LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997)

LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

Vidmantas KUPREVIČIUS

A MID-19TH-CENTURY MANUSCRIPT DICTIONARY OF LITHUANIAN (EASTERN AUKŠTAITIAN) AND POLISH BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR

RtŽ (the abbreviated name by which this dictionary is known in LKŽ) has so far remained almost entirely unresearched. To obtain a comprehensive picture of lexicography in the past, each surviving old dictionary must be examined separately, in monographic studies. Material for broader research is still being collected. Detailed analysis of archival data (comparison of the RtŽ author's handwriting with that of well-known authors of the period, etc.) is being conducted alongside other work. This article aims to clarify some data from earlier research on RtŽ.

The dictionary by an unknown author under discussion is held in the M. Akelaitis collection (F1–1) of the Manuscript Department of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. It comprises 548 handwritten, numbered pages. It entered the LMD Manuscript Department with the following description: Литовскій словарь съ толкованіемъ словъ на польскій языкъ. Начинается словарь съ буквы А и кончается словомъ Zwagieje¹ Рукопись безъ переплета содержитъ 548 страницы (Catalogus). Pages 1–338 measure 22.3 x 17.6, and pages 339–548, 21.4 x 16.6 mm. J. Kruopas, the first to review this dictionary, gives undifferentiated measurements (Kruopas 1969: 183). There must have been more pages, since a blank, entirely clean leaf numbered 557–558 is attached to the cover. The dictionary's leaves are assembled into 55 booklets, which are sewn together (bound). At the top center of the dictionary's first unnumbered page is an older manuscript shelfmark: In. R–1; slightly below it is a round seal bearing the Vytis: Lietuvių Mokslo Draugija.1907. The lower part of the aforementioned seal has been covered with a label reading M. Akielewicza, (Agricola); slightly lower and to the left, beneath this, is the pseudonym A g r i c o l a—the pen name of Mikalojus Akelaitis (Otrębski 1970: 7). The quoted inscriptions are in the same handwriting and were written with the same writing instrument (a gray pencil). Around the middle of the third quarter of the page, centered, is an inscription by Dr. J. Basanavičius: Dovanojo A. Šūtinas² 30 V 1912

¹ RtŽ entry: Žwagiejev, brzçcates; the RtŽ author's Z with a stroke through it is printed as Ž in the article, while the z with a stroke through it in Dr. J. Basanavičius's inscription is rendered here as ž.

² He was an antiques collector and dealer, and sacristan of the Bernardine Church. This is stated in “Życie Ilustrowane.” Dodatek tygodniowy “Kurjera Litewskiego” (1909.I. 25/ II.7. No.4). The article's author thanks art historian R. Janonienė for the aforementioned “Życie Ilustrowane” reference. P. Razmukas, librarian of the Lithuanian Scientific Society, told the author of these lines that Antanas Šutinas, the Lithuanian Scientific Society’s

215

|Šutinas had received it in 1889 from the official Andruškevičius, who had received the dictionary from M. Akelaitis in 1863.|before departing³ for abroad,| J. Basanavičius. The second page, likewise unnumbered, has no inscriptions, only a small round red seal: LIETUVIŲ KALBOS IR LITERATŪROS INSTITUTAS. An examination of every page of the original RtŽ using a specialized paper-transillumination device found no watermarks. However, in the upper right-hand corners of some RtŽ pages there are colorless impressions⁴ (their pattern of occurrence is quite erratic; it is entirely possible that the impression on some pages is merely a transferred outline of the actual mark from earlier pages): the word KUCZKURISZKI is clearly legible in a rectangular impression with slightly rounded corners, arranged along the edges of the blind stamp around an emblem in the center. The impressions on pages 167 and 359 are especially distinct. The mark is reproduced in part b of fig. 28 in the book “Popierius Lietuvoje XV–XVIII a.” (Laucevičius 1967: 68). On pp. 65–67 of the same book, we read: ”In 1823, the well-known wealthy landowner and industrialist Vaitiekus Puslovskis began building a paper mill in Kučkuriškės. By 1824, the mill was already producing paper and yielding its owner a large profit. In 1826, the mill was enlarged and improved, and new machines were installed. <...>By 1848, an English machine was already operating at the mill, producing ‘paper without end.’ <...>After ‘paper without end’ began to be produced, the products of the Kučkuriškės mill were marked with a blind stamp.”

The surviving first and second sides of the second cover are made (pasted together): 1) from a fragment of Polish text from the Old Testament⁵, on whose reverse there are no characters (so this is probably a fragment from a separate publication of some kind, perhaps readings from the Old Testament or a Ritual [?], rather than a page fragment from a folio of the Holy Scriptures); 2) from three to five layers of newspapers. In one partly detached layer, from “Dodatek Do Gazety Kuryera Litewskiego” (1829, No. 58), a short section mentioning new publications⁶ (works) is clearly legible; it mentions a Polish translation of K. Pichler's novel “Oblężenie Wiednia” <...>, published that same year (Pichler 1829). The other fragments of newspaper layers on the cover have not been identified bibliographically; 3) from a sheet of writing paper, on the pasted side of which handwritten characters are faintly visible; it appears to be an attempt to write a certificate duplicating an entry in a church register, since the digits 233 are clearly visible in the upper left corner (perhaps the entry's serial number), and below them one can see

an ordinary member of the Society, who had promised to donate to the Society a collection of crosses, wayside shrines, small chapels, and watercolor paintings, but did not deliver the collection to the LMD, thereby saddening Dr. J. Basanavičius.

³ Straipsnyje(Krupas 1969: 183) įvelta klaida: išspausdinta išvažiuojant. Tas pat netikslumas percituotas RtŽ rankraštį registruojant pirmą kartą “Lietuvos bibliografijoje”(žr. Gargasaite 1990: 98).

⁴ These impressions are called watermarks in J. Kruopas's article, p. 186. The source is E. Laucevičius's book “Popierius Lietuvoje XV-XVIII a.” [J. Kruopas's article was published in the 13th century. -V.K.]

⁵ J Moz (Pr) 42.1 - 5.

⁶ “Nowe dzieła”.

216

the remains of an incompletely faded surname written diagonally [?]. It was probably written in Cyrillic: [<...>?] Чурий [?]. At the bottom left is a colorless, one-word impression, whose last letter is O.

RtŽ is mentioned in the stamp only rarely. K. Būga was the first to cite it in abbreviated form, marking it R, among the sources for his “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (Būga 1924: XV). V. Urbutis, reviewing “Index lexicorum Poloniae,” correcting errors in this work by P. Grzegorczyk and substantially supplementing it, noted that a eastern dictionary, containing 29,000 entries and obtained from M. Akelaitis, should also be included (Urbutis 1968: 157). J. Kruopas was the first to publish an article about RtŽ (Kruopas 1969). Drawing on Kruopas’s article, A. Balašaitis described RtŽ in his concise survey of Lithuanian lexicography (Balašaitis 1984: 93). RtŽ, together with other important manuscripts, was included in the general “Lithuanian Bibliography” and its supplements (GargasaItė 1990: 98). In recent years, after RtŽ was chosen as the subject of more extensive research, the public was informed of the progress of the work and its preliminary results in papers delivered at the international conference organized by the Dictionary Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language to mark the 115th anniversary of K. Būga’s birth and the 110th anniversary of J. Balčikonis’s birth, and at the VII International Congress of Balticists (Kuprevičius 1995; Kuprėvičs 1995), as well as in the published third set of conference abstracts (Kuprevičius 1995a).

RtŽ is also mentioned in manuscript sources. The Auxiliary (catalogue) card file and the Main (word) card file of the Dictionary Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language contain cards referring to RtŽ. In the Auxiliary card-file box “K. Būga’s Short Bibliography,” section R, two cards are kept; the Headings and Authors boxes each also contain one card. The Main card file of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language contains cards for RtŽ entries: 1) examples copied from RtŽ by K. Būga in his own hand, which he “marked on the cards with the abbreviation Ryt.ž. and added to the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language card file” (Kruopas 1969: 185); 2) 2,050 lexicographic units marked with the stamp Akelaitis’s dictionary, copied out in E. Samaniūtė’s (later Otrębska’s) hand.

RtŽ’s handwriting is small, especially in the inserted lines. After examining pages 100–548 of the RtŽ photocopy, graphologist Rūta Čapaitė confirmed that the corrections in lighter ink (insertions), as well as the text’s main⁷, orderly lines, were written in the same hand. The highly individual d, f graphemes in the RtŽ author’s handwriting, as well as the parts (vertical strokes, the letters’ “axes”) of the upright B, D, F, T graphemes, which have the shape of S, resemble the corresponding graphemes of S. Daukantas and J. Butavičius, and distinguish, for example, J. Pabrėža’s texts, in which the handwriting features of such graphemes are different. Only one grapheme with the handwriting feature discussed here has been observed in J. Pabrėža’s writings, R. Čapaitė notes. A cautious

⁷ RtŽ contains many inserted lines, which are not so much orderly as written in compressed handwriting, apparently in an attempt to fit them between what had already been written.

217

conclusion can be drawn that the author of RtŽ was a contemporary of S. Daukantas or younger (J. Butavičius was almost 13 years younger than S. Daukantas, while J. Pabrėža sent plants from his herbarium to the florist Rev. J. Fedoravičius, who was five years younger than Pabrėža (Dagys 1938: 180)).

Every page of RtŽ is meticulously ruled at intervals of about 7 mm with thin, barely visible horizontal lines intended to ensure that vocabulary entries are written neatly and straight. In some places, small holes resembling needle pricks are visible: a dot at the beginning and end of a line. Four vertical lines cross these horizontal lines, forming four columns. At the top of every page, a line was drawn for the headings of columns a and b, which indicate the range of graphemes of the Lithuanian word (column headings are entered from 1 b through 352 a inclusive; after that, they are no longer marked). Apparently, the author of RtŽ intended to write or number something in more detail, but did not do so, since the text of RtŽ is presented in only two columns, separated by a vertical stroke.

The spelling of RtŽ follows Polish spelling; in it, “the phonetic principle predominates: words are written as pronounced” (Kruopas 1969: 190). The following letters are used: vowels a, e, i, y, u; consonants b, c, cz, d (and d in an individual superscript form), g, j, k, l, ł (an individual superscript form), m, n, p, r, s (and ʃ), sz, t, w, z, ż, ž (and ʒ, ʒ́, ǯ as subscript variants). Palatalization is marked with the letter j (before back and front vowels). The compound diphthongs (i)ai and (i)ei are represented in RtŽ as (i)ey.

Among the word groups recorded in RtŽ, general folk vocabulary predominates; there are words used in eastern dialects, for example: Garsiot [“to relish”; cf. 1a. garšot “to taste”](80), Greimas (92), Greczium⁸ [“nearby, alongside”](92), Griczia (92), Pustit, ostrzyć⁹ (361), Sulobt, skarmić¹⁰ (421), Pawenis, cień (316)<…> Wokiała¹¹ [“a small hollow box”](535) (Kruopas 1969: 188). Germanisms were also noted: Márka, marka, czeski / moneta, sześć groszy. Szepa, szafa. Szepinis, szafowy; there are Latvianisms (or even unadapted Latvian words): Cuka, swinia. Cukutia, swinka. Dabut, dobydź. Douguwa¹², džwina / rzeka; Zenkiś¹³. Zenkia, chłopiu [?]; Slavicisms are abundant.

The key to the question of how the register was compiled seems to have been provided by the lexicographer J. Kruopas: “The vocabulary of RtŽ shows that it was compiled from words and forms of folk speech. There is no indication that its author made use of written sources. The only word that might be suspected of having been taken from Chilinskis’s Bible translation is Łetas, mizerak, ubogi¹⁴ (187), since, as the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language

⁸ The same place also contains the insertion Griacžium, w rzędzie, przy, obok.

⁹ RtŽ reads: Pustit, ostrzyć; zawiewać; jeść smaczne; in the cited entry 1, the corresponding word is written oszyć.

¹⁰ RtŽ: Sulobt, skarmić, zpość

¹¹ The entire main line of RtŽ: Wokiała, krobka.

¹² Another hydronym was noted: ~ Mūša (Musza, bije; musza rzeka w powiece Upitskim).

¹³ Without a Lithuanian equivalent.

218

the corresponding entry in the Dictionary”] (vol. VII), in this sense slow is recorded only in Chilinskis, while in related senses¹⁵ “poor, of little value” it is also used in the writings of M. Daukša and K. Sirvydas¹⁶” (Kruopas 1969:189).

The lexicographic method is revealed by the chosen structure of the dictionary entry. An RtŽ entry consists of: 1) a Lithuanian headword and 2) Polish equivalents of its meaning. The meanings of polysemous words are revealed by the use of several Polish words with different meanings. Headwords are presented alphabetically according to dialect forms and divided into 21 letter sections: A, B, C, D, E, G, I (in RtŽ this grapheme also serves the functions of J. The grapheme J itself is also used, but it appears in the initial position of a headword only here and there, in lines added later), K, L, Ł, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, W, Z, Ż.

Different morphological forms of the same word are given as separate headwords: “Many cases are given for nouns, and inflected and participial forms for verbs” (Kruopas 1969: 184). Most Lithuanian words have only one Polish equivalent. There are no illustrative examples or phraseology (as illustration – V.K.) (Kruopas 1969: 191). However, phraseological expressions (or fossilized word combinations) do occur as lexicographic units. They appear as headwords and are listed under the first word, e.g.: Niet akiś réybsta, aż w oczach cmi się. Niet akis sużaláwa, aż w oczach zazieleniafe.

Some forms are accented in order to distinguish their grammatical meanings precisely: they are marked with diacritics resembling a grave accent and an acute accent: Ákis, oczy. Akìs, oko. Akìs, w oczach. Botágu, biczow. Botagù, biczem. Diéwu, Bogu. Diewù, bogow / mit. Églinis, jałowcowy. Eglìnis, jodłowy, z jodły. Grùndia,^wskrobyła[?]†, skrobat. Grundìa, kolco, krążak. Skowka Iewós, Ewy. do Ewy należący. Iéwos, czeromchy; hużwy. Iéwu, czeromchę; Ewę; hużwę. Jewù, czeromchy, huzwow etc. Diacritics highlight and explain cases of homonymy. This avoids potential homographs. Grammatical labels in RtŽ are few and rare: 1) l.p. liczba pojedyncza and l.m. liczba mnoga, 2) r. ż. rodzaj żeński. Other kinds of abbreviations are also used: 1) i t. d. i tak dale, 2) im. imię – before personal names. To characterize a word's semantics, the full (l.) word denoting its category (or one or several of its syllables) is also used without abbreviation: waga, drzewo, grzyb, mi[ologija?], moneta, rosł[na], ryba, tkanina etc. Abbreviations and category labels are given after a slanting slash (/). Punctuation is used systematically: a comma is written between synonymous Polish words, and a semicolon between different meanings (thus also separating or indicating the meanings of Lithuanian words). Many RtŽ entries cannot be translated without both of the aforementioned marks. For example: Isidėja, włożyła się; wyniosła się

¹⁴ The entire vocabulary of RtŽ is as follows: Łetas, mizerak, ubogi, nędzarz. ¹⁵ Citation from the entry: meanings. ¹⁶ Edited: the cited entry is printed by Sirvydas.

219

/ kura. Karsztù, gorących; czochranych; czochrabły. Lieki, zostajesz, pozostajesz, zostawiasz, zostawujesz. Linkia¹⁷, chyli; jednat; płoza do sań; Polaczka. Te, głoska: na masz. Užtopis, załata; załatawszy. Žuvey, ginątes; łowiles.

Only some lexemes are recorded in RtŽ: Acziuvistė, wdzięczność. Dreykała, rozpustnica; rozpustnik. Dubiniuot, bołtać, bołtem napędzać ryby. Dubulis, bołtać, bołtuch. Dwyley, wedwoje, w dwoje, pasą. Grundia, kolco, krążek. Skowka. |Łeyfei, wycieka | o roslinach etc. (cf. Kruopas 189). It is noteworthy that the lexeme ~ molehill, present in RtŽ (Kurmiarousley, kretowiny, kopec kretone| Kurmiarouslis, kretowizna), is entirely absent from the LKŽ register.

RtŽ was compiled (at the latest) by the end of the 1830s or 1840s and copied (at the earliest) from 1848 onward (as indicated by the Kučkuriškės paper mill watermark on the RtŽ pages). The claim concerning the date when the dictionary was written (compiled) is supported by a feature of RtŽ spelling: as mentioned, the diphthongs (i)ai, (i)ei are written (i)ey, as was done in Polish until the 1830s. Only later did the spelling of the diphthongs in question with j become established. The spelling of this consonant in this position became prevalent after a major debate that began in Vilnius, was energized by A. Felinski (Łoś 1917: 59–60), with the participation of Vilnius University professor J. Lelevel (Kaupuž 1973: 170), his opponent J. Sniadecki (Kaupuž 1973: 171), and others, and concluded with aj(ej) displacing ay(ey) from Polish spelling between 1830 and 1840 (Bajerowa 1986: 39). Spelling with j also became established in ethnographic Poland. No alternative notation of diphthongs in RtŽ, other than (i)ey, has been observed. By the way, a similar Polish-style spelling is also found in surviving printed monuments of Latgalian writing (Stafecka 1995a: 277–279), “Evangelia Toto Anno” (1753, in Vilnius), thought to be a collective translation led by the Jesuit Janis Lukaševičius, “who, by nationality, was Lithuanian, knew Latvian well, and worked in Varaķlāni and Preiļi, later in Izvalta and Puša,” as well as “Eysa sałasiszona Historyas Swatas,” printed in Mogilev around 1770 (Stafecka 1995: 45–47). The date 1848 would seem inconsistent with the 1840s date suggested by the orthographic feature of RtŽ, but one may agree that a change in Polish spelling need not necessarily have been adopted immediately in Lithuanian spelling. Perhaps the author of RtŽ did not intend to print his manuscript, but wanted to use it for personal purposes (teaching, teaching the Lithuanian language), and so did not change the spelling when copying from draft to fair copy. The (approximate) place of compilation covers a fairly large area: Biržai(?) – Tverečius – Ciskodas, as indicated by the past tense form give devė (Būga 1961: 571); the following verbs are attested in RtŽ: Acidiawia, oddał się. Acidiawiew, oddałes się. Diawia, dał,

¹⁷ RtŽ grave accent over n.

220

data. gave. Diawiej, you gave. Diawiou, I gave. Diawis, having given. Idiawia, he gave; entered. Idiawiej, you gave; entered. Idiawiou, I gave. Padiawia, he gave; she gave, it gave. Padiawiej, you gave. Padiawiou, I gave. Padiawis, having handed over. Pardiawia, he sold. Pardiawiej, you sold. Pardiawiniei, he sells. Pardiawiniet, to sell. Pardiawiou, I sold. Parsidiawia, he sold himself. Parsidiawiej, you sold yourself. Parsidiawiou, I sold myself. Pasidiawia, he submitted, yielded, bowed. Pasidiawiej, you submitted. Pasidiawiou, I submitted. Sudiwia, he assigned. Sudiwiej, you assigned. Sudiwiou, I assigned. Uzudiawia, he assigned / what. Uzudiawiej, you assigned, there are also nouns Diawimas, giving. Idiawimas, entering. Padiawimas, handing over, tradition. Sudiwimas, assignment, a time.

To some extent, the area in which the dictionary was compiled is indicated by the rendering of the dialectal (lexeme ~apple: Obali, jabłko) uo as a[?], ă (Zinkevičius 1966: 504; map 59), and of the toponym ~Lithuania: Letuwa, litwa. Letuw nikia, litwinka, litewka. Letuowy, w litwie, Ⱨ[?]ⁿᵃ litwie. Letuwos, litwy, the dialectal ie as æ, (i)æ (Zinkevičius 1966: 506; map 61). The Latvian (or Lithuanianized) words cited in this article point to the area of Zemgale, in present-day Latvia; the hydronym ~Daugava: Douguwa, dӡwina / rӡeka points to the border of Latgale: the right bank of the Daugava is already Latgale, no longer Zemgale. RtŽ has: Aria [~arė]¹⁸, orał. Arczíu, orałbym. Ilekcziu, wpadłbym, but the forms ario, arczio, ilekczio are absent (cf. Kruopas 1969:185). To date, no phonetic forms characteristic exclusively of northern Panevėžys dialect have been observed in RtŽ; therefore, the Panevėžys area must be ruled out as the place where RtŽ was written.

Thus the chronotope of RtŽ might perhaps be as follows: time—1840–1850; place—a part of Lithuania including Latgale: Biržai (?)–Ciskodas–Tverečius.

The author of RtŽ has not yet been identified. It is likely that the author of RtŽ was a Catholic priest, perhaps a monk, since some entries in RtŽ clearly indicate the religious affiliation of the person who wrote it: canonical reverence is expressed for the Blessed Virgin Mary: Marija, Mary[?]a / imię Matki Boskiej. Błowieszcziey, Zwiastowanie N. P. M.; an impassioned address to Christ is found: A Jezaul o IEzu!; the pope is acknowledged as the highest-ranking priest: Popiežia, papieża, głowy kościoła; while a follower of Calvin is described scathingly as a bambiz: Bumbizas, bumbiż, Kalwin…

The motives for compiling RtŽ may have been as the lexicographer J. Kruopas suggests: “It seems that it [RtŽ] was intended for the purpose of learning Lithuanian and could partly have served as a rudimentary grammar” (Kruopas 1969: 191). This idea is supported by certain aspects of Kazimieras Kristupas Daukša’s work: the person mentioned was a teacher at the Biržai Evangelical parish school, also taught Lithuanian, and had written a Lithuanian–Polish dictionary that he could have used in his lessons¹⁹ (Subačius 1991: 58).

¹⁸ J. Kruopas was mistaken: that RtŽ has a is proved by the line inserted a little further down in strict alphabetical order: Arialis, orzełek.

¹⁹ This is psychologically very plausible: to interest pupils in an unusual teaching aid for that time.

221

RtŽ has connections with other dictionaries. These include the aforementioned eastern Lithuanian dictionary by K. K. Daukša, of which 104 leaves (208 pp.) out of 142 (284 pp.) are known to have survived, and which is held in the collections of the Poznań University Library (Subačius 1991). The similarity between the lexicographical methods of RtŽ and K. K. Daukša’s dictionary is readily apparent, and the dictionaries were compiled at roughly the same time. The spelling shows major differences between RtŽ and K. K. Daukša’s dictionary, however, because K. K. Daukša avoided Polish orthography and his spelling differs markedly from that of other authors of the period. “Instead of the cz, dž, sz, w signs customary in the first half of the 19th century, the dictionary uses t (tárkceti ‘to chirp’ 123),’d (mea’dójjimas ‘hunting’ 63v), c (rackiti ‘to pluck’ 85v), v (pacvajstea ‘aurora’ 72v); the diphthong au is written av (smeatav ‘I smeared myself, I rubbed myself’ 99); the letters u, i̇e were introduced” (Subačius 1991: 58), whereas the author of RtŽ consistently follows Polish orthography. It is important to emphasize the connection between the vocabulary of K. K. Daukša’s dictionary and K. Sirvydas’s Dictionarium [Sirvydas 1642], since “Daukša incorporated many of its words and phrases into his dictionary, although he did not mark the borrowed material in any way in the dictionary text. That these are indeed the lexicon of K. Sirvydas’s dictionary can be inferred from the similarity of phrases (Lithuanian or even Polish), and from Sirvydas’s coinages or otherwise rare dictionary words that Daukša entered in his own. For example, Daukša’s Auksadalis złotnik 4v, and Sirvydas’s Złotnik… auksadaylis 547; respectively Bendritea społeczenstwo społeczność 8 – Społeczność… Draugiste / byndriste 417; Bitawietea grod 8 – Grod … Bitawiete / tiesawiete baioru 75; Błavsdineas sutejay 9 – Suleiay … Blauzdines wełtos / apawis srugnotas 427; <…> Liguma zealunti murawa 58 – Murawa … liguma żelunti / weia 182; <…> Puslis [error?] moon, Luty month 84 – Luty … pusis / pustis 159; < …> Vajkagimdea połoznica 127v – Połoznica … Waykagimde 322; Vajkaveadis pedagog 127v – Pedagog … Waykawedis 228; Zie’dús v puo’dús 138 – Gárcarz … puodźius / źiedźius 66 – 67 <…>. It is evident that K. K. Daukša spent a great deal of time working with K. Sirvydas’s dictionary” (Subačius 1991: 60). The eastern Lithuanian character links K. K. Daukša’s dictionary with RtŽ, a monument of mid-19th-century eastern Lithuanian lexicography that merits further study.

LITERATŪRA

B a j e r o w a I. 1986: Stan i ewolucja 1, Polski język ogólny XIX wieku. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.

B a l a š a i t i s A. 1984: Žodžiai ir žodynai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

B ū g a K. 1924: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Kaunas.

B ū g a K. 1961: Lietuvių įsikūrimas šių dienų Lietuvoje. – Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

C a t a l o g u s: Catalogus Nr. 10 (LMD gautų rankraščių registracijos sąsiuvinis). LLTIB rankraštynas. F. 22 – 1014, 44 -asis įrašas.

D a g y s J. 1938: Kun. Juozapas Fedoravičius – Ilukštos ir Zarasų krašto floristas (1776–1860). – Gamta 3, 176–183. G a r g a s a i t ė D. 1990: Lietuvių-lenkų kalbų žodynas. – Lietuvos bibliografija. Serija A. Knygos lietuvių kalba. 1547–1861. Papildymai, Vilnius.

222

K a u p u ž A. 1973: Iz istorii pol’skoj ortografii v Vil’nie v pervoj treti XIX v. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 8, 169–181.

K r u o p a s J. 1969: Rankraštinis aukštaičių rytiečių XIX a. II pusės lietuvių-lenkų kalbų žodynas. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai. Serija A, 2(30).

K u p r e v i č i u s V. 1995: Dėl rytiečių rankraštinio žodyno (RtŽ). – Leksikografijos problemos: semantika, etimologija, tarminių faktų pateikimas, žodynų sudarymo principai. K. Būgos 115-osioms ir J. Balčikonio 110-osioms gimimo metinėms. Konferencijos pranešimų tezės. 1995 m. kovo 16–17 d., Vilnius, 24–25.

K u p r e v i č i u s V. 1995a: Concerning the Lexicographic Method and Chronotop of the Lithuanian-Polish Dictionary. – Linguistics. The 1-st Conference of Baltic Studies. Abstracts of Scholarly Papers, Riga.

K u p r ė v i č s V. 1995: Dėl lietuvių-lenkų kalbų žodyno (RtŽ) leksikografinio metodo. Baltistica VII. VII Starptautiskais baltistu kongress 1995. g. 13. – 15. jūnijā. Referatu tēzes, Riga. Latviešu valodas institūts, 58–60.

L a u c e v i č i u s E. 1967: Popierius Lietuvoje XV–XVIII a., Vilnius.

LKŽ I₂ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968.

Ł o ś J. 1917: Pisownia Polska w przeszłości i obecnie, w Krakowie.

O t r ę b s k i J. 19670: Mikołaj Akielewicz i jego “Gramatyka języka litewskiego.”. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 7, 7–22.

P i c h l e r K. 1829: Oblężenie Wiednia, romans hist. 1–4, Wilno.

S i r v y d a s K. 1642: Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas / Parengė K. Pakalka, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979.

S t a f e c k a A. 1995: Ieskats latgaliešu rakstu valodas vēsturē. – Latgaliešu literatūra, Riga: Zvaigzne, 41–56.

S t a f e c k a A. 1995a: Valodas komentāri. – Latgaliešu literatūra, Riga: Zvaigzne, 277–282.

S u b a č i u s G. 1990: Simono Daukanto žodynai. – Lietuvių atgimimo studijos, Vilnius: Sietynas, 20–31.

S u b a č i u s G. 1991: Kazimiero Kristupo Daukšos žodynas. – Baltistica 27(1), 56–67.

U r b u t i s V. 1968: Piotr Gregorczyk, Index lexicorum Poloniae. Bibliografia słowników polskich. – Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 1967, 286 p. – Baltistica 4, 153–158.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis.

Vartojami ženklai

~ – transponuota į bk

<...> – kupiūros ženklas

[?] – neperskaitoma ar abejojama grafemos atpažinimu

| – eilutės riba

AN EASTERN AUKŠTAITISH LITHUANIAN – POLISH MANUSCRIPT DICTIONARY OF UNKNOWN AUTHOR OF MIDDLE OF THE 19 C.

Summary

The Lithuanian – Polish dictionary is kept at the Manuscript Department of the Institute of the Literature and Folklore (F1–1). The manuscript has 548 numbered pages (the format of 1–338 is 22,3 x 17,6, but the pages from 339 to 548 are – 21,4 x 16,6 format). No watermarks have been found. Imprints with inscription Kuczkuriški date back to 1848.

223

The commom dialectologic register dominates in etymological groups with lexis typical of the Eastern dialect (Greczum, podle, przy, obok ‘next to’, Wokiała, krobka ‘little box’, Garsioj, smakuje ‘he tastes’, there are some loan words: from the Latvian language (Cuka, swinia ‘pig’, hybrid Cukutia, swinka ‘little pig’; according to the last contact – Zenkis, [without polish corresponding word] ‘fellow’, etc.), from the German language (Undarokas, spodnica ‘skirt’, Szepa, szafa ‘wardrobe’ etc.), loan words from Slavic languages are numerous.

There is a hydronims: ~Daug(u)va (Dougawa, džiūna / rzeka), ~ Mūša (Musza, bije; musza rzeka w powiecie Upitskim).

The structure of the entry affects the lexicographic method. The entry consists of: 1) the Lithuanian headword (word group, sentence), 2) Polish corresponding words. The Lithuanian register is presented in the alphabetical order according to dialectological forms and is divided into 21 letter-units. Various forms of the lexeme go under different headwords.

There are no illustrative examples available. Word groups and sentences (including phraseological units: Niet akis réybsta, až w oczach cmi się. Niet akis suzaiāwa, až w oczach zazieleniałe etc.) are under different headings according to the first word. The meanings of polysemantic words are disclosed through Polish corresponding words: Girdia, poi ‘gave somebody to drink’, topi ‘sank’. Linkia, chylit ‘bent’, jednat ‘attracted’, ploza do sań; ‘sledge trail’, Polaczka ‘polish women’, Žuwej, ginąles ‘to die’; łowiłeś ‘to go fishing’. RtŽ compiler treats homoforms as separate meanings of the lexeme and separates them by semicolon, the synonyms of the same lexical meaning are divided by a coma. A small part of the corpus is accentuated. To differentiate various word forms they are marked by a grave accent mark and acute accent mark.

The area (preliminary) where the dictionary was compiled stretches in the triangle from town Biržai[?] to the town Ciskodas and to the town Tverecius.

The diphthong (i)ai and i(ei) in RtŽ has the form of (i)ey. This spelling was used till the forties of the 19th c.

224