J. Balčikonio nustatyti „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ svarbiausi principai

XXXVII (1997) PROBLEMS OF LEXICOGRAFY AND LEXICOLOGY. Vytautas VITKAUSKAS MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF THE “LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE DICTIONARY” SET BY J. BALČIKONIS Linguist J. Balčikonis came to edit the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian language” and to lead it not by chance. Already from the time of his activity in the Lithuanian Studies group of the University of St. Petersburg, when he went to collect folklore and language data in the vicinity of Kėdainiai, the idea of taking an interest in the Lithuanian spoken language and the artistic creation of the nation had already taken hold of the student. Considering education his most important work, J. Balčikonis was always interested in dictionaries. Let us recall his letters-urgings to K. Buga to devote himself to the preparation of the “Lietuvių kalbos Zodyng” (Balčikonis II 256-257), even his particular prudence — the agreement with financiers to allocate special funds for the remuneration of the work on the dictionary (Balčikonis, ibid.). With the death of K. Būga, the LKŽ work stopped. In 1930, after long disputes and negotiations, a new editorial board was formed, led by director J. Balčikonis, who had been dismissed from the Panevėžys Teachers’ Seminary and almost had the whole city out of his way. The new editor for Edit Dictionary came with some thought baggage. His aim after getting acquainted with the archives left by K. Buga was as follows: 1. to copy all known old writings; 2. to write down the vocabulary of the living language, as he called dialects and spoken language, as detailed as possible. These were the most important principles of the LKZ, from which others developed: the presentation of the history of each word, the indication of the geography of all lexical units. In accordance with the philological preparation of our intelligentsia at that time, it was decided to translate all examples of dialects into the equivalents of the common, according to the Professor, written language (see LKŽ I, p. VI; Balčikonis I 179). All these things made the LKŽ an important work of Lithuanian philology, because the history of Lithuanian words and the vocabulary of Lithuanian dialects, especially its geography, was what various researchers needed most. This was understood by the then government of the Republic of Lithuania, which allocated to the LKŽ as much money as it was then necessary to write off all printed literature (1547-1930), known manuscripts, and to record dialect vocabulary in the entire area of the Lithuanian language, i.e. In the Republic of Lithuania, the Polish-occupied Vilnius region, Lithuanian villages in Latvia, East Prussia, etc. As Professor has told in the lectures of the special course of lexicology in 1953-1954, the LKŽ editorial staff selected employees who knew their dialect well from various places in Lithuania, personally approached many teachers in almost every village, so that the lexical data would be collected evenly. Especially actively involved in this work were Students of Kaunas (later Vytautas the Great) University, who were taught to write down words during lectures by Professor himself (they are mentioned in LKZ I, IV-V pp. in the preface; there is also described the whole history of the LKZ material collection until 1941, although after that almost nothing has changed —the dialect vocabulary has always been given a lot of attention). Lithuanian dialectologists also worked, they submitted about a million sheets to the LKŽ kartoteka. 1. J. Balčikonis took care to present in detail the history of each word in the "Dictionary of Lithuanian Language" and as accurate geography as possible. The principle was as follows: “Word of the lituanian and written language are included in the dictionary, regardless of whether they are of Lithuanian origin or barbarisms, if these barbarisms have only entered our language earlier and are somewhat more widely known” (LKŽ I, p. V; Balčikonis I 178). The editor of the dictionary has clearly felt the interest of Indo-Europeanists and other researchers in inherited vocabulary, which is why he paid the most attention to it (Vitkauskas 1987: 13-18). See also the note: “The so-called international words (known only from writings) are not added to the dictionary” (LKZ I, p. V). The tradition of careful presentation of the vocabulary inherited from the living language and ancient writings went through all printed and prepared volumes. Since the third volume of the LKŽ, after various deliberations in 1952 (Larin 1957: 119-144), there have been a number of so-called international words, often random and quite recent, used by specialists of individual sciences: gazogeneratorius LKŽ III 191, generalizuotas LK Ž III 234, geometras, -ė LKZ III 240, glauberitas LKZ III 397, gondoljėras LKZ III 482, grafologas, -6LKZ III 497, granatinis, -¢ KZ III 515 (pomegranate apples), granitéti LKZ III 519, gravitacija LKZ III 535, harpūnas LKZ III 787, hektogramas LKZ III 787, heroldas LKZ III 788, hypocrisy LKZ III 790, Aimusas LKZ III 791, ibis LKZ IV 6, ixsija LKZ IV 34, induktyvūs, -i LKZ IV 108, insiniūoti LKZ IV 120, intensifikuoti LKZ IV 124, jodoformas LKZ IV 351, kablograma LKZ V 25, kandeliūbras LKZ V 201, kanoniėrė LKZ V 218, kaolinas LKZ V 225, and so on. Special science terms have decreased somewhat in the subsequent volumes, but in the absence of stronger principles of lexical rarities, often only in the offices of multilingual scientists and without any signs of inheritance, there are many. This, of course, is the principle of common language, of dictionaries of terms, introduced to the authors of the LKŽ during those intense lexicographical discussions of 1950-1952. 2. J. Balčikonis applied the principles of historical scientific dictionary to determine the order of words. This has already been specifically written about (Vitkauskas 1995: 349-354), and it has been shown that after those lexicographical studies in 1952, especially after B. Larin’s adoption of the historical type of dictionary (Larin 1957: 143), the principles of the dictionaries of the general (present) language were also applied to the determination of the order of meanings. Those new principles are so instilled in many LCZ employees that even after obvious theories that are not suitable for historical vocabulary, another type of dictionaries method is still followed from time to time, so not only bérn has the first meaning “boy”, and then “child”, but also va/anda — first 60 min., and then “indefinite time interval”. There is also a non-historical meaning of the word fertilizer. First, the meaning of “substances, with which fertilizes" (i.e. mineral, factory fertilizers), and later for centuries and specially used més/as, then feces (LKŽ XVI 582-583), cf. also the derived word trąšinis, -€ with the same sequence of meanings in the New Times, General Language Dictionary (LKŽ XVI 584). Similarly, the verb tiékti (LKŽ XVI 178) is presented semantically. The meaning is as follows: 1. provide with, give, provide.... working steam is supplied to the turbines. The Intendant's Office supplies the army with clothing, etc. 2. prepare, make, do, repair. He went to feed the pigs leaves. It was made of wood. 3. farsyti, s.v. Anna provided herself with clothes for the winter. My mom's got my coat on. 4. to prepare, to assemble, to stack. I gave my daughters a dowry. 5. prepare meals, treats, cook, make, repair. Old dinner ti€ke. Joval ti€kti and so on. The oldest, of course, the second meaning would be to prepare, repair (mitalo), then logically would go to prepare food, the third — repair, sew, the fourth — prepare (kraitį), then sentences describing new or more recent phenomena with the words.. working steam is supplied to turbines. The Intendant's Office supplies the army with clothing and so on. Also, from the point of view of logic and history, it was necessary to arrange, establish the sequences of meanings of the verbs traukti, tęsti and other verbs (e.g., traukti 1. 2. produce continuously. Pull the wire... 3. after arresting, pull something struggling, firmly holding... 4. drag, dress, mauti... 5. hardly pull something on the surface... (LKŽ XVI 10-11) and so on. I wonder if the original meaning in ancient times meant to pull longer, if the 3rd is not the 1st, if the 2nd will not have been the older meaning in the fifth place indicating heavy pulling with the surface and so on. These are very delicate matters, little discussed and handled. (And why did the author of these lines, one of the editors of those volumes, not correct such things? You know, rolling wheels are always difficult to fix: one meaning is corrected, and who and how will equalize the meanings and connections of all derived words?!) 3. Professor J. Balčikonis wanted the LKŽ to be a root dictionary of individual words, not a cluster dictionary. Exceptions were the derivatives of the prepositions ininkas and -inykas, adjectives ending in -(;), -yn adverbs (bdltas — baltai, baltyn, drąsūs — drąsiai, drasyn, etc.). Prepositional noun derivatives were tried to be placed separately, so that LKŽ users do not have to look for other prepositional nests and perhaps uncommon forms are not created. For example, the derivatives of až-, ažu-, ažuopriešdėliai: ažačia, ažmiršuonis, ažūbalis, ažūdanga, ažūomarša, ažūožodis, ažvačia and many others (LKŽ, I 432-440). In the second edition of LKŽ I tom they were not left — moved to t. XVII together with uzužuo-, žu-(dz.). As shown by the addition of prepositional forms from-(and ni-2.), prie-(and pry-ž.), pér-(and par-) into one nest, there are also created forms that are not present at all in the language |, e.g.: nuoakiai only from nūakiai J (ž.) -LKZ VIII 904, nūoauga only from ž. nūaugos — LKZ VIII 904, ntiobengos from ž. nūbengos —LKZ VIII 906, nuodraikulétas i from vienų žemaičių drausraikulėto —LKZ VIII 917, nuogąstvūs, —-i from ž. nūgastvus — LKZ VIII 924, nūogybaiz ž. nūgybos—LKZ VIII 924 (not accustomed to the use of dialectal genders and precise transposition, I had to read in “Lituanistics” that nūgybay is the suffix -ybadarinys!) ir t.t. Pryaltoris, pryange, pryaukstis, prydaržė, prydėlis, pryduris, prykalbe, prykietis, prylapis, prymotere, prypuola, prystubé, etc. (LKZ X 607-762), the same is done with the prydariniai of the Vysočitian dialect writings: prys, prysakiné, prysakys, prysgalis, iš prysirdis, pryštaryti, ir pryššventė (LKŽ X 763-765), but only prybezdas ž. found himself in a non-existent nest, see pryblandaiis prieblandų (!) neste, prybréksmiais “temstant” —priebrėžmiais, prydévinis —priedėvinis, pryédis “eating to the full” —prieédis, prygera “tip” —priegera, prygrindas “priekletis” — priegrindas, prykaboklis “priekabé” —priekaboklis, pryliptis —prieliptis, priepapis —prypapis, pryveiza —prieveiza and so on. (LKZ X 623-727). It is not known how J. Balchikon would have acted, but the presentation of až-, ažu-, ažuoand other prepositional derivatives (ant-, anc-, į-, in-) in LKZ 1-11, LKZ III-IV shows a completely opposite tendency than the current or recent editors, but the questions of fact accuracy, the problem of finding a word in lexicography are very important (we all remember how the compilers of the 17-volume publication “Slovar' sovremennogo literaturnogo russkogo jazyka” published the first volumes in a bundled way, and from the third onwards each word, even adverbs, is presented separately.) Separately were also presented the ančand antrūgotas derivatives of dialectal prefixes: ancezys and antežys, ančerauža and antgrauZa, ančkala and antkala, ančkrytis and antkrytys, anckelis and antkelis, ančrūgotas and antrūgotas, etc. (Ibid., pp. 107–142). Fluctuated how to present jir /zderives. For example, separately put inavūs it inavūs, įgerklis and ingerklis, jgerklys ix ingerklys, Jalili i inkapiai, jkalas and inkalas, fkaitasir inkaitas, jkalbair ifkalba, etc. There are no new forms for dialects: ingeidziai, ingeida, ingirklis, jgraztis, inkalas, inklodalas, inkravis, —i, iūlopšė, iAldpis, insagté, iAsiauris, inšlajus, etc. The following nouns and adjectives were also presented in separate nests: aktainis and aktainys, antakisir antakys, antežisir antežys, antvalnisir antvalnys, apdrungis and apdrungys, apgirtiir apgirtys, arkliaganisir arkliaganys, atadrekisir atadrėkys, atsilsisir atsilsys, austinisir austinys, baltujis and baltijis, barnis and barnys, brolisir broliai, durys ir dires (LKZ II, 638), dauklisir dauklys, dūris ir dūrys, édmenys sm. and édmens sf. and many others. Currently, the -i and -ys endings of 7-stem nouns are presented in one slot (except in cases where the jy meanings differ, e.g. dūris and dūrys are presented separately, because dūrys has only one meaning, corresponding to the form dūris 5-ąją (LKZ II, 902). Sometimes, in the case of édmenys and édmens, a difference in kinship will have led to a separate presentation. The mentioned incaustic nouns with the endings -is, -ys were presented in one nest, apparently, because the pronunciation paradigm cannot be determined from many vowels (as with the pronoun zus, £0 “that” d. differentiation, therefore it is in one nest with that, that). Of course, for LKŽ users this is a certain inconvenience when looking for the necessary variant of a word (the editors of J. Balčikonis’ time tried to determine this more precisely). 4. For J. Balčikonis, the most important material of the LKŽ was from the living language (from inherited dialects). The first volumes were particularly marked by the abundance of dialectal words and sentences. The commentary of the third volume shows a certain turn in the opposite views expressed in the 1947 deliberations (Žinynas 1949 a: 298-299), in the 1952 conference and in the press (Larin 1957: 142—144). Therefore, it was decided to write the word article as follows: “Illustrative sentences and phrases, as far as the available factual material allows, are presented in the following order: a) sentences and phrases from Soviet literature and the press related to the reality of our socialist life today; (b) the more typical expressions of the folk spoken language; (c) illustrative examples from folklore; d) sentences and sayings from the old Lithuanian writings” (LKŽ III, p. III, this is repeated in LKŽ I, p. V). The political situation in the Soviet Union was unsettling. This is particularly noticeable in LKZ IV and V volumes. However, the emphasis on politicized writings, often pomenki (A. Guzevičius, Kapsuko and others) did not reduce the value of the dictionary too much, because inherited vocabulary dominated, it was needed by the world of science and culture. The further away, the weaker the teachings of J. Kruopa, A. Kučinskaitė, B. Larin (Larin 1957: 143), the authors of the instructions of the third volume. They are now in the shadows. Thus, the LKŽ has retained the most important scientific principles of the LKŽ provided for by J. Balčikonis, differing only in details (presentation of prepositional verbs and verb nouns, especially those with dialectal prefixes and suffixes, and also this and that). This most comprehensive collection of Lithuanian vocabulary will always be important for our language researchers. Balčikonis J. I-II: Selected papers, 1, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978; 2, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. Larin B. A. 1957: Kratkij istoričeskij obraz litovskoj leksikografii. —Leksigraficeskij sbornik 11, 119-144. LKZ I-11, —Lietuvių kalbos Zodynas 1, Vilnius, 1941; 2, Kaunas: Valstybinė enciklopedijų, žodynų ir mokslo literatūros leidykla, 1947. LKŽ I-II, —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1-2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968-1969. LKZ III-XVI —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3-6, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1962; 7-9: Mintis, 1966, 1970, 1973; 10-15: Mokslas, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1991; 16: Mokslo ir enciklopedijy leidykla, 1995. Vitkauskas V. 1995: The history of the word in the academic "Dictionary of Lithuanian Language". * As far as we know, the language of his novels has been edited by D. Urbas, a great teacher of the living language, perhaps avoiding repression (from a conversation with him on 24 April 1988). Vitkauskas V. 1987: J. Balčikonis's į inherited lexicon. — 1949: A review of the editing 26, 13-18. and publication of the great and general Lithuanian language dictionaries. —Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 301-305. Handbook 1949 a: Consideration of the Great "Dictionary of Lithuanian Language" Volume II in the LTSR MA. — Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 10 298-299. THE MAIN PRINCIPLES OF “LIETUVIŲ KALBOS ŽODYNAS" (THE DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE) ESTABLISHED BY J. BALCIKONIS Summary The linguist Juozas Balčikonis prepared “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas*' as a more concise Thesaurus. 1. The dictionary was to be a historical dictionary: its corpus was to contain all the words from written records and the live language (J. Bal¢ikonis’ term for dialects). 2. The meanings of the words were to be arranged historically, according to their formation (a historical dictionary principle). 3. “Lietuviy kalbos Zodynas” was to be a dictionary of separate words, forms and derivatives not a dictionary of word families, the latter being rather inconvenient for its users when they have to find a language fact in it. 4. The most important for the editor were the dialectal data, which were abundant in the dictionary. From 1948-1952 ideological deviations from J. Baléikonis’ principles were observed (the principles of the historicity of meanings, the priority of dialectal material were ignored, many short-lived international words found their way into the corpus). With the wave of politicised criticism having abated, the main principles established by J. Balčikonis are gradually being reinstated. 10