Antano Klemento žemaičių kalba

XXXVII (1997) PROBLEMS OF LEXICOGRAFY AND LEXICOLOGY I do not want to say: Telšių language peykti; Antanas Klementas Giedrius SUBAČIUS ANTANO KLEMENTO ŽEMAIČIŲ KALBA One of the first to leave us his thoughts on the standardization of the common language of the Žemaites was the poet and nobleman Antanas Klementas (about 1756-4 June 1823). The remaining Lithuanian poems of Clement “we have 156 larger and smaller works, comprising 1494 verses*"'. However, he wrote much more in Polish, there are three huge volumes of Klemens' manuscript poems, which, with the mentioned Lithuanian verses, contain about 60 thousand verses. The desire to know, “discover” and appreciate the Lithuanian language more clearly, triggered by the new winds of Europe, first arose in the minds of T. Čacki, K. Bogušas, Z. Niemcevičius. Čackis wanted to know what Lithuanian language is and in what territory it is spoken. Boguš already claimed that this language is independent and no less rich than the others. Klement, who had learned the native language of the Žemaites in his childhood, was one of the first Žemaites to consider the issue of a common language and to propose the Žemaites dialect as a basis for it. However, his orientation towards Žemaitija only strengthened in the sunset of his life. Although he was born in Laumiai manor (near Barstyčiai) and grew up in Rietava (he does not know how long), he left the Zemgaly environment with his parents in 1769 when he was about thirteen years old. He attended school in Dombrovica and lived there until 1777, about eight years before he was about 21 years old. Then he returned to Žemaitija again — he worked in Raseiniai in the area of the Žemaitijos mudininkai dialect from 1777 to 1792, that is, for about fourteen years. And since then, when he was about thirty-six, he returned to the Zemgaly dounists area —Telšiai, where he died in 1823, with his wife V. Antanas Klementas.-- A. Klementas, Zemaitiska giesmelé, Vilnius: Vaga, 1972, 12. Biržiška M. Antanas Klementas, Lithuanian writer at the beginning of the 19th century, Vilnius: M. Kuktos spaustuvė, 1910, 3. Three volumes of Clement's manuscripts are preserved in LLTIBR —t. 1: Dzietko moie wiasnorgcznie Wierszem, aw maHtey czastecce prozą napisane y alfabetyczne porządnie zrejestrowane Którego Tom Iszy, sign. f. 1-2156 (hereinafter referred to as KIDI1806); t. 2: Dziecko moje własnoręcznie Wierszem, a bardzo w mate czgsti prozą written and alphabetically orderly registered Whose Tom 2gi, sign f. 1-2157 (hereinafter KIDII1808); t. 3: Dzietko moie wiasnorgcznie Poem, and in a mafey six prose written and alphabetically orderly registered Whose Tom 3ci, sign. f. 1-2158 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KIDI’) at the age of about sixty-seven years.’ It is not known when the castle began to be built. Vytautas Vanagas cautiously tries to debunk Mykolas Biržiška’s idea that his first works could have been created around 1792: “they could have been written earlier. This would say his ‘narrative’ (story) of his own marriage […J, which took place about 1789.” * Anyway, it seems that he started to write verses after he returned to Zemaitija, maybe in Raseiniai, or maybe only in Telšiai. Vanagas continues that “it is possible that the DI [KIDI1806], which ends with the works of the end of 1806, begins with lines from about this time”*. Since “the order of the lines in the manuscript volumes seems to correspond more or less to the chronology of their author’s work”¢, it may be that the first known Zemgaly verses of Klement are the first “chant” recorded in his manuscript volumes “Piosenka Zmudzka Czasu Rewolucyi robiona a teraz po wynalezieniu wyciąga si¢”, calling for fighting during the Kosciusko uprising of 1794. The title itself suggests that, although it 111810). 225 was written during the uprising, it was brought to light later, perhaps rewritten. Therefore, we know Klemens’s Žemaičių language only from the period of his life in Telšiai after the uprising. 1.0. WRITING 1.1. Until the end of 1806. As can be seen from the aforementioned “Piosenka Zmudzka” KIDI1806, p. 125, and from “Takoż Piosenka Zmudzka Dawniey zrobiona, czyli zPols wyttumaczona” KIDI1806, p. 126, written on another page, the main characteristics of Clement- ’s spelling from the very beginning were as follows. For example, they wrote not only y wyrfa wyina 126 —in place of ein, wrera 125 —vierą, but also ku 125 —ką, where many Žemaites pronounce the nasal sound. (2) The letter y occasionally denoted the broadened [e] in Žemaičių: dydziu 126 ~ didžia, motryszkiela 125 ~ motriškele, padyrbsett 125 —padirbsiat, susytyki 126 ~ susitikę, krepuwkiet 125 ~ stipruokiat, unsytropij 126 —antsitropij[a], usydegin 126 ~ užsidegin[a], wysi 126 ~ visi, although narrow [i] -y 126 ~ į was also written in this way. (3) Stride i; wrote: 1) the unspread Žemaičių [i]: giwa 125 —live, ikir 126 ~ persistent[i], kfawsik 125 ~ listen, and 2) the spread [e]: ir126, isz125 —from, kita 125 ~ another, /ig 125, umzina 126 —forever, Zina 126 —you know. Data from: Biržiška M. Antanas Klementas, Lithuanian writer at the beginning of the 19th century, 5-6; Biržiška V. A/eksandrynas?2, Chicago: USA LB kultūros fondas, 1963, 225 (used the 1990 photographed edition). Y anagas V. Antanas Klementas, 163. > Ibid. ® Ibid. 226 that would preserve the law of regressive assimilation of part of the Northern Samogitians — the Telšiški against the further narrow vowelism syllable (with 7 uz) to pronounce unspread [i]. Although he used both the letters y and f, the vocalism of the aforementioned words umzina, Zina contradicts this law (should have written su y). (4) With the letter u they marked all their dialect u: 1) [u] (dbk u, Z, y) —budas 126 ~ way, butum 126 —be, ku 125 ~ what, kuna 125 ~ body, rustibie 126 ~ anger (?), suwed® 126 ~ suved[a]; 2) [9] (dbk u) —abtur126 ~ aptur[i], egg 125 ~ my sweet 126 ~ sweet sg. i. (5) The letter o was used in the Samogitian [uo] (dbk 0): motryszkiela 125 ~ motriskele, sodos 125 ~ sodos, zinot 125 ~ žinot. Example nog 125 —nuog shows an artificial form, which most likely arose when the Žemaites of the uo vowel gender of the Upper Slavic perceived it as a Žemaitic and wrote 0—the sound thus recorded the Žemaites had to read [uo]. (6) With the double-string uu Clement denoted the Žemaičių dounininkai [ou] (dbk. uo): duetas 126 —duotas, also cf. the hyper-lowly /uusa 125 ~ liuosą “free' made from a borrowed word. Another word in which dbk would be uo is stypruwkiet 125 ~ strengthen, with uw written duonininky [ou]. The first texts do not provide any further information about the writing of such a position. According to Aleksas Girdenis, in the Tirksliai dialect the diphthong [ou] is pronounced twice (his examples: du-udl || doudi — give, ju-udus || joudus ~ black). “The assimilation of these sounds is not entirely consistent”°. It seems that Clement could also have been born in this area of diftongation," could have been inclined to generalize one of the two different variants he heard when writing [uu] —uu. On the other hand, it appears that Klementas was generally of the opinion that [0] as well as [u] in his dialect should be marked simply with the letter u, as usual (i.e. not inventing a new sign for a specific Žemaičių sound). Not wanting to give up the Žemaitijos diphthongs, he could interpret the logic of such marking as follows: if [9] and [u] are written u, then the diphthong [ou] must be written uu. This is confirmed by the notation of ur [on] (maybe and [un]?), um [om] (maybe and [um]?). Thus, it is difficult to distinguish whether Clement tried to mark the pronunciation [uu] or [ou], it is only clear that the inconsistent pronunciation of [ou] as well as the familiar letter u, marking the sound [0], may have helped him to decide to write uu. (7) Klement used the two-stringed um to mark the Žemaičių [om] or [um] (dbk. am): umzina 126 ~ forever. As can be seen from Girdenis- ’s article, the regressive assimilation of Tirkšliai also affected the diphthongs [om], [on], thus in positions before syllables with [i], 7 Cf. : Girdenis A. Vowel assimilation phenomena in Tirkšlių dialect. —Kalbotyra4, 1962, 141-147. 8 Most likely Clement said the prepositional prefix su [su], as it is said in Telšiai and in the area where he was born, cf. : Zinkevičius Z. Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966, 63. However, some of the Žemaites — the Kretingians (dounininkai) and some of the Varniškiai (dūnininkai) speak [so] here, cf. ibid. 64, so in his childhood in Rietava Klement might have heard this pronunciation. A. A. Girdenis, "Vowel assimilation phenomena in Tirkšlių dialect", 144. '0 Ibid., 147. 227 [u] they were pronounced [um], [un]". Clement could have recognized such a different pronunciation of these diphthongs as in the case of uu [ou]. Therefore, both phonetic and graphic reasons could have motivated him to decide to write um. (8) Klement wanted to use the double un to denote the Žemaičių [on] or [un] (dbk. an): untsytropij 126 —antsitropij[a]. Similarly to the cases of uu and um, there could be at least two reasons for this. It can also be mentioned that in somewhat later texts, but also written before the end of 1806, besides the initially used and still used un [on], e.g. weyzunt 229 —veizant, Clement also wrote on wafondele 522 —valandélé[je]. (9) The two-stringed yr marked the diphthong [ei] of their dialect (dbk. se): anyr 125 —anie, tyisa 126 —tiesa, wyina 125, 126 ~ place of one, one, wyita 126 ~. He did not use the traditional high-Chinese ze in this position. After /pasitapė ZemaitiSka [ei] write and 77; lijpsnu 126 ~ liepsna sg. i. At the beginning of the word wrote and i iszka 126 ~ szukam. (10) With the digraph je, they marked: 1) their own dialect [ie] (dbk. €): bregs 125 ~ begs, niera 125 ~ is not, padies 125 ~ helps, spiera 125 ~ spérai (e traditionally written after the smooth consonant /: miletis 126[4x] ~ to love, miletumi 126 ~ myléetumi); 2) the vowels of the borrowed roots: miestela 125 ~ town, wiera 125 ~ virgin. (11) Dviraidziu aw was usually written bivowelj [au]: dawgiaws 125 ~ more, fawni 126 ~ young, jszpazinaw 126 ~ iSpaZinau, kfawsik 125 ~ listen, although there was also 7auns 125 ~ young. (12) The diphthongs ar, ei were marked ay, ey. kayp 126 —as, fabay 126 ~ very, reyk 125 ~ need, reykafs 126 ~ need, tayp 126 —yes, uzlaykiti 125 ~ maintain, waykielis 125 ~ child. But perhaps even more often ZemaitiSkus marked monophthongated [a], [€]: kap 126(2x) —kaip, kartas 126 ~ kartais, metela 126 ~ meteliai, nepritela 125 ~ nepriteliai, pikta 126 —piktai, tikta 125 ~ tiktai, umzina 126 —amžinai, waykiela 125 ~ vaikeliai, Zina 126 ~ žinai. (13) Soft [č'] marked ¢, cz: Baznicius ~ church (?) 125, neiszticziu 126 ~ not for fun, Ziemaycius 125 ~ zemaičius, [š'] -sz: szirdis 126 —heart. (14) Priebalsj Žė wrote inconsistently, both soft and hard he wrote it with the dot z: koznus 125 ~ kožnas, uz 125 —už, Zinot —znat, it without the dot z: Jszpazinaw 125 ~ išpažinau, uzem 125 ~ užem[a], uzfaykiti 125 —uzlaikyti. (15) Priebalsių g, £ softness before e was traditionally marked with the letter i: waykielis 125 ~ vaikas, Zmogielis 125 —žmogelis. The 125cc and 250cc models were also available, as well as the 125cc and 250cc models of the 125cc series. (16) Although it did not appear in the first two texts, some examples with the diphthong yn [en] (dbk. en) can already be found in somewhat later works, also written before the end of 1806: pynkta 522 —penktą, tyn 229 ~ ten. 1 1ibid., 143-144. 228 A number of cases of the spelling of Klement coincide with “Zyvato- ”’2 — a book in Žemaičių kalba published many times in the 18th century — the letters aw, uw, yi could have been derived from there. So Clement had something to match, and he matched from the very beginning. Furthermore, his spelling until the end of 1806, which we know from KIDI1806 and for which there is not so much data to reconstruct, changed little and only. Of the more prominent changes only mentionable (first feature) is the introduction of the nasal letters 4 and even ů (sic!), e.g., ků 522 ~ ka, ta 522 ~ tą, těch 597 ~ tą (at the very beginning written without the nasal —ku 125 —ką). Both in Clement- 's native places and in Telšiai, it is pronounced [on]". Since Klement wrote the sound [9] as uz elsewhere, it is assumed that the u represents [0], and [n] is marked with the nosinės sign (nosing 4 only had to be read in Polish as [on], to make a sound quite similar to the Samogitian one). So Clement probably started to write the pronounced pronoun endings with nasals, in order to express more accurately the pronunciation of his dialect [on]. 1.2. End of 1806 – October 1808 KIDII1808 includes texts from the end of 1806 to October 1808. In this second volume, as in the first one, there are only a few poems from Žemaitija. There are no significant changes in spelling until then, only some fluctuations can be noticed. (1) For example, although he had already tried, as mentioned, before the end of 1806 to write ky ~ ka, #3 ~ tą, after a year he wrote again anu 755 ~ aną, ku 755 ~ ką. The nasal vowels of the root were identical with the diphthongs, i.e., as with un they wrote muszunti 206 ~ musanti, runka 184 ~ ranką, so also grunzinu 755 ~ grazinu, uszkunszti 184 —uzkąścić. This coincidence is also present in the Telšiai dialect, where both diphthongs and nasal sounds are pronounced [on]*. (6) The two-wheeled uu was still used to denote the Samogitian [ou]: duuk 183(2x), 184 —duok, duus 755 —duos, neduusi 183 —neduosi. 1884: The 1884-1885 season was also a success. However, it is very important that twice Clement corrected uu to uo: fuuda 206 ~ black and duunas 206 —dunas replaced jouda and dounas. This is one of the first known attempts to write the Žemaitian [ou] as ou, to clarify the tradition of “Zyvato- ”. However, it is not clear whether the text was written before or shortly after the death of the author. (9) Yi was the dominant writing for the Žemaitijos diphthong [ei] in the first period, but after 1806 yj began to dominate: dyjna 184 —diena, /inksmintyjs 185 ~ linksminties, pyjna 206 ~ pieno, wyjna 184 ~ viena, wyjsznies 184 ~ viešnios, wyjto 184 ~ vieto[je]. However, there was also a variant that prevailed before 1806: Dyrws 755 ~ Diev[a]s, wyina 206 ~ vienu. As well as ij po g: gijsme12 Zyvatas Pona yr Diewa musu Jezusa Christusa, Wilniow: Drukarnie J. K.M. yr RP Kollgio Kunigu Pioriu, 1759 and other editions. Zinkevičius Z. Lithuanian dialectology, zem. 50; Lietuviy kalbos atlasas 2, Phonetics, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982, 63, Zem. 46 (hereinafter referred to as LCA 2). 142–143, 146–147, 151–152, 161–162, 163–164, 166–167, 168–169. 44, 45, 46. 229 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, su 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269. It seems that there is a not very pronounced tendency to give up the usual two-letter yi in the second letter of “Zyvatu” i. (11) Likewise, Clement- 's departure from the tradition of "Zyvatos" in 1806-1808 is clear from the diphthong [au] writing. Although aw —faw 183 ~ to you still occurs, in the following pages of this volume only au is written: brofau 184 —brother, daugiaus 184, gausie 755 ~ abundantly, ilgiaus 755, fauk 755 —look [for], piaun 184 ~ cut [a], praszau please. (13) K1DI1808 was used for the first time and the character $for 755 — soft (?) [s'] —tu before 755 ~ haves, it still seems to have appeared quite spontaneously here. 1.3 October 1808 – March 1810 However, the Lithuanian texts in the first and second volumes of KID are still very few. As Vytautas Vanagas states, “A. Klementas wrote most of his Lithuanian poems in 1808-1810. Until then he had written an agitation poem, a couple of idyllic poems, a couple of epigrams and several commemorative letters”- ”. These texts written in October 1808—1810 are in the third volume of KIDIII1810. One of the most important parts of Clement- ’s work — verses dedicated and sent to the bishop of Žemaitija, Juozapas Arnulfas Giedraitis, on March 17, 1810 — are also recorded here, from p. 534 to 559. They are probably dated around 1809 or the very beginning of 1810. The characteristics that varied in earlier stages about the year 1809 (so characteristics, KIDIII 1810, pages before the texts for the bishop) looked like this: (1) Clement wrote both with and without nosals, in the same positions, cf. ku 461 ~ what, tu 19(2x) ~ that, but also fy 490(3x) —that. (6) The non-double u [ou] was written more often: atiduti 19 —to give, /uste/a 20 ~ with a stripe, thus also one of the variants characteristic of “Zyvatas”. It is possible that two voices written at the same time sometimes seemed to Clement to be excessive and he wrote one. It is less likely that he would have been inclined here to mark the sound of the muddlers. (9) It is possible that Clement [ei] began to write yj more often instead of yr because of the Polish spelling efforts to use the letter j more often in general, cf. below the 12th feature. Clement- 's writing of yj here is also inconsistent (besides the forms dyjna 490 —day, wyjna 21, 490 —one, there were also genders with zi: dijna 21 —day, wijnu 20 ~ one). (11) The diphthong [au] continues to be most often written au: didiaus 461 —big, paraszau 461 ~ I write, praszau 461 —please, sau 20, 490, sausiay 490 ~ in January, although awfawrnu 461 —young is also found. | (12) Very unexpectedly, in addition to the usual ay, ey (mayszus 461 —bag, Szateykius 19 —Sateikius) Clement began to write words with aj, ej: gaj/us 461 —repent, kajp 20 ~ as, fejsybie 21 ~ truth, wajkiela 20 —child. Byana gas V. Antanas Klementas, 13. 230 It is known that the writing of these diphthongs with f in Polish orthography finally took hold only in the 1830s, i.e. after such writing was approved by a special Delegation in the publication “Rozprawy i wnioski o ortografii polskiej” published in Warsaw in 1830: "Before the Delegation approved the yote, it was spread only in the regions, but was accepted with reluctance; when the instructions of the Delegation were published, the situation changed completely instantly, the new letter was adopted everywhere and in the first decade after “Rosprawy...” 1830 appearance; consumption became close to normal —and it was soon reached”'®. Most of the time, the spread of yote in Lithuanian texts can be linked to its spread in Polish script. In other words, Lithuanian authors, who began to write the diphthongs aj, ej (instead of the old ay, ey) in Polish texts according to the new orthography, included them in Lithuanian texts as well. However, Clement's attempt to begin writing here is much earlier, from 1809—1810. It is true, as Bajerowa points out, that “in the 18th century there were already Szylarski and Nowacynski, who were supporters of the yote, but these were only isolated attempts, essentially without any response”. As can be understood from the examples of the study of Jan Loszy, neither one nor the other with that yote did not write diphthongs in the 18th century, only some other positions (in the traditional Polish spelling of the 18th and earlier centuries there was not at all; raidés)'®, One of the first to publicly propose writing with j and Polish diphthongs was the poet Aloyzas Feliński in 1816." In general, “it is an undisputed fact that /it first spreads in Vilnius”?. However, it is well known that EN wrote publicly about the reform of Polish spelling in Vilnius in 1808. Golianski? !, that such a reform was considered by the Warsaw Society of Friends of Science from 1809 to 1814, that Joachim Lelewel wrote an article in 1809 about the need to change Polish spelling. It is probably possible to assume that Klementas, who travelled a lot and often to Vilnius, would have felt the first reformist moods of Polish spelling, perhaps the need to correct the spelling of diphthongs, having himself episodically tried the innovation in his Žemaičių texts. Thus, for the same reasons, it may have increased in frequency in the case of the aforementioned 18Bajerowa I. Polski jezyk ogdlny XIX wieku, Stan i ewolucja 1, Ortografia, fonologia z fonetyką, morfonologia, Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 1986, 39: “Przed aprobatą Deputacji jota szerzyta się tylko regionalnie i zoporami; After the promulgation of the legislation of the Deputies the situation instantly changed completely, the new letter was adopted everywhere, and in the first decade after the Discourses of 1830 the saturation was already close to the state of normality - quickly achieved." 71ibid. 36: “Proponents of the iota were already in the eighteenth century Szylarski and Nowaczynski, but these were single attempts, in principle without a lift”. 18% og J. Polish spelling in the past and present, issues and conclusions, Kraków, 1917, 55-57. 19 Plg. Ibid. 58; Bajerowa I. Polish general language XIX..., century 1, 36. 20 Ibid. 38: “It is a clear fact that it is spreading most rapidly in Vilnius.” Kau puz A. U3 ucropuu moasckoit oprorpaduu B BurbHe B riepBot Tperu XIX B. —Acta Baltico-Slavica varianto ją 8, 1973, 172. 2 Ibid., 178. 2 Ibid., 170 ff. 231 yj [ei] instead of y7 (9 100 mg/ day). (13) Ir continue Clement used the script faux $: 490 — I'll wait, farsi 541 — as if. 1.4. March 1810. And thus, in search of a more accurate graphic expression for his Žemaitija texts, Klementas sat down to write poems for Bishop Juozapas Arnulfas Giedraitis. This is a responsible moment in the creator- 's biography. The bishop was already known as a caretaker of Lithuanian affairs, who wished to develop the Lithuanian language. He had in his hands much more than anyone else financial and administrative powers to influence the formation of a common language. He also had to feel the moral authority of the bishop. The Lithuanian edition of the Gospels, sponsored by Giedraitis in 1806, was printed for the first time without parallel Polish texts, full of attention to accurate word choice, with numerous footnotes of Lithuanian synonyms, and exuded a philological disposition to take care of the Lithuanian written language. Clement could not be unaware of this publication. Therefore, the great responsibility of offering his opinion rather formally, in a written text, Clement must have been clearly felt. Giedraitis's approval or disapproval could have made a big difference. There is no direct answer from Giedraitis, and only philological study allows us to predict that his opinion was not favourable to Clement. Clement could already feel and know Giedraitis’s different attitude, so the importance of argumenting his statements was even greater. A string of verses dedicated to the bishop of Žemaitija, Clement was initially written in his KIDIII1810 (1st clear), and only after that even clearer rewritten and sent to Giedraitis himself*- *. Fortunately, both variants of the spelling have survived to our times, and certain, if not very pronounced, tendencies to correct their spelling can be seen when comparing the first spelling not only with the earlier texts, but also with the second spelling made by the author himself. Certain strengthened or new trends can be seen in the programmatic and most powerful work of Klement, i.e. “Donis dera...” (KIDP1810, pp. 3-9), the first recorded among texts for Giedraitis. (1) When sending the poems to Giedraitis, Klementas had already decided to use the nasal letter y consistently, apparently to first mark the pronounced end of the word, which has retained the nasal sound. For example, KIDIII1810: ky 534, 535, 539 ~ what, those 535, 536, 537, 538(2x), 539 —that. However, already in this text Clement wrote the forms Gudysi 535 ~ Gudūse, Zremayciųsi 539 ~ Žemaičiūse, so he gradually began to expand the distribution of the nosinal letter ų. In the second version, written to the bishop, the number of nasal letters increased. For example, KIDIII1810 buvę Alsiediusie 534 —Alsėdžiūse, anu 538 ~ any, buwysiu (sic!) 534 ~ buvusių, Zė/sziu 535 ~ Telšių, Klemento KIDP1810 written already Alsiediysi 1, any 8, buwysiy 1, 2% | Antanas Klementas), Donis pridera Dyjno ward=metu Szwisiey- -Skayciausiuu Juzapou Kunigaykszciuu Giedrayciuu Wiskupuu Ziemayciu, Kawalieriuu GraZibies Buwysiy Linku Ponistes Metysi 1810 mę morciaus 19 D Ligiay with rasztas eyla sudietas Par tikra, and wysa ziemiausi Tarna AK Alsiediysi Adtydouta, manuscript preserved LNMMB,; sign. PR 1317, 34 p. (hereinafter referred to as KIDP1810.) 232 Telszių 4. Tik KIDP1810 in the word metysi 1 ~ in the years also contains the letter ų. So see alive Clement's attempt to decide, according to Žemaičių dialektas, to introduce the nasal sign y in the pronounced endings (sometimes in the unpronounced ones), in the pl. ines. limb. Already from the first KIDIII1810 variant the writing ku ~ ką, fu —tą disappeared. Klemento has quite boldly taken a new path, in this case already quite consistently adhering to its innovativeness. The letter ų was not used at all in traditional Lithuanian scripts. In the large In Lithuania before Clement ją might have written Mikalojus A lot of 1599 years "Postiléje". Mažojoje In ų Lithuania used Daniel Klein in his grammar years, many 1653 ir 1654 other authors up ir to the — Including the grammar of Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkas in 1800 (it is true that graphically the nose was not marked with the usual band today, but with a diagonal straight dash). Apparently, Clement took this script from the texts of Lesser Lithuania, although he used it in somewhat different positions (Milkaus ų is only used in sg. acc., and in pl. g. he writes 4%). In these later texts of Clement, the traditional Polish nasal ą, ę are no longer used. However, for example, from Clement- ’s decision to write in Samogitian [on] or [un], [om] or [um] ur and um, it is clear that he did not even need the letter a[on] used in the Samogitian writings of “Zyvate- ”, in which case he had decided to mark the letter u representing another sound. In this case there is no doubt about Clement- ’s courage to reform the tradition of Greater Lithuania and to propose the innovation of Lesser Lithuania to the bishop. The letter y was introduced here by Clement in a consistent manner. It is the more remarkable that there are no other nasal letters. (6) In Sau written KIDIII1810 uu still prevails: Giedrayciuu 534 ~ Giedraičiou=ui,:5Sziuuk 539 ~ i§juok(ia- ), Juzapuu 534 ~ Juozapou=ui, /uusas 534 ~ liuosas, fuumi 539 —tuomi, etc. However, ou adouti 534 ~ surrender appears. Although uu is often written and pronounced KIDP1810, there are also some efforts to change uu to ou. Here is the former isziuuk remade as isziouk 8, Juzapuu- >Juzapou 1, luusas>lousas 3, tuumi>toumi 9 (the double letter ou KIDP1810 of the words isziouk and lousas was also originally written uu, but corrected). In several places where KIDP1810 ouis written at once (įsziougdams 3 ~ izjuokdam[al]s, iszdoutas 5 ~ išduotas- ), uu has been corrected to ou already in the previous KIDIII1810:; sziougdams 535 and iszdoutas 536. KIDIII1810 was 70g 535 —that KIDP1810 was replaced even by /0ug 4, thus hyper-earthly sex! Prominent efforts to deliberately modify. In addition, in some places there was only one for KIDP1810 replaced by a double uu: aplinku 536 ~ aplinkou- =ui > aplinkuu 5, Kunigaykszcziu 534 ~ kunigaikščiou=iuo > BMielcke Ch. G. Anfangs- =Gninde einer Littauifchen Sprach= Lehre, worin war die von dem jiinger. : Calmly previously published grammar as the basis, but with ftarken Zufétzen and new elaborations improved and increased by Chriftian Gotlieb Mielcke, Cantor in Pillckallen, Karaliaučius: Print and publishing of the Hartungfchen Hofbuchdruckerey, 1800, 12 ir kt. 233 Mayan language. Apparently, it is ne one Clement's decision is a certain general position of the Zemgallen of the time. to Other occurring highland names are merely random, for example, giwendami 5 ~ żyjąc (jam. would be * givendamis), wydui 4 — see (jam. would be * married). 2.3. The Bk. Ratio of the ir genders of the Žemaičių aukštaičiai In the texts of Clement, it is clear that he wrote in the Zemgalian dialect. Upland genders are chosen instead of Žemaitijos genders only in two cases (diphthongs and afrikatas), and this in no way allows to talk about a theoretical disposition to combine different dialects. Also, these high-classes are hardly involved simply because of the frequent change of Clement’s place of residence, which researchers often like to point out, based on Clement’s own words, because they were deliberately inserted. Theoretically, Klementas Giedraitis also suggested to KIDP1810 to choose the Žemaičių Telšių dialect as the common language. He argued at least twice. The first argument is that Telšiai is the native dialect of Klement. However, it must be admitted that Clement was probably the first to publicly admit that for him, as for everyone else, dialectal specificity was very important: “Tay ira zinio wysims: iog kijk wyjnas sawa ||Gir pusie ty; kur gimiš, kur tiewiszkie gawa —||Dietto dydin tas, ir kic Lizda sau prigimta,- ||Kur giwenima pradzia žmogaus ira imta —||Dietto noriu sakyti: Telsziy katba peykti; ||Dar troksztu sztowie anay paderunti teykti”, p. 4. However, Giedraitis, who probably did not speak the Žemaičių dialect, Klementas offered another argument —geographical —Telšiai near Varniai, which is the centre of Žemaitija: “Nu Warniu, Telzia esu netolij padieti,|| Abu wydui Ziemayčiu —/:Jog tayp sznek girdieti:/—- Jszto paskuyto prigut teysibie pažinti:||- Kad arakas musyskie reyk tikroiu wadinti”, p.4. Of course, if Clement had any hope of persuading anyone (in this case, the bishop), it was only with the second argument. Moreover, Klement would have liked it more if even K. Sirvydas had written his dictionary “truly in Zemgalish”: “Kurius/:- regiems daktc:/wercie daugiaus Litjuwyszkay || Nekayp prigut musiszkay, tikray Ziemaytyszkay”, p. 6. Such arguments show that Clement was already concerned with the common language, more precisely, the common language of the Samogitians. 3.Bžk. the territory of consumption. The next step would be to try to determine whether Klement already had a vision of who should write in Žemaičių kalba, i.e. which Lithuanian-speaking territory’s inhabitants could use the Žemaičių kalba written language. Of course, first and foremost, the Zemgalians. But did he imagine that the Highlanders of Lesser and Greater Lithuania would also be readers and writers of such a language? It is noticeable that although Clement did not like the dialect of Sirvydas, he highly praised his dictionary: “Wyjnok reyk tych kninga poteysiey garbinti,|- |Jog made us pradzie [...]||[...] —Tad weltu peykti||Ano darba, jeszcze reyktum sztowie diet Jo weykti —||Asz pats idant Kningeles ano neturiečio, ||Nemasz paraszidinti dabar negalečio"K1DP1810, p. 6. And in Clement- ’s own text you can find words from Sirvydas’ dictionary, for example, iszpaustuwes sg. g. 5 —išspaustuvės, as an unclear word in Clement- ’s Polish explained in the footnote —Drukarnia (cf. 240 Sirvydo Drukarnia |[..) Išfpauftuwe raBto/literu**, 152); footnote 8 —subsidy, footnote 9 —Posifek (Sir. Pošifek jaenny |...) padeimas/paBaipa, 428); teysikfu 6 ~ laws, in footnote —Prawidia (Sirv. Prawidto|...] Taysikte, 441-442); wilta=wilis 9 ~ viltavilis, i$naSoje Podchlebca, (Sirv. Pochlebca [...| Wiltawilis, 402) et al. Such praise of Sirvydas- ’s “Dictionarium” shows that Klementas jj considered it his own. However, the dictionary is written in the eastern Highland dialect, which differs considerably from the dialect of the Žemaičių dounininkai proposed by Klement. Thus, in this case, the dialect was not a major obstacle for Clement. This could suggest the initial assumption that the Upper Roman part of Greater Lithuania was quite his own, and that the difference in dialect was not as important as the cultural geopolitical commonality. In addition, the powerful thought of Clement about the Great One. An example of Lithuanian linguistic integrity would be his parallel with the establishment of the dialect that became the basis of the common Polish language. Although Klement was modest that “Neešmu Lunkitoias swetymu asz szalu,Wos tyjk, ar maž žinoti Linku žieme galu“ KIDP1810, p. 5, he knew that there was a certain competition between the big and small Poles dialects: “Kur ira tyn dydyi; ir maži wadinti,|| Wyjni nu untru prisz sau katbu neabkinti”, p. 5. They don't even hate each other's dialect. And then Clement remarked —“Wyinok maži=Linka tur rasztųsi iszgali”, even though “Dyješni unt mažuiu, parstou Kalba gali”, p. 5. In the scriptures, the first are the small-handed, not the big-handed, although the big-handed have more power and more possession. No matter how much the great Poles do not like, books are printed in the small Poles dialect: “Wysas kningas iszdoutas wyjna jra buda”, and these are statements that do not give rise to discussion, because “We do not know these things; but also wysi Guda”, p. 5. Polish bk. Clement did not doubt the integrity of consumption theory. Thus, such a description of the relationship between Polish dialects is an obvious allusion by Clement to the competition between the Zemgaly and Vysocian dialects of Greater Lithuania. It is clear to him that a larger dialect and a wider territory do not necessarily determine the dialectal basis of a common language. Klement suggests that the Žemaičių dialektas would be quite suitable for this common language, although its territory is smaller than that of the Vysočie. If Klement sees that dialects compete, then he is modeling their possibilities for the same territory. He talks about the territory of Greater Lithuania, at least the Lithuanian-speaking ones, as one whole, which should have one common language. And the uniqueness of Sirvydas’ writings for the Zemgales clearly confirms this understanding of coherence. And the books written in the Mažolenkų dialect read by the Didžialenkai are a good hint for the Highlanders of Greater Lithuania, which texts written in the dialect they should choose...- Although Klementas did not elaborate his thoughts more precisely, it is clear that it would have been most acceptable for him a bk based on the Žemaičių dounininkų dialect. offer not only to the Žemaites, but also to the Highlanders of Greater Lithuania. One territory and one common Žemaičių kalba. Similarly, Zigmas Zinkevičius stated that “Kle34 Cited from the third photographed edition (1642): First Lithuanian Dictionary, Konstantinas Širvydas, Dictionarium trium linguarum, prepared by Kazys Pakalka Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979. 241 mento, it [the common language] should be based on the Zemgaly (Aukštaitijos nusileisig) Telšiai dialect"*. However, it would hardly be possible to find any clues that would allow Klemento bžk. to expand the vision of the territory to Lesser Lithuania. Some thoughts would suggest that the Prussian tradition of Lithuanian writing did not seem to Clement as an important or exemplary example. Here he complained that “Tou size negat noka dyrpti; iou teysiktu|- |Mes nieiszkur neturim, ney kokiu rodiktu,||- Kayp i matom, i girdam ten Lijzuwia kiti,||Par to negalem gieray katbieti, raszity” KIDP1810, p. 6-7. Clement imagined that the Lithuanian language had no rules, apparently he called this the lack of printed grammar. Lack of indexes Clement might have mentioned the lack of word lists or even dictionaries (in Sirvydas- ’s dictionary, the index is explained in one place Rere/tr w ksiegach- /Elenchus, [yllabus, index. Rodiktfe- /rodibu knigi?*)). However, not a few important Lithuanian grammar and dictionaries were published in Lithuania Minor, the last of which was the impressive work of Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkas in 1800. It is hard to believe that Clement had not heard of them. He spoke only of Sirvydas- ’s Dictionary as something that was there and therefore important. Apparently, the writings of Lithuania Minor did not attract Clement’s attention, they functioned in another territory, whose inhabitants modeled their own bžk. Clement did not feel the need. The thinking model, on which the concept of the territory of Klemens bžk depended, is becoming more evident. It is obvious that the political border between two states — Russia and Prussia — which divided the two Lithuanian-speaking territories, also became a border for Clement, limiting his vision of a common Žemaitian language. The geopolitical model of Lithuanian Lithuania, which traditionally did not include Lesser Lithuania, undoubtedly dominated the mind of Bajor Klemens. It is very strong, the linguistic model cannot yet claim its place. Clement had his own old noble understanding of the nation, not linked to language with the nation. More than a decade later, around 1823, a very similar pattern will be evident in the texts of baron Dioniz Poška. Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža, the child of a peasant, in five years’ time and beyond, would seem to be trying to choose not a political, but a linguistic division of the Lithuanian-speaking territory in his bržk. project, but instead of trying to expand ethnic boundaries, will separate some Žemaites —ethnic territory will narrow to sub-ethnic. And yet an entire epoch must pass before the establishment of the Duvantic- —linguistic ethnic—comprehension of the nation. 4. Bržk. relationship with the spoken language. There are few remaining notes of Clement's thoughts, which allow us to question whether he thought of a spoken variant of the common language. It makes sense to quote, for example, Clement’s conclusion after he complained about the lack of any fersyk/s (grammar?) and rodyk/y in his native language: “Par to negalem gieray katbieti, rasziti” KIDP1810, p. 7. It would seem that grammar (and dictionaries?) Zinkevičius Z. Lithuanian language in the 18th-19th centuries, 132. 30 First Lithuanian Dictionary, 474. 242 necessary for Klement not only to write well, but also to be, so it would be clear to him that when speaking he needs to take into account the normative works, not to speak anyhow. In another place, it is clear that Clement understood the connection that written language influences spoken language: “Others [...]||[...] Giwendami [.:.] Lijtuwos pakraszti|| Tayp pradieia sznekieti; kayp tyn rada raszti’ p. 5. However, such a superficial description may be inaccurate. The first quotation continues as follows: “I say! isz girdieima maž weykti galetut,||- Nieks pora sudurstoti wirsziu nemokietum,||Nes Linkiszkas žodzias Z-iemaycia prikayszia,||Jr tayp iau tikra katba suwysu sumayszia”, p. 7. It is clear that “to speak well” (according to grammar and dictionaries) meant primarily not to uniformize the tarj, but to purify the vocabulary. The continuation of the second quotation would be as follows: “Tay senu=dyjnu language Z-iemaytiszka musa,||Jau nupgadynima nepalika luusa”, p. 5. With regard to the texts written in the 18th century, apparently in the macaronian language, Clement, of course, also here focused on the vocabulary rather than the pronunciation. In the first place, Clement will have meant to say that the words from the texts enter into the speech, rather than that the speech is adapted to the written phonetic genders. Therefore, Clement did not distinguish pronunciation from the use of words in colloquial language in any clearer way. These remaining hints about the connection of speech with writings still do not allow us to assert that Clement was concerned with the standardization of the common spoken language. Clement wanted to cultivate the vocabulary of the spoken language as well as that of the written one, but he did not yet feel the need to uniformize the pronunciation. Therefore, it makes sense to talk only about Clement's common written Žemaičių kalba (p. vision. 5. Bržk. the foundation: systematic. The opposition between usage and language system is perhaps more pronounced in Clement- ’s thinking. It has been mentioned that due to the lack of normative writings, Clement seemed unable to speak and write well. He seems to have been more concerned with the rules of grammar than with the use of the language. The fact that “Mes cicie katbom tikta iszprigirdieima” KIDP1810, p. 6, is a bad condition, it will only be spoken about after creating feisyk/as and arrows. This is a way of expressing the desire to rely on the language system. Then at least look at it. one dialect is taken, but to manage that base, rules are needed to be guided. Clement may have been encouraged to think this way by the fact that he sometimes felt uncertain about his native dialect—- he read Sirvydo’s dictionary greedy, looking for words, and would have read the grammar greedy if he had had one. Perhaps Clement- ’s attempt to orient himself to the rules, to the system of language, is partly reflected in the above-mentioned particularly pronounced effort to mark the softness of consonants (¢ r, 7, $), which might have seemed to him a more pronounced feature of the system than the narrowness or breadth of vowels. In any case, Clement could not agree to the opposite principle —to write as spoken — “isz girdieima maz weykti galetus”. "Why did the British think that the language of the Welshers was unnatural?". 3Birzi%ka M. Antanas Klementas, Lithuanian writer of the early 19th century, 28. 243 6. Klemento bržk. sources and perspectives. Around this time, the Germanic dialects of the Germanic languages were formed. But whatever he imagined them to be, it was only a timid desire to suggest, not a willing desire to persuade. Proposed, uniformized, feeling that the power of decision is in the hands of the bishop. Clement- ’s text sounds like a vote “for”, but not an initiative to implement. Clement creates ideas, but he does not feel able to embody them. From the text to Giedraitis it is clear that Clement could have known something about the addressee’s thoughts on the formation of a common language. For example, Clement wrote that “Rasi cie Kunigaykszciu! it is unnatural,||Jsz other szalu, pusiu Z-iemayčiu iszimta”, p. 3. So the dialect of the prince probably was not Žemaičių, he came from the eastern Aukštaitija areas! Perhaps feeling a certain distance of Giedraitis to the Žemaičių dialect (after all, he said that he knew that everyone praises his own side, where he was born), he saw the need to emphasize the commonality of the Žemaičiai and the Vysokiai: “Wyjnims, untrusius nereyk par žodzius niekinti, ||Jog wysi mes Z-iemayčia esma, reyk adminti”, p. 7. We are all the same, we all need the same bk. And until then, when the hightitic writings prevailed, Clement thought about the printing houses located in Lithuania (Aukštaitija) and there publishing elementary books for children: “Nedydia ira Lustas, tayp mums pasakiti:|- |’Kad und alementoriaus iem wakus mobkiti,||Pas tokiu žodziu pratin, kayp warstoy Lijtuwa!- ’||Nes iszpaustuwes raszta tynay arciaus buwa”, p. 4-5. Therefore, there was a need for a printing house in Zemaičiai, which would start publishing books in the language: “Kad Warnia or Telszia anus [writing] for yourself had, ||Kayp cie aplinkuu kalb; tayp rasziti pradietum”, p. 5. However, Giedraitis was not affected by Clement- 's proposal. Six years later (1816) the bishop published the entirely High Tithian “New Testament”. In 1813 Giedraitis did not invite. The results of Clement- ’s persuasion are not even echoed in that text. The bishop had his own opinion, for him the Altay dialect was probably both older and more promising. Clement did not succeed in continuing even the modified traditions of “Zyvatos”. However, his texts for Giedraitis are one of the first surviving theoretical attempts to create a common written language for the Žemaites. Researchers also point to Klemens- ’s more cultural connections with contemporary figures who were concerned about the fate or standardization of the Lithuanian language. For example, Klement was even acquainted with Ksaveras Boguš: “as early as 1803, when Father Baužas visited (wizytator) the Žemaičių schools on behalf of Vilnius University, and you will find that when collecting material for his book, Kl. greatly longed to meet him, ‘bo jego bytnoszcz ciekawoszcz wzrusza' [...]. Not long afterwards, Fr. B., who had influence on Benningsen, the governor-general of Vilnius, and still lived with him, helped Kl. in his personal affairs with the governor-general (Kl. was grateful and kissed the hands of both of them!) >", 38 Plg: Prašmantaitė A. Žemaičių vyskupas J.A. Giedraitis —Naujojo Testamento vertėjas. —Lithuanian Literature3, Nineteenth Century, Vilnius: Pradai, 1994, 232-234. 39 Biržiška M. Antanas Klementas, Lithuanian writer in the early 19th century, 24. 244 There is ar hardly any doubt that Clement knew about Boguš spoke the ideas that the jo thoughts were subjected to. It has been repeatedly observed that “He had written pasta-like K. verses himself, now he was outraged that “with Polish words the Samogitians reproached ir so already the real language completely mixed**"*, that “at first he himself used a lot of all kinds of borrowings in his Lithuanian poems, later he began to avoid them and even resent them'**!. This change may have been directly influenced by Bogus, his work published in 1808, which Clement must have also known. In the words of Biržiška, Klementas “was concerned only with the honor of the language*"*- *, and Boguš nurtured the need and understanding of that honor. Klement also maintained contacts with the ten years younger Dioniz Poška: “From his youth, D. Poška knew A.Klement closely. Both of them spent several years together in the courtrooms of Raseiniai [...]. They would meet later, discussing not only “earthly*, but also literary topics”"*. It is assumed that Clement might have influenced Poška's literary pursuits. However, it is not clear whether this influenced Poška's linguistic views. It is true that Poška made his theoretical decision to introduce a common language based on the Dūnininkai dialect much later, only in 1823, but there is no clearer direct follow-up to Klemens Bržk. ideas. The younger Poška was looking for his own ways. It seems, Clement- 's mouth. the idea had no more prominent followers. None of his literary acquaintances began to write as Clement suggested. In an attempt to improve the tradition of “Zyvato” in the Dounian style, Boguš and other writers turned to his own language and tried to articulate bržk. theory, but was not an active distributor of it, did not have any supporters. As the primary theoretician of the BZK, he was also the last follower of the Dūninų “Zyvato” tradition before the emergence of the dominant group of literates supporting the Dūninų dialect. He emphasizes that, although he already wrote manuscript sermons in the Dounin style, his ideas matured more clearly only after the uprising of 1831, so when the potential of the Douninists decreased again, he reworked the Douninist tradition, and then tried to spread it much more actively and widely than Clement. 7. Summary. Antanas Klementas searched, little by little improved, uniformized the spelling, paying particular attention to softness, not latitude or narrowness. He relied on the Žemaičių dounininkų dialect — the “Zyvato” tradition, improved it. He wanted to introduce his own dialect to the Highlanders of Greater Lithuania, did not think about a variant of the common spoken language, prioritized the language system, 9Maciūnas V., Klementas Antanas. —Lietuvių enciklopedija 12, Boston: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1957,102. ur alionis J. The History of Lithuanian Literary Language, 159. „Bi irziSka M. Antanas Klementas, Lithuanian writer at the beginning of the 19th century, 27. Vana gas V. Dionizas Poška, Vilnius: Pradai, 1994, 58, 245 rules, not use. However, he did not convince Bishop Giedraitis and did not have any followers. Not to see Clement's efforts to educate them. Summary The Samogitian texts of the poet Antanas Klementas (1756-1823) have survived only from the period of 1794 to 1810, nevertheless even these texts reveal a certain development of Klementas’ attitude to written language. In course of time Klementas made his Samogitian orthography more precise. He also made noticeable efforts to express palatalization of consonants in an innovative way. However, Klementas did not manage to make his orthography uniform. Klementas tried to base the norms of the standard Samogitian that he preferred on the Samogitian dounininkai tradition of “Zyvatas” (1759, etc.). He also wanted to see even the users of AukBtaitish dialect learn his Samogitian version of standard written language. But Klementas was not thinking of a spoken form of standard Samogitian. His priorities lay on the rules (the system) of language rather than on its usage. However Juozapas Arnulfas Giedraitis, the bishop of Samogitia, did not support Klementas’ ideas and he did not have any known followers. 246