Lietuvių tarmes pats tyręs ir kitus skatinęs

LITHUANIAN TARMES PATS TYRÉS IR KITUS SKATINĘS (Min 130th J. Rozwadowski- 's birthday) at 1997 the end of the year (Decemb7 er) 100th 130 anniversary of the birth of one of the most prominent Polish linguists Lithuanianists Janas Rozwadowskis. Jo The range of his scientific activities is quite wide: a great classical language expert, a famous Indo-Europeanist, a Slavist Lithuanianist who wrote his works in Polish, ir Latin, French and German. He spent almost all of his academic career working in Lithuanian studies bars. ir Recently, iš one of the greatest Lithuanian works jo "Lithuanian dialect of Zietela neighborhood "Navarra (province)". J. Rozwadowski was born 1867 m. Carnoje (between Tarnuvo ir Dembicos), in an engineer's family. 1885—1889 m. He studied classical philology at the University of Kraków. 1891-1894 m. tobulinose Leipzig, where asked A. Leskien, E. Sievers, E. Windisch lectures, attended K. Brugmann Seminars. 1895 m. returned to teaching at vo the same Krakow high school he had graduated from. 1897 m. after defending his habilitation thesis, was appointed a lecturer at the o University of 1900 m. professorium. In Kraków, Rozwadowski worked until the end of his life. In 1912–1913 and 1915–1916 he was elected rector of the University of Kraków. He was a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences from 1903, its vice-president from 1920 and its president from 1925 to 1929. He was also an honorary member of many national academies and societies in Europe, including the Lithuanian Science Society. Mirė 1935 m. of March 13 d. J. Rozwadowski became interested in Lithuanian language during his studies. And learned Lithuanian perfectly. In the archives of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków there are many extracts and abstracts written in fine and clear handwriting (similar to that of K. Bogusławski) from various, mainly ancient Lithuanian writing monuments. This alone shows that J. Rozwadowski studied Lithuanian language seriously. In 1895, he discovered in a library the 1737 edition of the anonymous grammar “Universitas lingvarum Litvaniae” (“The whole of Lithuanian languages”) and, seeing its importance for Lithuanian accentology, republished it in Kraków in 1896. In the same year, he published an extensive study in German and Polish on the pronunciation system used in this grammar, comparing it in detail with the pronunciation system of F. Kuršaitis. Understanding the great significance of Lithuanian dialects for linguistics, J. Rozwadowskis was one of the greatest initiators of the study of the rapidly disappearing southeastern edge of Lithuanian language. First of all, he took care to find out where Lithuanian is still used. For this purpose, according to the data collected in 1890 by A. Plater about 'Jan Rozwadowski. Lithuanian dialect of the Zdzigciot area in Novogrodziezhye. It's immortal. /Edited by Adam Gregorski. Consultation Jan Safarewicz, Krakow: 1995, 181. Polish Academy of Sciences —Oddział w Krakowie. Proceedings of the Linguistics Commission, No. 59. 242 the existence of the Lithuanian language in Vilnius governorate, he ir 1904 m. published the map “Lithuanian Languages Vilnius gubernijoje žemėlapis" (Map of Lithuanian language in Vilnius w gubernia) "Vilnius". It is considered that J. Rozwadowskis jau 1898 m. Anonymous alias, after processing A. Plater accumulated data, printed the work "Lithuanian language Vilnius gubernijoje plotas“,,,Ob- ( szar języka litewskiegogo w gubernii Wilenskiej“), which he did not risk publishing under his surname because of the sharpened relations between Lithuanians and Poles at the time (more precisely, between unbending and bent Lithuanians), because he did not want to be involved in politics. In 1914, he compiled a map of the Lithuanian language in Greater and Lesser Lithuania, the "Mapa języka litewskiego" (Lithuanian Language Map). Already as a professor at the University of Krakow, Rozwadowski J. į Zietelas neighborhood, where 1901 and 1903m. wrote a considerable number of dialect texts. He has also studied other dialects of the Lithuanian language. Among his manuscripts in the Krakow archives there is a collection of texts (tales and stories) written in the Šakiai region. Sudhargo apyl. (no data). Those texts, not transcribed by Rozwadowski's hand, were multiplied and used as a teaching tool. At the University of Krakow, J. Rozwadowski taught Lithuanian for a long time. J. Rozwadowski's scientific interests are very broad. He has studied the problems of Greek, Latin, Slavic, Celtic and Gypsy languages. In many of his works he relied on facts of Lithuanian languages. His works include “Word formation and meaning of words” (Heidelberg, 1904), an article dedicated to K. Jaunis on the word skutu/ė published in the Lithuanian journal “Draugijos” (No. 16, 1908), “Historical phonetics of the Polish language” (Krakow, 1915 and 1923), an interesting article on lexical relations between Slavic and Iranian languages (1915). In the same year (1915) the Polish Encyclopedia volume 3 published a summarizing work "Baltic languages". After the death of J. Rozwadowski, T. Lehr-Sptavinskis and J. Safarewicz published a significant work “Study on Slavic water names” (1948). In 1908, at the initiative of J. Rozwadowski, the Polish Slavist magazine “Rocznik slavistyczny” was founded in Kraków. In 1913, together with K. Nitsch, he founded one of the most popular polonistic journals, Język polski. J. Rozwadowski, even after reaching high positions and being engaged in various jobs, did not cease to be interested in the Lithuanian language and especially concerned about the Lithuanian dialects of the occupied southeastern edge of Poland and their fate. He attempted to organize a comprehensive study of these dialects. For this purpose, he commissioned the collection of the latest knowledge about the use of Lithuanian language in the so-called Vilnius region of that time. In 1928—1933, O. Chominskis compiled a “Map of the Lithuanian language area in the Polish Republic” („Mapa obszaru językowego litewskiego w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej“), of which only a few copies have survived. The most important sources of this map and excerpts of unfinished commentaries are in the archives tų of J. Rozwadowski (they should have been published). In 1926, at the initiative of J. Rozwadowski, the most prominent Polish 243 ninkai (J. Baudouin de Courtenay, V. Porzezinskis, K. Nitschas, J. Otrębskis) ir was decided to describe various Polish Lithuanian dialects. Pats Rozwadowski apparently intended to prepare for the press A description of the su Zietela dialect in texts. V. Porzezinskis started investigating Lazūnų, o J. Otrębski — Tverets sniff. However, iš jų only one J. Otrebski, while alive, managed to publish Description of the “East Lithuanian Tverečėn dialect” („East Lithuanian Tver dialects“, m.). 1934 J. The work of Rozwadowski "Lithuanian dialect of Zietela neighborhood The book was published more than a decade after the author's death. 60 Not yet known V. The Fate of Porzezinski- 's Manuscripts. J. Rozwadowski was the second linguist interested in Zietela's speech. Iki 1901 m. here had visited only E. Voltaire (1886 ir 1888 m.). Third K. Būga Snakes in the Nest 1906 m. in the summer. J. Rozwadowski investigate Zietela’s schnekt was probably inspired by a famous Polish ethnographer Michalas Fedorowskis (1853 — 1923). The latter, working as an agronomist administering ir estates about Asmena, Gardina, Lyda, Naugardukas, Slanim, Slūckas, Valkaviskas and others, dialectically recorded the Gudi folklore, customs, spells, studied flora and fauna, collected ir old books, various documents, manuscripts, works of art, excavated tombs, etc. He maintained contacts with many Polish scientists and artists. His legacy consists of an impressive 8-volume work Lud biatoruski (The People of Belarus). Fedorowski himself was influenced mainly by Polish cultural figures such as O. Kolberg, Z. Gloger, J. Kartowiczius. His estate in Podole (near Zietela), where these wealth was accumulated, was visited by many prominent Polish cultural people. It was at this time that the excellent storyteller Regina Dargevičiūtė (1876 — 1958) from Zasavica served in Podolsk. He was taught by the Lithuanian teacher Fedorowskis. Was it not this Lithuanian woman who prompted M. Fedorowski to invite J. Rozwadowski, a renowned Lithuanian language scholar, to Podolsk to make himself known, who later (in 1904) wrote: “I devoted my stay in Podolsk (in 1901) to studying the dying Lithuanian dialect in the vicinity of Zietela (Diatlovo)”. The author of this article met Regina Dargevičiūtė, who nursed a small child in Zietela, by chance on one autumn evening in 1957. Regina was small in stature, despite her solid age, quite straight, tall, youthfully shiny. She spoke temperamentally, somewhat exalted, fast-spoken, often swelling her words (she had spoken Lithuanian for a long time). In a short time she seemed to want to tell her whole life. Apparently, her brightest eight years of service were spent with “Mr. Federauskas”, who allowed Regina to learn the tricks of cooking, housekeeping and good behaviour for a couple of years. Not for nothing Regina was proud to tell that she had taught Lithuanian to her master Federauskas and the “Krakow professor” (J. Rozwadowski’s name she did not remember). After that, Regina had to be interviewed a couple more times. It is a pity that at the time I did not know much about the people she mentioned. And when I found out, Regina was no longer alive. A century passed before J. Rozwadowski’s texts of Zietela’s Schnecke were printed. 244 ne The šį previous publication of the work was probably prevented by the rather difficult non-traditional transcription of the texts. This barrier, apparently, was not overcome by the author himself and other editors until the advent of computer technology. He did not attempt to improve the transcription himself, and others were not allowed to do so because of Rozwadowski's excessive authority. After his death, the archives were taken over by the Polish linguist K. Nitsch. In 1945, these texts were handed over to the former Polish ambassador. Vilnius Steponas Batoras University linguist Jan Safarewicz (1904 —1992), who used the former. Adam Gregorski (1906—1993), a classical language specialist, a student of J. Rozwadowski. With the help of the latter linguist, Zietela’s texts were prepared for publication in 1956. However, due to the transcription, especially the non-traditional accentuation, no one took up publishing the work prepared for publication. Finally, the work began to be collected by computer. After Gregorski- ’s death, the printed work was edited and arranged by the Krakow linguist Prof. Leszek Bednarczuk. Another Polish Baltist, a distinguished specialist in Lithuanian language, Prof. Wojciech Smoczynski, has also contributed to this work with his consultations. J. Rozwadowski’s book “Litewska gwara okolic Zdzieęciota na Novogrodczyźnie” consists of: a preface written by J. Safarewicz, an introduction by A. Gregorski, facsimiles of the texts of the Zietela schnekt written by J. Rozwadowski (79 pages) and their transposition (the manuscript was transposed by A. Gregorskis), J. Rozwadowski’s “Material for the description of the Zasečiai (village) schnekt”, A. Gregorski- ’s “Notes on the schnekt language”, his Lithuanian- -Polish dictionary and L. Bednarczuk’s closing word —Post scriptum. A short bibliography of Zietela’s research, a list of abbreviations and an abstract in French are attached at the end. Texts of various themes: songs, translations of poems or romances, fairy tales, sayings, jokes, laments, stories of some customs or adventures. At the end there is a string of beautiful proverbs and sayings. Perhaps most of the texts are written (see pp. 12-34) by Regina Dargevičiūtė from Zasavica. J. Rozwadowski marked them with the letter R. Other texts were written by Mikalojus Tilvikis, Jonas and Vincentas Dicevičiai from Pagėgiai, and by Kyprijonas Bagdelytė, who lived in Teteikiai. However, more precise metrics are lacking. The texts of the Zietela schnekt recorded by J. Rozwadowski remained authentic, i.e. as the linguist heard and was able to record them at the time (they were not edited, corrected or compared later). When writing stories or songs, he could rely only on his own knowledge. There was no established Lithuanian spelling at that time, nor was there a uniform tradition of transcription and pronunciation. From a modern point of view, we could reproach him for various inconsistencies in transcription, pronunciation, quality and quantity of vowels, etc. For example, the vowel € was written four times, i.e. as e (b'Eg'bėk', s'ėdo, zm €ji), é (jėm'ė, nūmirirė, us'sinoré)), ė (m'ėgo, sėd'ei, šėnavoti ‘to respect, protect’) or (pon), sūkn, pramulk''prarijo’). The length of the long vowels was not marked separately. Their length is indicated by a waiting sign. A dash above the letter marked only the length of unpronounced vowels. In Polish, the hard or hardened / was consistently written /(brofūks, gutčį, faido), the soft one differently. The softness of the fat was mainly indicated by the minute mark above the letter 245 o /— (apsisaké, bodis, mari ė), less often on the right side of the letter above (b'ern'el'ii, m'erg'atė, v'ūd'ė). Unknown on the basis of consonant compounds Thu, Fri, tv ir Sometimes the second dot of a au diphthong is written e.g.: £ ketfirtos ketvirtos, ~ nakfot nakvot, ~ sfetimam svetimam, ~ dangofs dangaūs. ~ In Slavic languages, for example, the negative is ne usually written separately from the verbs: n'e būs, n'e pasak'ei, n'ė turi nėturi, rarely nėvedei, erink. ~ n J. Rozwadowski distinguished the premonitions relatively well. However, the efforts to identify the different pronunciation nuances of mixed-language Zieteliškiai have led to considerable inconsistencies. ir Sometimes, it seems, prepositions are confused, e.g.: b'ég'in'édamj, būsi, iškūtė, Tiep'ė m'ielitkas, n'ieko, nutėkčąa, ponas, slūžit' tarnauti’, favorisas ‘friend’, viras greta bica, ish’ cgin ėjau, ITp'€, militkas, niks, pona, slūžina, tavoriso. It is possible that the fluctuation was caused by the emphasis of certain words in the sentence, the pace of speech, the dictation of the text, etc. to mo ir The recorder distinguished three lengths of vowels: long, short and semilong. Unlonged ir short vowels are usually marked with a double left accent (graviu), e.g.: ais "T aisu, ana'she', bus, dūrės, duris, gerėst'better', moma, momiité, pašouk'ė, suru, "Isa. V Simple, single graves usually have insufficiently elongated accents (dephonologized) e.g.: anas a, e, ‘jis’, Anise ‘jie’, beautiful — beautifupo l, bush alu, lak'e ~ Go, to the cafe, to the table, to the lock "Locked", near han, kėjatėmii, say'ėt, us'irak'ė. Sometimes this accent is marked sporadically elongated otherwise always short 54 (bit ‘was’, boculo, lies) and even long vowels (atlėk'ė ~ atléke, ja ~ ją, jėm'ė ~ ėmę, ji ~ j, namop, suri ~ sūrį, šlūbo greta ja, namop, sūris, etc. Because of the dephonological deformation of the occasional words, sometimes the first dementia concatenates a diphthong or a mixed diphthong that is by nature strong, e.g.: aft 'goes, goes', inlindo ~ inliūdo, įimtū ~ irntų, p'irko —pirko, as well as kfdus —klaūs, m'člzas'i —prašo, paktius'é ~ paklaūsė, pam'iršo ~ pamiršo, s'ūnt'ė ~ siuntė, v'ėrk'ė —kraukė, etc. In the second round, the second-round picks were not chosen. Instead of the second accent, the short first accent is usually crossed with a double accent, e.g. dabžrg'i, dant', d'iržas, mrgė, paverkt, rask' irs, Sen, š1U't'i, ten. Sometimes in various writings even strong pure diphthongs: ass, ais'im, sakod, but very, vaiko, etc. How unusual it seems to be that the diphthongs es, oJ of a new origin, formed by the shortening of verbs with the suffixes -€JO, -0jo to the third person past tense forms (the ending 0 falling out), appear to be firmly joined, e.g.: gufei, m'iegoi, n'ežnoj nežinojo", norei, stoi next to gufči, nuorčį, stor. Perhaps in this way Mr. Rozwadowski tried to mark a semivowel; pronunciation or its dominance. In spite of the above mentioned and other combinations of signs used to reflect the characteristics of the extinct Zietela schnekta, Rozwadowski’s unusual transcription has a real basis. It allows an obvious look at the decay of the phonetic system of Zietela’s schnekt. 246 Probably the fault of the informants (Lithuanian language oblivion) texts contain incompatible parts of speech, e.g.: pas'ūvo sūn ald advobn'in'es (=advobninius ‘Silkinius’) maršk'inukiai (p.5), v'is'i (all) pi'irk'atės použ'rak'in'ėtos (p. 38), boba ch'itrast'e (= chytresnė “smarter') that (=cap) Certas (p. 74); roof (=drunk) Kalin'us, alé word'is šiltas, geras(t) kap kalin ėj (p. 74); kap b'édos néera, tai asmokus (=asmoky ‘pinigy’) n‘éra (p. 76). Many of the members of the Zietela schnekt were bilingual or multilingual. Many of them had grown up in mixed families, others had grown up in jų their own families and no longer spoke Lithuanian. o ir Anot K. Even people who grew ir up in purely Lithuanian families spoke Gudi rather than Lithuanian because of the poor quality of Lithuanian. One of the iš main J. Rozwadowski- 's informants Regina Dargevičiūtė had become an orphan early on and served with foreign ir Slavic-speaking people all her life. The language of the informants was therefore not without flaws. Therefore, the varied transcription of J. Rozwadowski is the fruit of his research, the harmonization of people’s pronunciation and recording. The fact that the writer did not take the easiest path of unification is the greatest positive of the texts. Another thing is that the linguist has not always been able to mark the preposition of the vowels, the quantity, the softness of the consonants and so on, but the latter cases are not very common. The surviving authentic notes of J. Rozwadowski’s Zietela texts can amaze many linguists, how neatly and with complex transcription he was able to write a coherent foreign language text by improvisation. The one after another occurring errors or inconsistencies should not damage the name of J. Rozwadowski as a renowned Lithuanianist. The manuscript of J. Rozwadowski’s Zietela Schneck texts has been deciphered relatively carefully. As in every complex work, there are transposition errors and mistakes. Often the syllable is omitted, e.g.: kajke = kūįik'e (p. 1), m'erga = m'érga (p. 24), žanto = žanto (p. 50), sometimes the syllable is changed: gi#a = g'i#a (p. 6), namop = namop (p. 9), nor"ės = nor”és (p. 58), unmarked softness of consonants: kamet = kam "et (p. 4), mo*muta = mo*miita (p. 6), vazaugi = važaug'i (p. 8), unmarked vocal lengths (quantity): mérga = m&rga (p. 4), sun'alis = sinalis (p.7), tok"e = tok e (p. 8). Some letters are omitted, e.g.: jik'esi = ji°k'esi(p. 2), jū = ji°(p. 10), do = dor (<do and, p. 14), words are replaced: Potam kab an'és jem ¢ kult'is = Potam kab jėm ė an'és kultis (p. 52) ir kt In the bibliography section, K. Boega’s work on Zietela’s schnekt is missing, the same E. Voltaire- ’s work, after splitting its title, is mentioned twice. Broch, in his article “Zum Litauischen südlich von Wilna”, describes only the language of Asava and Žirmūnai parishes in Lyda county, and has not visited the Zietela area. These and other inaccuracies do not diminish the value of the publication. The significance of the texts of Zietela’s Schnecke, once written by J. Rozwadowski and now published, is enormous. At the time when these texts were written, Lithuanian was still spoken in the Zietela area by people of different 247 generations: grandparents, parents and children. The number of people who knew and understood Lithuanian ko ne thousand persons, of which the majority were Zasečiai farm, less in Pagirės, Narčiai, Strėla, Teteikiai, etc. ir It is unknown how many Polish linguists J. Rozwadowski- ’s legacy archives still contain many things worth publishing, but the publication “Lithuanian Dialect of the Zietela Area in the Land of Novgorod” will remain one of the most valuable J. Rozwadowski- 's Lithuanian works, enriching Lithuanian dialectology. Už our greatest thanks to all Polish linguists who contributed to the preparation of this work for printing. The linguistics of Europe in the 20th century is inextricably linked to the name of the Polish linguist Jerzy Kurytowicz. Based on the methods of structural analysis, this extremely broad-minded researcher revealed new perspectives in comparative and general linguistics, and his innovative ideas were realized in many monographs and other works, which cover not only Indo-European languages, but also languages of other families (especially Semitic). How alive his ideas and traditions are today is clearly shown by two large collections of articles compiled by Wojciech Smoczynski and published on the occasion of the centennial of Kurytowicz’s birth. One of these collections, dedicated to Baltic and Slavic studies, was published as the fourth volume of the international journal “Linguistica Baltica”, well-known to our linguists (Kurytowicz Memorial Volume Part Two, Krakow, 1995, 333 p.). Another, even larger, collection is devoted to general and methodological questions of linguistics and the development of various (mainly Indo-European) languages (Kurytowicz Memorial Volume Part One. Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracowiensia Vol. II, Kraków, 1995, 593 p.). We would like to briefly discuss that package here. The works published in the journal show how Kurytowicz’s ideas continue and are reflected in current studies of the development of various languages. Kurytowiczius- ’s works are particularly important for Lithuanian historical linguistics because of their methodological and theoretical principles. Of the many articles published in the collection, I would like to draw attention to those in which the subjects discussed could encourage our linguists to reflect and examine more closely the development of the relevant phenomena of the Lithuanian language and other Baltic languages. The biography of the famous linguist, his scientific works and their methodological postulates are discussed in the introductory article by the compiler and editor Smoczynski („Jerzy Kurytowicz 1895-1978. On the hundredth anniversary of his birth“, XIXXIV). Applying a functional approach to language to the comparative grammar of Indo-European languages, Kurytowicz focused not on the individual elements of language, but on their interrelationships and the genealogy of their systems, and defined those relations of language units in terms of their oppositions, neutralizations and hierarchies. 248