LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997)

LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

Rasa KALINAUSKAITĖ

THE CONCEPT OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN A. SAVICKIS’S TRANSLATION OF “S. TAMOSZIAUS à KEMPIS”

For publishers of Lithuanian writings in the early nineteenth century, the philological problem of written language coincided with reflection on the model of Lithuanian culture then taking shape. In proposing a version of written language, a writer also answered the question of what the community of Lithuanian readers to whom he addressed himself was and ought to be. At the beginning of nation formation, a philological commitment entailed responsibility for a particular cultural project.

In this respect, the position of a publisher of religious writings was exceptional. He confronted a tradition of ecclesiastical language that had already taken shape in the eighteenth century. For the new community of Lithuanian readers emerging in Greater Lithuania, the linguistic habits fostered by this tradition represented the foremost—often perceived as sacred and paramount—experience of the written word. Even someone as philologically sensitive as J.A. Pabrėža did not dare, or perhaps saw no need, to change this tradition radically; that is, he did not perceive it as a competing model for his own vision of language (Subačius 1996: 33–35). On the other hand, the successful reform of the language of ecclesiastical writings initiated by J.A. Giedraitis testifies that, when adapted to the new needs of an emerging culture, this language could acquire the significance of a cultural project and take part in nineteenth-century philological debates (Prašmantaitė 1994). The attempt to give ecclesiastical language the status of a vibrant cultural project provides the context in which, upon closer reading of A. Savickis’s translation “S. Tamosziaus à Kempis,” published in 1828, one can assess his chosen solution to the philological problem.

Reliable information about A. Savickis’s life is scarce. He is thought to have been born around 1782 in Kretinga County (Biržiška 1963: 385). After graduating from the Varniai Theological Seminary, he was ordained a priest around 1819 and served as a vicar in various parts of Samogitia until his death in 1836. He completed the translation “S. Tamosziaus à Kempis” while serving as vicar in Tirkšliai, which he left around 1826. In 1827, while serving as vicar in Gargždai, he translated “Kalbas dusziu su Diewu izsimtas isz knigu Swęnta Augustyna,” published in 1829. A manuscript of fable translations and original poetry, prepared for publication in 1835 but never published, has survived.

There are no detailed studies of A. Savickis’s language, and published assessments of it are contradictory. Volume IV of Z. Zinkevičius’s “History of the Lithuanian Language” states that “the linguistic basis of A. Savickis’s works is the Samogitian dialect,” although “there are also many traditional elements” (Zinkevičius 1990: 126). In J. Palionis’s “History of the Lithuanian Literary Language,” A. Savickis is listed among the authors who wrote more or less in keeping with the Samogitian dialect (Palionis 1979: 188).

247

However, speaking more specifically about A. Savickis, it is stated that he wrote “not in Samogitian, but in the traditional ecclesiastical koine” (Palionis 1979: 192).

A closer look at A. Savickis’s language should therefore clarify the relationship between the Samogitian dialect and ecclesiastical tradition, as well as the author’s conscious linguistic attitudes. On the other hand, if, once this relationship has been formulated, it turns out that the Samogitian elements do not reflect a conscious orientation toward some theoretical model (for example, a Samogitian dialect of written language), but are simply products of philological inconsistency in the text, perhaps they might tell us something about the author’s native dialect.

To reconstruct A. Savickis’s attitude toward language in the translation “S. Tamosziaus à Kempis,” one must begin with his engagement as a translator in the preface, “Kalba pry skaitytojaus.” Two main attitudes emerge from the preface. First, A. Savickis was concerned to translate the religious text accurately, without departing from the original. Accordingly, a linguistic asceticism characteristic of the religious translator’s stance—one that mortifies needless linguistic adornment and the sinful flesh—is evident: “... kožnas gieray žyna tą teisybe, jogiey ne patoguomu žodziu pamieksta Diewuy, bet isz-pildimu paduota moksła ant sekima Chrystusa Pona”; “...storoj aus, idant ir mažiausioy dal eley neapk ieysczio pawe ykshu iszrožytu, ir mysles S.Rasztinika” (S.Tamosziaus à Kempis 1828: III). Language should be only a modest intermediary, conveying the original’s meaning to the addressee without demanding attention for itself. One could say that linguistic interest for A. Savickis is merely secondary and practical, supplementing his priestly duty. Besides reverence for the addressee, he was concerned that religious thought should be accessible to the recipient: “Teypogi užłaykiau buda Žemaytisz kos kałbos kaypo dabar ira kałbama, tykiu jogiey newienam nebus pryszzyngi ir ne suprantamis žodey iszguldimi tos knigielis padieti” (S.Tamosziaus à Kempis 1828: III). The aim of religious education motivates the criterion of usage: the translation must accord with readers’ linguistic habits. Yet the criterion of living-language usage, which underlies A. Savickis’s declared choice of the Samogitian dialect, would constrain the desire to spread religious teaching as widely as possible. Did this conflict arise for A. Savickis? How did he understand the usage on which he based his work, and “the Samogitian language”? These questions should be answered by the language of the translation itself.

Orthographic and phonetic forms

1. The spelling of the diphthong ie varies throughout the text. The Aukštaitian ie is written in the more frequent words in which the author would have been most struck by Samogitian features: apszwies 206 ~ apšvies, apszwiestays 1 ~ apšviestais, diena 1 ~ dieną, szwiesibe 6, 206 ~ šviesybę, wiena 6 ~ vieno, wietas 15 ~ vietas. However, there are also many Samogitian forms that reveal the author to have been a southern Samogitian dünininkas: apszwit 206 ~ apšviečia, iszka 203 ~ ieško, iszkoma 10 ~ ieškoma, isz koti 2, 10, 207 ~ ieškoti, palikta 11, 12 ~ paliekta (palieka), paliktame 16 ~ paliektame (paliekame). That Samogitian forms slipped into the text inadvertently is also shown by the fact that, while writing wiena 6 ~ vieno, A. Savickis leaves the same-root form wynokiey 6 ~ vienokiai.

248

2. The tendency toward Aukštaitianization is revealed even more clearly by the spelling of uo. The following forms are consistently written in the Aukštaitian manner: apjuoktas 16 ~ apjuoktais, atiduotas 15 ~ atiduotas, atsiduoti 15 ~ atiduoti, duoti 200 ~ duoti, išjuokimas 204 ~ išjuokimas, išliuosuotays 19 ~ išliuosuotais, išliuosuotu 21 ~ išliuosuotu, pryduti 17 ~ priduti. The hyper-Aukštaitian forms isidodame 5 ~ išsiduodame, neatsidos 15 ~ neatsiduos, wysotinius 5 ~ visuotinius, if they are not proofreading errors, show that here the author understood uo as o, which the Samogitians diphthongize. In this case, the Aukštaitian uo was first restored; then this uo was equated with the Samogitian one and once again converted into the Aukštaitian dialect.

3. The tendency toward Aukštaitianization may also be explained by the most distinctive feature of A. Savickis’s language: uo is written in place of the Aukštaitian u· and u. Hyper-Aukštaitian uo forms occur in several cases:

a) In the prefix nu-, which in the dialects is pronounced nu·, nu– (tense u!): nenuotrotis 13~ nenutrotysi, nuoeja I~ nuėjo, nuoeytu 17~ nueitu, nuohudima 12~ nuliūdimą, nuoramintu 200~ nuramintu, nuopelnitri11, 17~ nupelnyti, nuopelnitu 9~ nupelnėtų, nuopuolima 201~ nupuolimo, nuowargintas 21~ nuvargintas, nuowedi I~ nuvedė, nuožemina 13~ nužemina, nuožeminimas 7~ nužeminimas, nuožutuomem 19~ nužūtumėm.

b) In the root or ending of a word with a long [u·]—(dünininkas do not distinguish where u· is ancient and where u < uo): apduomoja 7~ apdūmoja, duoksau 21~ dūksau[ja], duomoti 5~ dūmoti, ruogoja 15~ rūgoja, szwętuoju 1~ “šventųjų”, although in the root A. Savickis more often writes u for the long [u·]: buday 17~ būdai, butinay 11, 12, 21~ būtinai, kudikelems 206~ kūdikėliams; kuna 21~ kūno, nuohudima 12~ nuliūdimą, sunau 203~ sūnau, žuna 10~ žūna. The author intuitively sensed the difference between the dünininkas [u·] (corresponding to the Aukštaitian uo) and the Aukštaitian [u·], but he was unable to distinguish the phonetic forms more perceptively and often hesitated over the spelling. He wrote: buosi4~būsi, muosu 18~mūsų, ruopesnis 1~rūpesnis, užruostynima 9~užrūstinimo, conflating sounds of different origins. There are also buti 5~būti, butu 9,19~būtų, musu 1, 18, 19~mūsų, nebuk 14~nebūk, rupestingi 206~rūpestingi, rupinas 21~rūpinas.

c) In place of the short Aukštaitian u, which the Samogitians render as [ɔ] (Varniškiai have [ɔ], Raseiniškiai [u]; they “pronounce it more openly than in the standard language, but do not render it as another sound, although in some places they bring it very close to ɔ” – (Zinkevičius 1966: 66)) a) consistently in the subjunctive mood: matituomey 5~matytumei, mokietuomey 2~mokėtumei, skaytituomey IV~skaitytumei, stotuomemos 19~stotumėmos, turėtuomey 10, 13~turėtumei; b) in derivatives with –umas, A. Savickis again hesitates: dauguoma 6~daugumo, gražuoma 13~gražumo, patoguoma 13~patogumo, sunkhuoma 6, 11~ sunkumo, but ramumas 20~ramumas.

To avoid the dünininkas [u·], A. Savickis generalized the spelling uo even in those positions where Samogitians pronounce not the long [u·], but a tense short vowel u. The consistent spelling of the subjunctive suffix indicates that he tried to devise a rule. However, where the morphological criterion no longer serves to formulate his own rule,

249

Savickis, being a non-philologist, becomes confused and makes mistakes.

4. Like most Samogitians of that period, A. Savickis distinguishes Samogitian [ɛ] and [iˑ] in his writing. He marks [ɛ] quite consistently with y: amžynu 207~amžių, dydį 19~didį, myslik 208~mislyk, pyktay 20~piktai, tykiu III~tikiu, užtykra 202~už tikro, wys6~vis, wysokios 205~visokios, Žemaytyszkos III~žemaitiškos. Although there is also the Aukštaitian garbinu II~garbinu, and infinitive forms are likewise written with –ti, [iˑ] is marked with i: dariti 16~daryti, giwenima 1~gyvenimą, ira 16, 18, 19~yra, klausiti 6~klausyti, knigielis IV~knygelės, nikstanczius 18~nykstančius, padarik 6~padaryk. But here, too, there is inconsistency: aprasz yti II~aprašyti, neprysaka I~neprisako, tyl6,8~tyli.

5. A. Savickis’s spelling also reflects the Samogitian diphthongization of the vowel e to [ie]: apturėja II~apturėjo, bieda 9, 206~bėda, biegi 204~bėgi, diel 204~dėl, garbie 8, 203, 204~garbė, gieda 12~gėda, gieribe 203~gėrybė, girdietus 9~girdėtus, mokieti 7~mokėti, niera 6, 7(2x), 206~nėra, park ratinieti 18~perkratinėti, turieti 200~turėti. However, many examples indicate a tendency toward the Aukštaitian spelling tradition: del (III(2x), 19, 204(3x), 205~dėl, galeja 18~galėjo, galetuomem 18~galėtumėm, letays 14~lėtai, mileti 205(2x)~mylėti, pargaleti 7~pergalėti, te 7~tie (tėra). Examples after l may also indicate alignment with Polish tradition.

6. The vowel o is consistently marked in the Aukštaitian manner: matonis 17~malonės, mokslas 207~mokslas, noreme 11~noriame, pasirodau 207~pasirodau, roda 10~rodo, szlowie 203~šlovė, žynoti 11~žinoti, žmogus 7, 21~žmogus. Only occasionally does a Samogitian diphthong slip in: kuo 11~ko. That A. Savickis had chosen to mark the Aukštaitian o is also shown by the writing of o instead of the diphthong uo: neatsidos 15~neatsiduos, isidodame 5~išsiduodame, wysotinius 5~visuotinius.

7. The Aukštaitian diphthongs ai and ie, which Samogitians more often monophthongize, are regularly restored: butynay 21~būtinai, dayktas 20~daiktas, daktar ay 6~daktarai, eyti 20~eiti, iszmanay 4~išmanai, pakarney 11~pakarniai, pawe y kstay II~paveikslai. In some places, through inadvertence, spelling follows Samogitian pronunciation: dydesne 4~didesniai, nobažna III, 1~nuobažnai, uwožnia III~uvožniai (alongside uwožney 11~uvožniai).

8. The Aukštaitian mixed diphthongs [an], [am] are written an, am: amžius 10~amžius, aplankis 206~aplan kęs, dangaus 206~dangaus, eynantem 12~einančiam, giwenanczios 204~gyvenančios, tankiey 10, 13, 20~tankiai.

The diphthong en is written en or e (in the stem švent-): giwenk 208~gyvenk, kent 21 (2x)~kenčia, kientieti 207~kentėti, ženkluosi 207~ženk­luose; szwentabliway 4~šventablyvai, szwetu 2~šventu, szwetuojų 1~šventųjų.

The diphthong in is written yn, as if with an e broadened in the Samogitian manner: prysz yngus 20~priešingus, pažyndams 20~pažindamas, pažynti 206, 207~pažinti, pažynties 14~pažinties, prysz yngus 20~priešingus, prysz ynties 15~priešintis. However, there is a tendency to write it with narrow i: dievobayminga 12~dievobaimingo, garbink 13~garbink, iszmin ti 13~išmintim, nuoramintu 204~nuramintu, paniekinti 205~paniekinti.

The form ul occasionally slips in with a broadened Samogitian [ɔ]: tegol 12~tegul.

250

9. The writing of diphthongs in word roots in place of standard Lithuanian ą, į reflects the nasal pronunciation of sounds preserved in the dialect. Nasal [ą] is preserved in the root: išzγangstame 19~išsigąstame, ne nuosigansk 203~nenusigąsk, spanstus 200~spąstus. In the forms iszpažynsta 21~išpažįsta, pažįnsta 3, 6, 16, 21~pažįsta, nasal [į] is preserved, although sugrisų 203~sugrįšiu also occurs. This nasalized pronunciation was preserved by many southern Samogitians and some northern Samogitians (the other northern and western Samogitians denasalized nasal vowels in the root (Zinkevičius 1966: 75–79)).

Because of the inconsistent orthography, it is difficult to determine where Savickis used a nasal letter to indicate nasal pronunciation and where he simply wrote it automatically, under the influence of the tradition of ecclesiastical texts. In the root švent-, Savickis used a nasal grapheme to indicate a diphthong (this might indirectly attest to the preservation of nasal [ę] pronunciation in the root—in this root [ę] (švęs-) alternated with tautosyllabic en). Alongside the nominative of the present active participle nuosižeminans 3~nushižeminąs, one also finds iszsiau ksztiņas 3~išsi aukštinąs, nemokąs 208~nemokąs—that is, here the grapheme ą may indicate nasal pronunciation. Alongside the nominative plural of the past active participle (in this position Samogitians retain n—cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 77), moki usins 8~moki u-sys, there are also galėjė 20~galėję, prydawę 20~pridavę, skaytę 8~skaitę—that is, here too nasal pronunciation may be indicated. However, ą and ę are traditionally also written in positions where they do not denote nasal pronunciation. The unstressed singular accusative ending (which is denasalized in Samogitian—cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 76) is written dayktą 17~daiktą, matonę 202, 204~malonę, sumnenę 206~sumnenę, szłowę 9~šlo- vę (alongside daleli 9~dalelę, didibe 207~didybę, karaliste 2~karalystę, sargibe 9~sargybę, teysibe III, 207~teisybę). The orthographic tradition most likely also determined the spelling of pronoun accusatives: manę 4, 201~mane, sawę 3(2x), 5, 6(2x), 7, 13, 209~sa- ve. Here the nasal graphemes do not denote nasalized pronunciation—the tense ending vowel į, transposed here, would be pronounced thus only in western and eastern Aukštaitian dialects, cf. munį, tavį, savį (Zinkevičius 1966: 298–299). The pronouns’ genitive is written manies 203~manes, sawies 3, 7, 17~saves, tawies 203~taves. These examples show A. Savickis tending to follow the tradition of ecclesiastical texts, while forms retaining n may have slipped in unconsciously.

Morphology

1. The text often reflects Samogitian reduction of endings: tarnau 3, 17, 21~tar- nauja, tetur 1~teturi, užved 16~užveda. However, A. Savickis tries to restore the third-person present-tense ending: abgauna 5~apgauna, atweda 17~atve- da, eyna 1~eina, ira I(2x), III, IV, 1, 2, 3...~yra, trokszta III~trokšta. Unusually transposed forms also occur: tikia 9 “tiki”.

A. Savickis writes the singular nominative of a-stem nouns in the Aukštaitian manner: amžynas 5~amžinas, dayktas 20~daiktas, Diewas 19~Dievas, teysingas 6~teisingas.

There is a tendency to preserve mobile a in verb forms such as eyd amas 3~eidamas, iszguldidamas III~išguldydamas, uwóżodamas II~uvožodamas. Samogitian forms also occur: apleydams 207~apleisdamas, regiedams 203~regėdamas.

251

2. The unstressed third-person ending is written in Samogitian form: buwa 8, 10~buvo, išmana 6~išmano, mata 5~mato; likewise, the first-person plural present tense: bowijamos 18~bovijamės, storojemos 5(2x), 208~storojamės, tureme 10~turime.

3. Samogitian forms of the subjunctive and imperative moods are frequent: atilsieczio 201~atilsėčiau, mokieczio 3, 201~mokėčiau, norieczio 16~norėčiau, mokietuomey 2~mokėtumei, turietuomey 10~turėtumei, storokies I~storokis.

4. Both the tendency toward Aukštaitian forms and Savickis’s inconsistency are evident in the spelling of nominal case forms, especially the dative and locative. Savickis writes the masculine singular dative in the Aukštaitian manner: Diewuy IV, 2, 3, 10, 19, 205~Dievui, darbuy 209~darbui, giwenimuy 209~gyvenimui, žmoguy 14~žmogui. Alongside the Aukštaitian locative forms—amžynoi 6~amžinoj, knigelei I~knygelėj, mažiausioy III~ mažiausioji, Wylnjuje (title page)~Vilniuje—there are also Samogitian forms: łosko 201~loskolje], pradzio 16~pradžiojle], Tyrkszluse (title page) ~Tirkšliuose, žodziuse 9~žodžiuose. Samogitian forms of other cases occur more frequently, for example, the genitive: łoskas 2~loskos, malonis 2~malonės, wales7, 10~valios. However, one finds Bažnyczios I~Bažnyčios, pariszkados 18~pariškados.

5. Prefixes/prepositions about, through, to, before in the translation are Samogitian: Apey 1, 2, 3 (2x), 14, 18; par 11, par paniekinima 2~ for contempt, parskaytyma II~for reading; pry Diewa 11, 18, 203~to God, pry skaytytojaus I~to the reader; prysz 19, prysz Diewa 3~before God.

Lexicon

1. The translation’s lexicon is oriented toward the tradition and usage of ecclesiastical language. The author is not troubled by foreignisms that have become normative in ecclesiastical writings: cziesas 17, czystas 6, misle 5, mizerna 6, pakajaus 204, pakuta 19, proces 19, sumneni 3, and so on. The Samogitian pronoun ans (anam 12, ano 204, anus 17(2x), 18) and the Aukštaitian jis (Jo 2, Jem 2, jisai 7) are used interchangeably. The intended reader is one whose linguistic habits are accommodated—whether Samogitian or Aukštaitian—while the usage followed is ecclesiastical.

Analysis of spelling, phonetics, morphology, and lexicon shows that the Samogitian forms in A. Savickis’s text resulted not from a conscious decision but from the spontaneity of the author’s linguistic habits. Since the Samogitian forms do not represent an abstract model of written language—that is, the selection and combination of forms—it may be suggested that they were prompted by the Samogitian dialect and that an attempt was made to discuss this dialect.

1. The Dūnininkai dialect is evidenced by i appearing sporadically where Aukštaitian has ie (see Spelling and phonetic forms, 1).

2. An important argument in identifying A. Savickis’s native dialect is hyper-Aukštaitian uo in place of Aukštaitian u· and u (see Spelling and phonetic forms, 3). Only a Dūnininkai author could have made this mistake.

3. The nominative plural ending of past active participles—

252

is written by Savickis as ę: galėję 20~galėję, prydavę 20~pridavę, skaytę 8~skaitę. However, in the reflexive form moki usins 8~mokiusių, n is retained. This form reflects the pronunciation of unstressed ę in this position as [ęr] or [ęn] in the southern Samogitian dialect. In the Kretinga dialect area, by contrast, a reduced [ę] is pronounced (see Zinkevičius 1966: map of Samogitian, no. 50).

4. Affricate and non-affricate forms were apparently written as they were pronounced in the author’s dialect at the time. There are only a few forms of another stem, particularly characteristic of the Dūnininkai: kalcze 12~kaltė, už kalczas 12~už kaltes. Closer examination does not suggest that the author understood affrication as an important distinguishing feature of Aukštaitian and Samogitian borrowed from the dialect, or that he tried to reconcile it with the general tendency to Aukštaitianize the text. Once the noun paradigm is reconstructed, a consistent system emerges:

sing. Nom. –

Gen. dydzia 16~great, nepryderanczia 11~inappropriate, prižodzia 3~of a promise, smercze 21, 204~of death, žodzia 6~of a word, žodze 206~of a word

Dat. kalbantem 9~speaking, nuosižeminantem 13~humbling oneself, žodziui 9, 209~to a word

Acc. –

In. antszkrycziu 202~on the cross

Loc. –

pl. Nom. žodey III, 1, 2~words

Gen. nepryderancziu 11~inappropriate, weyzancziu 14~weighing, žodziu 1, 4, III, 11, 206, 207~words

Dat. žemaytems II~Samogitians, žodems 9, 11~words

Acc. dydzius 8, 14~great, iszkadyienczius 5~harming, nikstanczius 18~perishing, tuscczius 8~empty, žodzius 2, 205~words

In. dydeys 8, 13~great, žodeys 206~words

Loc. žodziuse 9~in words.

The paradigm presented consistently preserves the “affricate rule”: the plural nominative, dative, and instrumental have no affricates. Affricates are retained in the singular genitive. This is a distinctive feature of the eastern part of the Samogitian area and the “central” Samogitians, who have a genitive without an affricate (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 142). Thus, the affricate system coincides with the pronunciation in the present-day Samogitian area and provides another argument confirming the supposition that A. Savickis’s native dialect was Dūnininkai.

To sum up briefly the characteristics of the language of the translation, several conclusions may be drawn. The language of “S. Tamosziaus à Kempis” indicates A. Savickis’s deliberate orientation toward the tradition of ecclesiastical writings. Accordingly, the interpretation of two positions expressed in the preface to the translation needs to be somewhat refined. Although A. Savickis says that he will preserve the “manner of the Samogitian language,” in reality he deliberately bases his written language more on the Aukštaitian dialect. Samogitian dialect forms occur in the text more often when they spontaneously break through the author's linguistic habits—

253

as the author's linguistic habits break through.

The same can be said of the priority given to usage (“the way people speak now”). Savickis draws not on spoken Samogitian but on the tradition of ecclesiastical writings. Forms from living usage slip in sporadically.

Given the orientation toward the Aukštaitian dialect, it is possible to specify the part of the tradition of ecclesiastical writings to which A. Savickis’s translation is closely aligned. These are most likely texts from Bishop Giedraitis’s circle, where efforts were made not to depart from the eighteenth-century tradition. A well-known poem is one that A. Savickis wanted to use to ingratiate himself with his superior, Giedraitis (Palionis 1979: 193).

However, the language of Giedraitis’s writings represented a particular deliberately chosen cultural project (the parallel Polish text was abandoned, and efforts were made to purify the lexicon (Zinkevičius 1990: 112; Prašmantaitė 1994). The author of “Tamosziaus à Kempis” merely aligned himself with this project, thinking of language not as the representative of an emerging culture, but as a vehicle for conveying religious intentions. Recalling a certain stance whose norms the authority of ecclesiastical tradition instilled in nineteenth-century publishers of religious writings, one may think that the religious nature of the translation could have determined A. Savickis’s philological passivity. After all, A. Savickis was also the author of translations of poems and fables. Research into the language and poetics of secular writings could answer the question of whether religious subject matter constrained Savickis’s linguistic thought.

Many authors conjecture that A. Savickis was born in Kretinga County (although the extent of that county in the eighteenth century is unknown; according to oral accounts, Švėkšna, Judrėnai, and other places where Dūnininkai was spoken belonged to Kretinga). Some Samogitian dialect forms that spontaneously slipped past the censor of A. Savickis’s deliberate linguistic positions make it possible to identify his native dialect. The Dūnininkai equivalents of Aukštaitian ie, hyper-Aukštaitian forms with uo, the affricate system, and the retention of n in the plural nominative of active participles attest that the author was a Samogitian Dūnininkai speaker. This is yet another mystery revealed in A. Savickis’s otherwise enigmatic biography.

LITERATŪRA

Biržiška V. 1963: Aleksandrynas. XVIII–XIX amžiai, Čikaga, 497.

Palionis J. 1979: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija, 320.

Prašmantaitė A. 1994: Žemaičių vyskupas J.A.Giedraitis – Naujojo Testamento vertėjas. – Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 3, Devynioliktan amžiun įžengus, Vilnius: Pradai, 172–340.

Subačius G. 1996: Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža. – Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos 8, Asmuo: tarp tautos ir valstybės, Vilnius.

Tamosziaus à Kempis, 1828: Tamosziaus à Kempis Apey sekima Chrystusa Pona knigas kietures... ysz lotiniszkos ant žemaytyszkos kalbas... yszguldytas par kuniga Antona Sawicki Týrszkłuse (Vilniuje).

Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Zinkevičius Z. 1990: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 4, Lietuvių kalba XVIII–XIX a., Vilnius: Mokslas.

254

COMPREHENTION OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF “S. TAMOSZIAUS à KEMPIS” BY ANTANAS SAVICKIS

Summary

The language of “S. Tamosziaus à Kempis” shows an orientation of the author Antanas Savickis toward the tradition of religious writings of the 18th century which means that he deliberately made efforts to write in Aukštaitish dialect. On the other hand, there are many spontaneous phonetic, morphological, lexical forms of Samogitian dialect in Savickis’ text which prove he was a Samogitian. So far specialists have surmised that Savickis was born in the district of Kretinga(Samogitian dialect), but the analysis of his language allows to maintain his native dialect was that of South Samogitia district (Samogitian–dūnininkai subdialect).

255