Dėl kai kurių žodžių naujojo kirčiavimo vertės

VILIA LAZAUSKAITĖ ON THE VALUE OF THE NEW PRONUNCIATION OF SOME WORDS* In reviewing the "Dictionary of Zoology Systematic Terms" published in 1920, K. Būga stated that in dictionaries it is absolutely necessary to mark the accent and the accentuation, because "the words spread in the language from the writings are pronounced inhumanly by our intelligents, i.e. they place the accent where the folk language does not have it. And so they distort the words" (Būga 1961:785). K. Būga points out that intelligents know the words Audra, yda, Oda, proga, rūšis, siela of constant pronunciation only from scriptures, so many of them pronounce audra, yda, oda, proga, rūšis. Later, J. Balčikonis stated the same thing, as did K. Būga, having noticed that the intelligentsia tended to change the pronoun and even the place of accent of an unknown word (Balčikonis 1978: 95). Ignorance of authentic (i.e. inherited pronunciation) variants was and is treated as a violation of the general language norm. B. Stundžia supports the claim that the terminal pronunciation of nouns has become the norm in Lithuanian by analysing specific facts, i.e. by providing statistical data on the accentuated variants of two-syllable nouns (Stundžia 1984: 88). The author claims that the root-terminal variants are dominant (285 words, or 8696), of which the productivity of the 2/4 accentuation paradigm (50.2% of all variants) differs sharply, for example, bala (2) / bala (4), lėkštė (2) | Iėkštė (4). Approximately equally 1/3 (18.2%) and 1/4 (16.7%) of the accent paradigms, e.g.: birch (1,3), price (1) /price (4). According to B. Stundžytė, nouns of the prrevowel, i and o stems tend statistically significantly to terminal pronunciation, and words of the —e stem (e.g., kduge (1) /kaūge (2) (Stundžia 1984: 88). This means that the choice of the pronunciation variant could be linked to morphological factors. The morphological factor is particularly important for the accentuating power of the roots of the primary nouns with two stems (Stundžia 1995: 33). D. Mikulėnienė associates the emergence of variants of terminal pronunciation with the general tendency of colloquial language to degrade the pronunciation of conjugated words kir¢i wimg. Therefore, in her opinion, two types of pronunciation are summarized in the language of urban inhabitants: the 1st and 2nd accents — as the paradigm of the fixed stem pronunciation, and the 3rd and 4th accents — as the paradigm of the mobile accent. * I sincerely thank doc. dr. V. Vitkauskas for the proposed topic of the presentation (and this article). 111 The pronunciation system of jamb words shows an important thing — a steadily weakening connection between the place of the accent of the word and the preposition of the penultimate syllable. The author tends to explain the loss of this connection with the influence of the pronunciation system of Slavic languages (primarily Russian) (Mikulėnienė 1993: 78). The terminal pronunciation besides the ancient root pronunciation is also observed in dialects, for example, Oda (1) Kv /oda (4) Gs (nj.), PIv (nj.), Skr (nj.) (LKŽ VIII 993); track (1) Klvr, Mrc, Rdn, Rm, Ukm /track (4) Krž (n.), Pv (n.), Škn (n.) (LKZ X 785); species (1) KI, Rt, Sg, Sr, Trk /species (3) Jrb, Sb (none), Žln (none) (LKZ XI 1030); siela (1) Rtr, S /siela (4) Slk (nj.) (LKZ XII 518). In the first edition of the LKZ, only the variant dudra (1) is given (LKZ I 375). In the second edition the storm (4) (LKZ I, 458) is given only from DZ.V. According to Vitkauskas, “this is quite correct (we all know that the pronunciation of the spoken language in many parts of the Baltic countries has already a terminal pronunciation, but it is hardly important for historical research — this is something that must be known for sociology, for the future of accentology)” (Vitkauskas 1987: 16). In the “Lithuanian language dictionary” additions record, there are both pronunciation variants: dudra (1) End, Klp, Krš, Ms, Pišk, Prk, Trk /audra (4) End, Grnk, Kpr, Snt. The “North-- East Swamp Speaking Dictionary” only presents the word species variants with altered stem: rise (1) and rūšė (3). The nouns dudra (1) and proga (1) are indicated as having constant pronunciation, other words discussed in the article (oda, siela) are not mentioned. In Lazūnų and Druskininkų dialects the words „tundra- “, „oda“, „proga“, „rūšis“, „siela“ are not inherited, so LzŽ, DrskZ are not mentioned at all. Thus, even from the few collected facts, it is clear that the pronunciation of the words in question varies even in dialects. A.Girdenis tried to find out the reason why the final pronunciation of nouns takes effect. One of the assumptions is the undesirable coincidence of funny forms. For example, vns. kilm. $akos and dgs. ward. Branches. According to A. Girdenis, “in common language, the “root” pronunciation of such words as yda, oda, proga, etc., does not survive because it may have been determined by the need to differentiate different syllables” (Girdenis 1967: 6). The author believes that this hypothesis would be confirmed if it turned out that the transition to terminal pronunciation is most common in those dialects where the overlap of unpronounced endings is the greatest (say, Northwestern Highlanders). Apparently, that is why J. Balčikonis wrote that “rely only on what is now in dialects is not always possible, because much we find there is corrupted” (Balčikonis 1978: 95). This means that he noticed that this problem is not only related to the language of the intelligentsia, but also to dialects. As an example, the author gave the words dda, proga, rūšis, saying that they are pronounced in the living language with an incorrectly ending accent —od, proga, rūšis. J. Balčikonis did not explain why the accent of the above-mentioned nouns changes, but only described that “the dialects of our language, which have retained the accent at the end, have a tendency, for some unknown reason, to raise the accent at the end of the word that has come from elsewhere” (Balčikonis 1978: 95). E.g. common language vaistar and southern Highlanders' vaistai, common language mdteris western 112 Highlander's motera ir (K). Therefore, K. Būga, J. Balčikonis, and later their pupils, strictly distinguished authentic dialectal facts from newly emerging phenomena, and demanded that the inherited pronunciation of words and their use in dialects be taken into account (cf. Vitkauskas 1988: 99, 103). While linguists are considering the assumptions of the transition of words with constant pronunciation to the terminal type, it is important for language culture and vocabulary specialists to determine the purposefulness of the use of root and terminal pronunciation variants (Audra /audra). V. Vitkauskas states that for the research of language history, “only inherited facts, historically proven things are suitable for scientific purposes”, but data of spoken language cannot be ignored, they must be observed and evaluated (Vitkauskas 1988: 95). Thus, the normative, long-running bk. root pronunciation variants (Storm, Skin, Occasion, Kind, Soul) are pushed out of the final pronunciation nouns (Storm, Skin, Occasion, Kind, Soul). A. Girdenis and A. Pupkis point out that such pronunciation reveals a contradiction “between codification and norm (cf. the codified pronunciation of the common language occasion, skin, species and the real statistical norm occasion, skin, species)" (Girdenis, Pupkis 1970: 66). It was also deepened by the language norms changed by the linguists themselves (Pakerys 1994: 7). The above mentioned variants were presented in different ways in the “Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language”. The 1954 edition of the dictionary provides the following standard of use: in two variants, Storm (1) /storm (4) is written, and 6da (1), occasion (1), kind (1), soul (1) — only as words of constant pronunciation. In the second edition of the dictionary it is stated that “besides the old-fashioned pronunciation of some words, a new, more lively pronunciation appears, which is nothing but the result of the natural development of the language” (DZ, III). In this dictionary, the most common pronunciation in common language is given priority, regardless of its age. Therefore, the variants in question are presented in this Zodyn both as words of fixed and movable pronunciation: stodra (4) /audra (1), oda (4) | oda (1), proga (4) | préga (1), rūšis (4) /rūšis (1), siela (4) /sfela (1). In the new 1993 edition of the dictionary, only two of them survive: Storm (1) /storm (4), skin (1) /skin (4). Other words are given only in constant pronunciation: occasion (1), kind (1), soul (1). Transliteration variants are not avoided in the “Dictionary of Lithuanian Pronunciation”: audra (4) / audra (1), oda (1) /oda (4), proga (1) | proga (4), rūšis (1) /rūšis (4), siela (1) (LKTZ). Thus, the dictionaries could not ignore the real usage tendencies of the language. However, when legalizing the variants of pronunciation, it seems that they need to be assessed not only from the point of view of the norm, but also of systematicity (Mikulėnienė 1995: 36), i.e., to take into account how the derivatives of these nouns are pronounced (cf. préga — occasional, rūšis — species). Since the adjective * proginis is not yet used next to occasion, and * rūšinis next to species, the root and final pronunciation cannot be considered equivalent (Kuzavinis 1981: 7). In other words, an equivalent variant of pronunciation must be associated with other forms by means of adjectives (Vitkauskas 1985: 11). 113 Therefore, the pronunciation similarities discussed are not equivalent. Therefore, in the dictionariį es, the first place must be given to the constant (i.e. old root) pronunciation variants. The statistic- — al norm of the final pronuncia- — tion variants su are presented only by the abbreviation šnek. This would distinguish them from the formal style of the general language. Kivertus, ta varianti pažyma su snek. are not ir considered language errors. For the lower level of general language, linguists should apply both the criteria of ne norm and systematicity. LITTERATUR Balčikonis J. 1978: Unsuitable publicistics. —Balčikonis J., Selected Papers 1, Vilnius: Mokslas. 1961. "Zoological Dictionary". —Būga K. Selected Writings 3, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishing House. DrskZ-Naktiniené G.,Paulauskiené A, Vitkauskas V. Dictionary of Druskininkai dialect, Vilnius: Science, 1988. DZ, —Dictionary of the Modern Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literatu1954. re Publishers, DŽ, —Dictionary of the Modern Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DZ -Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. DūnŽ —Vitkauskas V. Northeastern Dūnists' Snakes Dictionary, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. Girdenis A. 1967: Why the “terminal” pronunciation of nouns takes hold. —Scientific Conference of Higher School Teachers on Lithuanian Language Issues. Program and thesis statements, 6. Girdenis A., Pupkis A. 1970: Common language norms and their codification. —Ku/tours bars 7, 65-67. K —Lithuanian-German Dictionary by Friedrich Kurschat, Halle a. S: The New York Public Library, 1883. Kuzavinis K. 1981: Adjacency of crossings and stability of norms. —Our Language 5, 6-7. LKTZ = Lithuanian Pronunciation Dictionary. By V. Vitkauskas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1985. LKŽ I —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1941. LKŽ IL,-Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968. LKŽ VIII —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 8, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LKŽ X-XII -Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 10-12, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976, 1978, 1981. LzŽ-Petrauskas J, Vidugiris A. Lazūnų dialekto žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985. Mikulėnienė D. 1993: Pronunciation trends of amusing words. —The Ka/bo culture 63, 75-79. Mikulėnienė D. 1995: Variants in terms of norm and system. —Ka/bos culture 67, 36–39. Pakerys A. 1994: Akcentologija 1, Kaunas: Šviesa. Rtr —Lithuanian-Latvian dictionary. Compiled by J. Ryteris, Riga, 1929. Stundžia B. 1984: Lietuvių kalbos dviskiemenių daiktavardžių kirčiavimo variantai. —Ka/botyra 35, 86-92. Stundžia B. 1995: Pronunciation system of Lithuanian common language, Vilnius: Petro ofsetas. Dictionary of Lithuanian and Russian Languages. Compiled by Dr. J. Šlapelis, Vilnius, 1921. It is also used in the case where the source is not known. Vitkauskas V. 1987: J. Balčikonio požiūris į įgimtą lexiką. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 13—18. 114 Vitkauskas V. 1988: Is Lithuanian pronunciation difficult?, Vilnius: Mokslas. Summary Nouns of the type dda (1) /oda (4) are examined, and it is found that dal these variants are not equivalent. Therefore, the variants mot the constant accent (i.e. the old root accentuation) should be in the first place in the word archives. The statistical norm (variants with accentuated ending) is by the abbreviation šnek. (colloquially) to identify and thereby separate from the standard language. On the other hand, it should be abbreviated by šnek. (colloquially) marked variants not to be considered as language errors. For the lower level of the common language, linguists should not apply the criterion of the norm, but that of the system. 115