J. Miliauskas-Miglovara apie lietuvių kalbos tarmes

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) Bronius PRĖSKIENIS J. MILIAUSKAS-MIGLOVARA ABOUT LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES TARMES Juozas Miliauskas-Miglovara (1845-1937) paid more attention to the Lithuanian language than his peers at school. While studying Russian and Polish grammar at the Reformed school in Biržai, he thought: if ever he would be a learned man, he would write a textbook of Lithuanian language. Living In Riga, in the early 1980s, he decided to write such a lecture. At first in Polish. J. Miliauskas consistently emphasized the great importance of language science. As a fervent Catholic, considering religious worldview as the measure of human value, he called the science of language the first science. Although “the science of the spiritual life of man, the science of faith” is “most necessary of all”, it is second only to it (VUBRS,: 46). Without the science of language, “other sciences cannot be properly developed” (VUBRS,: 32). The importance of linguistics is so great because language, according to J. Miliauskas, reflects the history and customs of a nation. The treasure of the Lithuanian spirit lies first and foremost in language, “Lithuanian is in language”. That is why J. Miliauskas studied it so diligently, so enthusiastically defended and promoted it. J. Miliauskas’s arguments in Lithuanian and Polish about the history of the Lithuanian language, dialects, spelling, grammar and lexicon have mostly remained in manuscripts. His works in the Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library include: „Lietuvių kalbos mokslas“, „Word for the Issue of Lithuanian Grammar“, „Word on the Transparency of Lithuanian Language“, „Errors in Lithuanian Language and Writing“ and others. These manuscripts, although they contain many repetitions and similarities, comprise about 480 pages. In addition, some linguistic views are set out in published letters, in the booklet "The Land of the Middle". J. Miliauskas, who had not completed even four grades, was not prepared for linguistic research. Therefore, "his linguistic interpretations, especially etymologies, are full of dilettanticism, unmeasured deductions and naive reasoning. However, his efforts to revive, enrich and develop the literary language, his desire to make his contribution to Lithuanian literature and linguistics show that he too, considering himself a nobleman, /.../ tried to act for the benefit of the people and culture of his country” (Kruopas 1974: 140). In the 19th century, life itself forced to solve the problems of general language education. Since the end of the 17th century, the Samogitian dialect has been the common written language for a long time. In the last decades of the 19th century, when the Western Highlanders began to actively participate in cultural life, and when the first newspapers appeared in this dialect, it began to be regarded as a common language. Each writer had to decide not only in which dialect to write, but also on the basis of which dialect to create a literary language. 231 Then almost every writer, especially the poet, “was famous for self-taught language studies /.../. In the absence of their own schools, which would shape the Lithuanian ir way of thinking, such studies were an unavoidable condition ma for the creation of Lithuanian poems, figured as a necessity in ir the biographies of Lithuanian poets for quite a long time. /.../“ (Kubilius 1982: 46). J. Miliauskas believed that at first all Lithuanians spoke the same language, but later foreign ba influences spoiled it and various dialects appeared. (he calls them the speakers). Dialects formed in the punitive years (VUB RS,: 5). 1923 m. in the message K. Bugai J. Miliauskas compares the Lithuanian su language to a tree. The tree has a trunk spreading branches that protect tą the trunk from winds. The core of our language is one dialect, o jo branch — other dialects (LNB RS: 1). Having mentioned that the Lithuanian language is full of dialects, — jų about as many as Lithuanian speakers, — J. Miliauskas still distinguishes nine dialects. Thai Viduklė, Šiauliai, Marijampolė, Tilžė, Kretinga, Telšiai, Panevėžys, Anykščiai, Merkinės. This classification gives neither linguistic characteristics nor geographical definition (Ionikas 1972: 321). K. Young, A. Salys, as we know, indicated two main dialects. This is also the case with modern languages. In the introduction to the Lithuanian grammar written in Polish, J. Miliauskas states that each dialect has its own adverbs on its margins, but does not list them. In his opinion, the Viduklės dialect covers a large area of ethnographic Lithuania. It is not only the territory between the rivers Nemunas, Dubysos, Jūra, but also the neighborhoods of Pakapė, Kruopiai, Šakyna, Žagarė, “with small alternations it reaches the Neris (Vilija). This shows that this dialect occupied a much larger area of Lithuania” (Jonikas 1938: 486). Similar dialects are spoken in Šiauliai, Marijampolė, Telšiai, Tilžė and Kretinga. However, they are more or less influenced by German and Latvian. The remaining dialects, —Panevėžys, Anykščiai, Merkinė, —„being for a number of centuries more separated from the Viduklė dialect, more melted as much as they rusted“ ir (Ionic 1938: 486). In his first publications, J. Miliauskas preferred the Žemaičių dialektas. It should be used as the basis for a common language, since it has not yielded, or at least has not yielded, to the influence of foreign languages. Having expressed such thoughts, J. Miliauskas initially proposes to resolve this issue by means of discussion. Addressing Zinovyevs and lovers of Lithuanian literature, he asks them to write “in a known dialect and according to their own rules”, to express their opinion on the works written by others, on the general, partial and dialectal characteristics of the Lithuanian language, “so that in the long run it would be possible, by comparing various opinions and regulations, to draw up general rules most suitable for universal use in literature” (Biržiška 1937: 19). It is even more clearly and precisely expressed in the Scriptures. “All dialects are good and the skin has its own paddle. The dialect will be universally accepted in its time, which will have the greatest and most distinguished writing of all” (Miglovara 1884: 32). After some time, J. Miliauskas' views on the question of the formation of a common language became more and more categorical. If at first he proposed to decide through discussion which dialect should be taken as the basis of the written language, then later, when almost no one doubted the suitability of the western Highland dialect, he became a firm supporter of the Viduklė dialect. In letters, conversations, writings he repeated the same thing: only this dialect should be written. 232 tą He gave several arguments. Firstly, people who have been educated for a long time have regarded Viduklė dialect as the true Lithuanian language. There the writing first appeared. Second, later Gediminas ir other rulers gave ta various instructions in the dialect. Third, XVIII-XIX a. In the first half of the 20th ją century, Lithuanian writers recognized it as the true Lithuanian language. Fourthly, L. Ivinsky published his calendars in this dialect. M. Valančius (it J. Miliauskas considered himself the greatest authority in all cases), well knowing the dialect of Telšiai Raseiniškiai, ir “loved to recognize the dialect of vidukliškė” (VUBRS; : 7). Finally šį tą the dialect mentioned is written also K. Young. It is a pity that no one has written a grammar of Lithuanian in this dialect. So iš The history of the Lithuanian nation and its language came from Viduklė. The Edge of the World — Heart of Lithuania, ethnographic center. The old Viduklė dialect was not only the first cradle of our writing, but it was already known that it, as the core of the Lithuanian language, is the best, the most correct, characterized by the most beautiful sound of words. To show the advantages of Viduklė dialect, J. Miliauskas transcribed two verses of Anykščių šilelis with it. In his opinion, the passage is "exposed in my handwriting even more clearly, not as he himself wrote" (LMABRS: 4). In J. Miliauskas- ’s understanding, why should we give preference to “damaged” dialects, “if there is still a living and healthy primary language, which we do not want to despise like a worn garment: for no fashion suits an old and living language” (VUBRS,: 12). Other dialects have deviated from their original form, from their trunk. The original Lithuanian script was "turned out of the right path and turned to Tilžės and Marijampolės dialects" (VUBRS: 4). J. Miliauskas points out that we all have to know dialects, 0 “the one who writes a work (i.e. grammar —B.P) must first learn the language with all dialects /.../” (Jonikas 1938: 485). However, the learning of dialects seems to be more necessary for general education and knowledge. And on the basis of language we have to take its body, i.e. The Middle Ages. After all, “we know every tree and judge it by its trunk, not by its branches” (VUBRS,: 9). The middle dialect can be supplemented with other dialects only if "something has been erased (worn out) in it, and in the other dialects remained /.../" (Jonikas 1938: 487). The middle dialect is not only the source of other dialects, but it is best understood by the representatives of all dialects. The words in this dialect are easily represented in the Latin alphabet. It is based on the example of other languages: there are several dialects, but only one dialect is written, which is recognized by science. While thinking about writing a grammar of Lithuanian language, J. Miliauskas expressed his opinion about the already written grammar books. He said that he had learned a lot from A. Schleicher, especially from F. Kuršaitis' grammar. But to the author of the written grammar they seemed insufficient because they were based on the wrong dialect. Therefore, he decided to "write a grammar himself, better representing the Lithuanian language" (Jonikas 1938: 483). J. Miliauskas's attitude to earlier grammars, as well as to dialects, changed. Initially relatively favourable verings EF. Kuršaitis, A. Schleicher's 233 grammars, later them, as well as J. Jablonski's grammar, even considered harmful to the Lithuanian language, because they are based on dialects affected by the influence ir of German Polish languages (Kroopas 1975: 130). J. Miliauskas thought that our script had been forming slowly but successfir ully in the past. Iki XIX a. In the opinion of the author, the Lithuanian script of the jo Il-sios side was easy to understand, ir but the o situation changed in the years of the press ban. Then the writers who created it earlier almost laid down the feather. Jų People, who were infected with an evil spirit in Russian schools and did not learn ir to speak and write Lithuanian. ir At the same su time, the Lithuanian press in Tilžė introduced a new trend in Lithuanian su writing with various confusion. Starting to walk Miliauskas sent only writings in the Žemaičių dialektas, J. but wrote in his own spelling. ne ir The magazine wrote to an active contributor that “our spelling (or orthography) is the one built by Schleicher /.../“ (Aušra: 120), but he continued ir to disregard the editor's instruction. O Aušra ir continued to jo correct works written in the middle dialect. The author, of course, was not satisfied with this correction. J. Miliauskas sets out his writing principles in “Raštuose”. Jų follows ir later. Until the end of his life he was dissatisfied with both the scientific research of the Lithuanian language and its practical use. In his opinion, the language situation has worsened since independence. In the present-- day written language, the words of J. Miliauskas are usually written in quotation marks. It is not a pure language, but a paper language, full of all kinds of confusion. J. Miliauskas tries to explain why such a catastrophic language situation has arisen. The main reason is the abandonment of the Vidukliai dialect in written and spoken language. “In the course of the run away from the average talk,” K. Bugai affirms straightforwardly, without any curtains, in his letter, “innumerable errors were made in the writing” (LNBRS: 5). J. Miliauskas, having described the poor language situation and its causes in a relatively broad way, also indicates a way out. It is very simple. There is no need to look somewhere for the perfection of Lithuanian language. It is in the Viduklė dialect, so it is necessary to return to it as the most understandable and best dialect. J. Miliauskas is convinced that his language, based on this dialect, is perfect. Therefore, he stubbornly adhered to his middle-class writing. He was truly stubborn as a true local. He was worried that the booklet "Viduklės kraštas" (The Middle Country) published with his money was not successful: he carried it around the bookstores, but no one bought it. Apparently, because of the strange average spelling. However, he was convinced that this was the true writing. When giving „Viduklės kraštas“ he would write: „Raszau taip, kaip turietu buti lietuviszkai raszoma“ (LA), „According to my understanding, my writing should be universally accepted“ (Juškevičius 1995: 112). He was also a member of the Commission for the Reform of the Lithuanian Spelling. In the letter K. Būga argues that “all our sciences (here we mean the sciences of language — B.P.) are still spoken, until the Lithuanian language left behind in that science has not been corrected with a focus on one of the purest living Lithuanian language” (LNBRS: 7). 234 At the beginning of the 19th century, S. Valiūnas warned D. Poška in a letter in verse that he should not Middle dialects as a benchmark for our language: Don't /.../ wear that The middle of the naked inner Zemgalian called, ir That the language of that one country was not destroyed (Valiūnas 1976: 207). One hundred years J. later, a similar letter could have ne been written to Miliauskas. Only he, doubtless, be would not have received any echo. J. Miliauskas was convinced me of his righteousness in this respect. LITTERACY IR SOURCES Auš r a-Auszra. The newspaper is published by the Lithuanian millennials. 1883, No. 4. Biržiška V. 1937: 1883 m. "Raszliavos pacztas". — In our old days 2, No. 1(6), Kaunas. 1938. pp. 19. "Grammar of the Greek Grammar". —Our antiquity 2. No. 3(8), Kaunas. Jonikas P. 1972: The development of the Lithuanian common written language in the second 19th a. century, Chicago: Ped. Institute of Lithuanian Studies. Juškevičius E. 1995: The Legacy of Dawn Kaunas University of Technology Library. — Book history 22(29), Kaunas. Kruopas J. 1974: J. "Lexicographical works of Miliauskis (Miglovaras)". — Lietuvos TSR Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. A Batch 3 (48). Kruopas J. 1975: J. Miliauskio (Miglovaras) lexicographic works. —Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USSR. A Batch 1 (50). Kubilius V. 1982: XX 20th century Lithuanian poetry, Vilnius: Vague. LA - Lithuanian Echo, 1933 March 18. LMABRS -Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, Manuscripts Department, F 267 —694. LNBRS - Manuscripts Department of the Lithuanian National Library M. Mažvydas, KB 22-104. 1884. pp. 184. "Ivair's Line". First pluksztas, Tilziej. 1976: On the border of the seas, Vilnius: Vaga. VUBRS -Vilnius University Library, Manuscripts Department, F D 902. VUBRS, -Vilnius University Library, Manuscripts Department, F D904. VUBRS, -Vilnius University Library, Manuscripts Department, F 1 F192. VUBRS, -Vilnius University Library, Manuscripts Department, F1 D1074 (Iivaire's dogma). VUBRS, -Vilnius University Library Manuscripts Department, F1 D1074 (Klaidas Lietuviszkoses Languages ir Rasta). VUBRS, -Vilnius University Library, Manuscripts Department, F1 D1074 (Visokes muusu Gadiines). J. MILIAUSKAS-MIGLOVARA ABOUT THE LITHUANIAN DIALECTS Summary J. Miliauskas’ considerations about the Lithuanian dialects are mainly found in his manuscripts. He distinguishes nine Lithuanian dialects: Viduklės, Šiaulių, Marijampolės, Tilžės, Kretingos, Telšių, Panevėžio, Anykščių, Merkinės but he neither gives their linguistic characteristics nor defines their geographical boundaries. J. Miliauskas indicates that every of these dialects is divided into subdialects but he doesn't enumerate them. When the problem of choosing one 235 dialect as the basis the of Lithuanian written language arose the The Western Highland dialect was undoubtedly considered as the most suitable for that purpose. But contrary to this statement J. Miliauskas insisted that only The dialect of Viduklė be should be in used in writing and ground his argumenon ts on facts. J. Miliauskas was the of opinion that during the years of Lithuania's independence the state the of Lithuanian language became even worse and the main reason for this was the rejection the of It is used in both scientific in research and practical use. The only way out such abnormal of situation an was the returning the to His first work in was a in poem, which he wrote in his early years. 236