywhere -ers. Iš other side of the thigh “eyes” ir etc. tesutampa only in the Tverečėn dialect next to akys dkes, in the old ir monuments of Lithuanian language in other present ir dialects such, at least so far, have not been found. Therefore, even now it ir seems to me that the limb -7es is a creature of later times, probably ir contaminated. The beginning, as J. Endzelynas and Chr. Stangas believes that it could have been formed by the pronouns anys and anié, patys and patiės, etc. This may have contributed to the same Tverečiaus dialect nom. pl. anes, akes next to anys, akys, etc. ; my as argument used forms sniénga from sniégti (sniéga) + snie for that purpose, obviously, is not suitable therefore automatically falls. ir As if on purpose, in one of my articles I touch on nom. pl. forms of sheep and so on, so it would be very interesting for me to experience what conclusions Tamsta you have come to in this matter. I would be very grateful if You could send me at least a photocopy of your ar report, part of that photocopy, to see. Recently I wrote a review of aš Donum Balticum, in which I came to quite different conclusions aš than E. Hampas: it still seems to me that tomorrow. height. priemnė, priené is abbreviated from priemenė, similar to e.g. Dustos from Dusetos, kélniosi$ kélinios, šulnysfrom Sulinys and others. In addition, the premen is known not only to the eastern, but also to the far-western highlanders; Here also belongs the land. prefix (see prefix and sub-prefix). Preemenė is actually "front room, front, Vorzimmer, vestibule", and therefore, as K. Būga thought, it could easily be composed of * preima-"front, front-side". Mr Hamp is very artificially confusing the whole thing. That's it for now. I'll wait for Tamsta to tell me. With sincere greetings Pr. Skardžius [5] Washington, D.C. 1971.1X.9. First of all, thank you for Didziai gerb. Tamsta, the excerpts from Tamsta's article. It is true that they try to say something new and, as you write in your letter to Tamsta, to say it boldly. But there are not many completely new ideas in science. He has said a lot of new things, e.g. E. Benveniste savo knygoje Origines de la formation des noms en indoeuropéen; many of his ideas are repeated by V. Mažiulis in his latest book. The further back into prehistoric times, the more boldly it is possible to solve various linguistic problems, and, conversely, the closer to present times, the more difficult it is to do so. 30 į For example: H. Krahe had formed a very beautiful image of the suffix -intvartosena in ancient V. In European languageir s, he had even created a whole logical system of meaning for this kind of word ir formation, but as it later turned out, it meant quite differently in different languages at different ir times. It could very well be ir su This is the universal monophthongization of the old times: in one place it meant, elsewhere it could ji not be at all. o ir Or here J. Kazlauskas my (and, as far as I know, Tamsta agrees with him) that dialectal forms of verbs such as dė "did", std „stojo“ are the seremains of the nova, o dėjo, stdjo later — reconstructions. But in the present dialects we find great ir "great" — what is it: an ancient remnant of a later ar abbreviation of greater (didéji)? The second assumption seems more reliable to me. First of all, it is necessary to properly, thoroughly investigate this in the present Lithuanian dialects and in the language of the old writings, and J. Kazlauskas did not do this — he decided that it seemed better to him. The same remains with sheep "sheep" and so on. : Tamsta also don't try to explain the emergence of the ending -7es from the Lithuanian language itself. Forms p/ataus „platūs“: platuos „t.p.“ looks good next to * akeis „akys“: akio „t.p.“ p.’. But according to Tverečius and others ryt. dialect data is not yet seen at all, that the ending -ers would easily, without anywhere anything, become -7es. It's the same morning. height. dialects know the ending -ys: avys and others. Here, in the letter, I cannot go into further criticism, I can only say that Tamsta’s explanation of the matter is more presumptuous, hypothetical, not really convincing. Therefore, I think that there is no need to refer to my letter in Tamsta's article. I believe that Tamsta will send me his report, already written or printed, as he did to others. That's what I'm waiting for. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Toronto conference: it is impossible for a pensioner. Su didžia pagarba [6] 1972.II.21 Dear Colleague, Many thanks for New thoughts on Indo-European phonology, for the glossary of linguistic terms and the print from ZfslPh. Tamsta's report on primitive monophthongation was very interesting to me: I read it in a stand-by mode. Reading the whole thing gives a more complete picture than reading a part of it. First of all, everything that you say in this article, Tamsta, is a large preconceived hypothesis, the outlines of which you then try to find in the individual Indo-European languages and, mostly by deductive means, go31 when you get to the individual facts, it is no longer difficult to find the reflection of your hypothesis everywhere. For būdu example. skr. "A-ha - I'm Sorry". goddess< *dei-woy, but skr. devi < *deiwey t.t. ir How all these varieties should be explained phonetically phonologically, meanwhile, ar is not explained. Perhaps senų there were other laws of this kind in ancient times? Maybe this is only structurally explainable? After all, these very distant hypothetical things can no longer be supported by later arguments. On the other hand, the proof (proof ) according to Tamsta is just like a beauty in the eyes of the observer… So the problem of the ė-stem of Lithuanian nouns, it seems to me, is still not properly explained: to the several hypotheses that have been made so far, Tamsta now adds one more. It will be interesting to see how this will resonate in the thinking of other researchers. On this occasion, I would like to make the following remark. ką The same kind, Slavic kaip roots ply-ti, kry-ti, ry-ti, etc. ir are or could have been known and in the Lithuanian language corresponding roots krū-, pli, rū-. For example: let. krū-snis ‘heap of stones’ or pile of stones ‘t.p.’, Latvian kruts „rises, hill, hilltop“ ir etc. shows nearby krduti beens ir * breast as next /duzti is lazti or near krd-snis was *crots „rinkti“ (=latviy kraf) kt. ir Šalia let. vé-jas, Slave. vejatiir kt. There is also a verb form vets in Chilinski's Bible language; The word wind has vé-tra, vé-tyti, skr. va--tah "wind", va-ti, etc. It is doubtful whether here the root veyra appeared only in pre-vocalic position, and vėj- —in pre-consonantal position; I still think that -/ in the word wind, slav. wiejati and others. has been rather adverbial, not root. Terms Zodynély I noticed some doubtful things, certain shortcomings, inconsistencies, etc. For example, anonymous is not only an anonymous work, but also an author. The sounds of a language or dialect are the whole of the sounds, thus vocalism and consonantism. Koiné is called a common language, formed on the basis of some prevailing dialect, but there is no /etuviy common language “standard Lithuanian language” at all, although it was already widely used as a term in Lithuania before the war; in part, it is already being used there and now; but as a term this name is already taking hold in linguistic literature, for example, in the recently published work of Dr. P. Jonikis General written language formation in the second half of the 19th century. National literary language" is derived from the Russian national'- nyj literaturnyj jazyk, and in Lithuania itself the mainly used /teratariné language is the "common language- ", which in fact is only a literary language. There is only one adverb afga/, but the adjective atgalinin is omitted altogether, and therefore there are neither important established terms with that adjective, e.g. atgalinė (regressive) asimilacija, retrograde derivative „Rūckbildung, retrograde Ableitung“ and so on. A noun is not just a “Substantive”; it includes nouns and adjectives, so in German it is correctly translated Nomen, Nennwort. There are also no already used Lithuanian terms pérrasa „transcription“ (apparently, compiled by A. Salis, used in Lietuvių enc-joj and others), pérbalsa „ŪUmlaut“, pérkaita „Veranderung, Wandel“ (e.g. consonant change, Lautverschiebung®) and others. "Inflexibility, inflexibility, inflexibility". And so on. I might have to write more about this elsewhere. 32 Lituanistikos Work Volume III will appear my J. Kazlauskas- 's grammar review, where our opinions on nom. pl. vagiesir kt. almost no longer differ. All, I write ką here, are only my first impressions, so should not be used to elsewhere. Su with sincere greetings Pr. Skardžius [7] 1973.18. Great Mr. That's it, thank you uz K. Korsako ir V. photocopies of Maziulio's letters, but I did not find aš anything ko special: the first is satisfied only with communities, the second is o greatly interested That's cooperation in Baltic. A few days ago I received aš iš K. Corsack- 's letter in which he On behalf of the Lithuanian ir Language and Literature Institute, he promised to help me with the facts ir Some of the current members of the institute are: general language affairs. K. Korsakas is an old acquaintance of mine, since my student days, and he is well known in Lithuania as a Marxist literary critic. Tamsta, it seems to me that you have understood the Lithuanian Scouts quite narrowly: they are a patriotic religious youth organization, for which any communist propaganda is unacceptable, and therefore they cannot tolerate it in the publications they publish; on the other hand, linguistic work, even popularly written, is hardly possible for them, all the more so since they themselves are poor enough to publish books of more specialized content, and therefore cannot be required to be more interested in linguistic content; they are, of course, not as linguistically educated as Tamsta’s students, and perhaps only one of them will be partially interested in Baltic studies or only in one other subject of Baltic studies, perhaps more in Lithuanian language. It is a great pity that such a talented and restrained linguist as A. Sabaliauskas is not getting well. This is a real disaster with Lithuanianists: recently died J. Senkus, J. Kazlauskas, J. Lebedys, E. Mikalauskaitė, here Z. Ivinskis, A. Salys and others. It's destiny. A. Salys is an old colleague of mine: we both entered the university in 1923, after a long line of work. While still laiką abu drauge dirbome, ir aš gerai mačiau, kiek jis ryžosi į konkrečius moksat the University of Lithuania, I offered him to write a comprehensive Lithuanian grammar for students, but nothing came out of it: promises remained promises. Besides his excellent dissertation, he left his translations of Lithuanian mių paskaitas, bet tai surašė jo paskaitų klausytojas J. Labokas, ne jis pats. 33 Another important work is The dictionary of Lithuanian written language, to which he contributed from the middle P of the letter: here he did quite a lot of good for the study of Lithuanian language and general ide. linguists; but that work was the most important reason for his early arrival in this land, thanks to the care of Prof. A. Senn. As a good language oriented and erudite, he wanted to publish only good, already well-processed works, and therefore he wrote few of them. At the University of Philadelphia, he had to take many courses that required new preparation, because he had not studied them specifically. In this region I did not have the opportunity to talk with A. Salis about his works, but from his interview on the occasion of his 60th birthday (which was published in the Drauge) I learned that he had intended to write a kind of etymological historical dictionary of the Lithuanian language, which was to differ considerably from E. Fraenkel’s dictionary. He was already partly preparing material for this, writing various linguistic historical articles in LE (= Lithuanian Encyclopedia, 1-37, Boston, 1953-1985, A.S.) mainly about Lithuanian names, e.g. Jogaila, Vilnius and others. He also went to Lithuania to pick up material for this purpose. But, as always, all this determination went very far and did not take concrete form before his death. In my lecture at the Congress of the Lithuanian Institute in Chicago I also expressed the idea that lit. etim. the dictionary must be written nowhere else than in Lithuania. It is not easy for Lithuanians here to cooperate with Lithuania: there ideology, politics, not science is seen in the first place. For example, I sent Lit. to Prof. Z. Zinkevičius twice. The proceedings of the Institute’s congress, where Tamsta’s lecture on J. Kazlauskas was printed, but he did not receive it at all. Lithuanian rulers understand cooperation very unilaterally. How and how much linguists can work in Lithuania, we can clearly see from their work. But, it would seem, and there is not everything without some obstacles; for example, this is partly demonstrated by the tragic death of the young and well-groomed linguist J. Kazlauskas. Neither Lithuanianists nor Baltists can do much in this region: there is a lot missing, especially rich Lithuanian language sources; on the other hand, Lithuanian, or rather Baltic, studies are quite rare here, and not as independent subjects, but in many cases as a part of comparative linguistics or as an appendix to Slavistics. Since the study of the present Lithuanian language or its history is hardly possible here, so far there have been very few more specialized linguistic studies, monographs, except for e.g. A. Senno Handbuch der lit. Sprache, G. B. Ford's publications of the Old Lithuanian language and so on. Therefore, it is understandable that the most important work of Lithuanian language science and Baltic studies in general can only be done in Lithuania; elsewhere may appear more only individual studies. K. Korsak’s cautious opinion about Lithuanian works is quite understandable. It is difficult for me to judge about the broader prospects of further development of Baltistics. On this occasion, I will ask Tamsta again for help — to translate one short summary into English. Volume III of the Works of the Lithuanian Institute presents my more special monograph “Lithuanian water names 34 su -1f-." When I get the proofreading, I'll write the summary immediately ir I'll send it to him. That's it for now. I have spoken on individual issues on which my opinion That can be a bit interesting. I wish him success in his Baltic studies: Tamsta can do a lot with his determination. ką Su with sincere greetings Pr. Skardžius [8] 1973.1.14 Great Mr. Tamsta, I'm glad that aš I can help him, ką although my help is ta very small in the current circumstances. You’re a science enthusiast, you’re dedicated to science, so the scientific mood is fascinating. ši ir mane Aš I have lived all my life in the worry of science, but in the last quarter of the century I have been able to do aš very little real scientific work: several of my scientific works, which I had conceived and partially begun, were left unfinished by an ji unexpected disaster. Dar In Germany I had agreed with the university publishing house of Goettingen that I would translate my Lithuanian word making into German, and almost a third of that work I had already done, but the circumstances here did not allow me to finish it. However, my focus on science has not diminished in any way. And I am very happy that sometimes I can talk with Tamsta about another subject of science, although I can not always go into everything more deeply due to lack of time. Now, thanks to A. Sabaliauskas’ booklet Words are alive. Tamsta, you did very well to translate that book into English, and it should be published somehow. The Lithuanian scouts of this region are not very suitable for this purpose. A few days ago, I met with V. Trumpas, a historian, former assistant at the University of Lithuania, but now working at the Library of Congress. He thinks that this book might be published by „A. Mackaus Knygų Leidimo Fondas, whose manager of affairs is Mr. G. Vezys (6349 So. Artesian Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60629). This man is a good acquaintance of Mr. Trump, because he (Mr. Trump) belongs to that Fund and, apparently, is even a member of the Board of that Fund. This Foundation is a group of liberal people; if Tamsta decided to apply to the Fund, V. Trumpa would provide the necessary assistance; just let me know when you decide to apply if you're not already involved elsewhere. I would also support that march. V. Maciūnas in his time has reported that the proofreading of the aforementioned paper will be 35