LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997)

LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

Giedrė ČEPAITIENĖ

FORMS OF ADDRESS IN JONAS JABLONSKIS’S LETTERS

To date, 424 letters by Jonas Jablonskis have been published through the efforts of Professor Arnoldas Piročkinas (Jablonskis 1985; Jablonskis 1991). Most of these letters were written in Lithuanian (353), some in Russian (70), and one in Polish.

The content of J. Jablonskis’s letters is generally factual, and so they contain little that is personal or emotional. In this respect, the letters to his son Konstantinas, some of the letters addressed to Kazimieras Jokantas, and a few others differ somewhat.

J. Jablonskis generally uses forms of address in his letters only at the beginning, or does not use them at all. According to their purpose, letters without forms of address fall into two types: 1) those intended to discuss issues concerning language, book publishing, or the activities of public organizations (cf. Jablonskis 1985: 47, 94, 324–352, etc.); 2) those addressed to heads of various institutions. The latter letters generally begin by identifying the addressee, e.g., To Prof. M. Biržiška, Dean of the Faculty of Humanities; To the Minister of Education, K. Jokantas; To the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Prof. V. Krevė-Mickevičius. A similar practice is followed in some letters addressed to Juozas Tumas. These, too, often begin by identifying the addressee’s clerical rank (To Rev. J. Tumas), followed either by a form of address or by no form of address at all. Of course, a few letters without forms of address are different and do not fit into the groups mentioned above.

Today, the vocative case of a personal (i.e., nominal) noun is generally used for forms of address, sometimes expanded by modifiers (LKG III: 689–683; DLKG: 637–638). The tendency in the use of forms of address in J. Jablonskis’s letters is somewhat different. Here, various pronominal adjectives are used much more frequently to express address, without the nouns they modify.

The most common form of address is the adjective gerbiamasis (gerbiamoji, gerbiamieji). J. Jablonskis used this form throughout almost all the years of his correspondence (1904–1926), addressing nearly all his correspondents in this way. It is noteworthy that, in the surviving letters, he used this form for only a very few people: the writer Jonas Biliūnas, Petras Leonas, Povilas Višinskis, and his son Konstantinas. This form of address was also not used in the surviving letters to Vincas Kudirka. J. Jablonskis addressed these people in warmer terms, which suggests that their relationships were by no means merely professional.

At the beginning of the correspondence, the form gerbiamasai. was used a couple of times. J. Jablonskis described this form in his grammars. In the 1901 grammar, in explaining the structure of pronominal adjectives (here called “doubled” adjectives), it is stated that they “are formed by combining a simple adjective with the pronoun jis or, in the nominative case

256

confirmative particles ar”, but no such examples are provided in the adjacent declension paradigms (Jablonskis 1957: 84–85). The 1922 grammar says much the same (Jablonskis 1957: 211). As the letters show, J. Jablonskis himself no longer used this form after 1905.

Sometimes letters begin with the form of address dear. In J. Jablonskis’s early correspondence, this form of address is extremely rare—it was used just once, in a letter to P. Višinskis (late November 1904). We find it again in letters from 1924–1927. It occurs once each in letters to Juozas Balčikonis (1924 06 11), Kazimieras Jokantas (1925 05 07), and Merkelis Račkauskas (1927 06 16), and J. Jablonskis addresses Zigmas Kuzmickis this way twice (1927 08 06; 1927 12 16). On one occasion, writing to Gabrielė Petkevičaitė-Bitė around the time of her retirement, J. Jablonskis addresses her with two adjectives: Dear, respected (1924 10 18).

The adjective beloved (plural: beloved) was used even less often as a form of address. J. Jablonskis used this form once each when corresponding with his son Konstantinas, in letters to Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas, the Lithuanian Scientific Society, and Stasys Dabušis. Incidentally, the last letter has not survived; only its copy is known. It records the simple (non-pronominal) adjective form beloved, which, in A. Piročkinas’s opinion, should be attributed to a not very literate copyist (Jablonskis 1985: 101).

Expanded adjectival forms of address are used a couple of times. They are expanded by the possessive pronoun my. In the only known letter to J. Biliūnas, we find My beloved (1905 01 26), while the form of address my dear occurs in letters to Professor Eduard Volter (1926 03 06) and Z. Kuzmickis (1926 03 06). It is generally said that possessive pronouns express relations of possession, and that the pronoun my indicates that an object belongs to the speaker (LKG I: 673; DLKG: 261). It seems that this description does not quite fit here. Synchronically, we could view the phrase my dear as a nominalization of the statement you are dear to me. Such genitive/dative alternation is common in Indo-European languages (Fillmor 1981: 460). As A. Rosinas states, constructions with possessive genitives and datives may be regarded as paraphrases of one another (Rosinas 1988: 22). J. Jablonskis called similar expressions the dative of the person to whom something happens or in whom something occurs, and emphasized that they are used “not only to denote events affecting an object, but also to express its various states” (Jablonskis 1957: 600). It seems that the forms of address mentioned above could also be understood as indicating a state. Of course, this is determined not by the modifier (the pronoun), but by the head of these forms of address—the adjective.

There are expanded nominal forms of address, modified by adjectives, for example: Beloved Friend (letter to V. Kudirka, 1883 04 14), Dear Friend (to P. Višinskis, 1903 04 11), Dear Friends (to the teachers’ congress, 1928 11 03), Dear Countryman (to an unknown addressee, 1898 11 14), Respected Countrywoman (to Morta Zauniūtė, 1904 12 09). It is worth noting that in these phrases J. Jablonskis uses both the simple and the pronominal adjective forms. The examples in the 1922 grammar likewise include sentences with both simple and pronominal adjective forms: Why do you weep, young sister? Why do you grieve, sister, white lily (Jablons-

257

kis 1957: 408). Žinoma, pateiktieji pavyzdžiai nėra visiškai adekvatūs: pirmajame sakinyje turime daiktavardinį kreipinį, išplėstą įvardžiuotine būdvardžio forma, antrajame – kreipinys išplėstas priedėliu ir jame pavartota paprastoji būdvardžio forma. Kalbėdama apie šio tipo kreipinius, Antanė Kučinskaitė kaip vartotinas nurodo tik įvardžiuotines būdvardžių formas (Kučinskaitė 1985: 62).

Only once does J. Jablonskis address an addressee unknown to us with a form customary in colloquial speech: Hello there (1926 08 11). A. Kučinskaitė regards such forms of address in letters as familiar (Kučinskaitė 1985: 72). Thus, J. Jablonskis’s form of address might suggest that the recipient was a fairly close acquaintance of his, especially since it is the only such form in the linguist’s relatively extensive correspondence.

Addressing someone solely with a noun in the vocative is not characteristic of J. Jablonskis’s letters. The word brother is usually used here. On one occasion, using this form of address together with a name, J. Jablonskis addressed V. Kudirka: Vincuti, Brother (1883 07 15). Thus, the addressee is named in especially warm terms, as if he were the dearest person, although the letter itself contains no shortage of various reproaches. It seems that these warm words of address were intended to convey closeness to a former classmate. Unfortunately, later letters to V. Kudirka are unknown to us. In no other Lithuanian letter of J. Jablonskis is anyone addressed by name; only in one postcard, addressed to J. Balčikonis, is the recipient’s name mentioned, though the greeting there is in Latin: Josepho et consortibus Joanne cum consortibus salutem dicit (1915 09 24).

The form of address brother is especially frequent in letters to Juozas Balčikonis (16 times), Kazimieras Jokantas (12 times), Merkelis Račkauskas (7 times), Kazimieras Būga (4 times), and Petras Leonas (3 times). It was also used once or twice with other correspondents: Jonas Basanavičius, Antanas Smetona, Jurgis Šlapelis, and Povilas Višinskis. The frequency of these forms of address allows us to judge the relationships between correspondents only to a limited extent, since by no means all of J. Jablonskis’s letters have survived. Moreover, such a comparison requires analysis of the correspondence in both directions. It is worth noting that most letters using the form of address brother were written between 1909 and 1913 from Brest, Gardinas, and Velizh. Might these forms of address reflect a certain anxiety in the father of the language, living and working far from Lithuania, for a time even without his family, when he had “gone away, quite literally, to earn a living, as if to America” (Piročkinas 1978: 56)?

J. Jablonskis’s letters to K. Jokantas are especially interesting in their use of forms of address. Although he had been J. Jablonskis’s pupil at the Mintauja Gymnasium (Jablonskis 1985: 416), their relationship was not limited to that of teacher and pupil; they were much closer. As noted, in letters from Brest, K. Jokantas was often addressed as brother, and once with the affectionate form little brother (1909 10 29). The content of these letters is also distinctive: J. Jablonskis repeatedly considers K. Jokantas’s possible marriage to a foreign woman and tries to advise him. In one letter (November–December 1909), seemingly seeking to persuade him, J. Jablonskis begins arguing with imaginary interlocutors, conveying their possible reactions while also using forms of address:

258

If I were a young man today and, having settled among some nation struggling to establish itself and therefore in a very vulnerable position, fell in love with a girl of that nation who cared deeply about her nation’s affairs, then—believe me—I would only help her attend to the affairs of her country and would do everything so that my children would become good workers for that nation (there would be no question of language). If, while I was doing this, my own compatriots were to say to me, “Turncoat,” I would simply spit at them and could boldly say: “I do not wish to raise hermaphrodites [...]”. If my own daughter were to grow up and marry a Latvian, moving to Latvia, I would tell her: “Your children, my dear, can only be good Latvians, and that is what you should attend to [...]”

[...] In your last two little letters, it seems to me, you went much too far in your remarks about “patriotism.” If I thought as you do, I could boldly proclaim: “Take, men, the girls who suit you in culture and upbringing; the nation is nothing here—do not live in Pilviškiai or Kupiškis, but wherever you find a higher culture better suited to you...”

It is worth noting that, as if quoting colloquial speech, J. Jablonskis chooses noun-based forms of address, which are uncommon in his letters. It should be noted that here his daughter is addressed as vaikeli, although in J. Jablonskis’s native dialect the word vaikas, when referring to kinship, usually means “son.” Incidentally, the aforementioned letter is the only one in which the addressee is addressed not only at the beginning of the letter but also in its closing section: “Brother! I cannot propose marriage myself [...]”.

The later letters to K. Jokantas were written in 1925, when he was Minister of Education. By then, the tone of most of J. Jablonskis’s letters had changed somewhat. The forms of address chosen also differed. Almost all the letters begin formally, specifying the addressee’s position: Ministry of Education: Minister J. Jokantas; To the Minister of Education K. Jokantas; To K. Jokantas, Minister of Education. After this designation, the form of address gerbiamasis is sometimes used; at other times, the letter proceeds straight to the substance of the matter without any form of address.

Nevertheless, a couple of letters to the minister contain certain exceptions. In one, explaining matters related to the establishment of the Terminology Commission, the addressee is not identified at all, and the letter opens in Latin: Salve, Carissime (1925 03 16); in another, recounting J. Jablonskis’s summer plans, he is addressed as Brangusis (1925 05 07). This suggests that, although J. Jablonskis usually observed a certain degree of subordination in his letters, he nevertheless allowed himself to express not only respect but also feelings.

Other noun-based forms of address are rare in J. Jablonskis’s letters. In his correspondence with his son Konstantinas from 1906 to 1917, he usually used the form of address vaikeli (only once does he address his son as mylimasis). In letters written from Pskov to J. Šaulys, the form of address tautieti is used a couple of times (1903 01 26; 1903 02 01). In one letter to J. Balčikonis, we find the form Pilieti (1926 12 29). From the perspective of our times, this is an official, bureaucratic form of address, most often associated with law-enforcement institutions. In A. Kučinskaitė’s view, it is appropriate only for officials responsible for overseeing the enforcement of laws (Kučinskaitė 1985: 64). Given that J. Jablonskis and J. Balčikonis were very close and friendly, this form of address seems odd. However, its significance is revealed by the letter’s content. In this letter, J. Jablonskis invites J. Balčikonis to contribute to the daily newspaper “Lietuvis.” Thus, the choice of the form of address pilieti was probably influenced not by the correspondents’ relationship, but by the broader context—the activity being encouraged, and perhaps also the newspaper’s title.

259

The choice was most likely determined not by the correspondents’ relationship with one another, but by a broader context—the activity to be encouraged, or perhaps the newspaper’s title.

Other forms of address in Russian letters. These letters were most often addressed to various scholars and officials. Of all the letters written in Russian, 4 are addressed to J. Balčikonis. Only one of them opens with the form of address Dear Colleague, whose equivalent, dear colleague, has not been found in Lithuanian letters. This form of address is also not used in the other letters written in Russian. In them, the writers address recipients according to customary Russian conventions: they give the person’s first name and patronymic, often accompanied by various epithets.

When addressing people holding high office, J. Jablonskis opts for especially elaborate forms of address. Letters to A. Byčkov, chairman of the Russian Language and Literature Section of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, begin: Your Excellency, Most Gracious Sir, Afanasij Fiodorovič (1897 05 09: 1899 03 21). The letter to G. Ivanov, rector of Moscow University, reads: Your Excellency, Most Esteemed Aleksej Aleksandrovič (1888 03 09). J. Jablonskis addressed his own professor, N. Tichonravov, in the same style: Your Excellency, Nikolaj Savvič (1888 10 04). The letter to the writer V. Korolenko opens with the form of address Most Gracious Sir, without giving the addressee’s first name and patronymic.

Other addressees, usually fellow scholars, are addressed less elaborately, but their first name and patronymic are invariably accompanied by respectful adjectives, most esteemed or dearest. They are used alternately in letters to V. Lamansky (cf. the letters of 1896 06 04 and 1901 02 03). J. Jablonskis addresses A. Shakhmatov, with whom he had collaborated for many years in safeguarding the fate of the Juška dictionary, in several ways: Most Esteemed Aleksej Aleksandrovič (1897 01 11; 1897 04 01; February 1901; 1901 09 14, etc.); Dearest Aleksandr Aleksandrovič (1900 12 10; 1901 04 18; December 1901; 1902 01 07, etc.); Deeply Esteemed Aleksej Aleksandrovič (1914 09 20). It is noteworthy that J. Jablonskis used this last form of address not in writing about linguistic questions, but in asking for help for his talented student. Letters to other addressees usually use the adjective most esteemed.

J. Jablonskis’s forms of address used in letters to Professor Eduard Volter are worth mentioning separately. Of the 4 published letters addressed to this person, 3 were written in Russian and one in Lithuanian. In all the letters written in Russian, J. Jablonskis addresses him as Highly esteemed Eduard Aleksandrovich (December 1894 – January 1895; 1885 02 06; 1905 02 15), that is, as he did many other colleagues. The form of address in the letter written in Lithuanian is much warmer – My dear (1926 03 19). Does it indicate a friendship that developed through many years of correspondence, was it chosen to suit the occasion for writing the letter (E. Volter is congratulated on “reaching the age of 70”), or does it reflect the stylistic requirements of Lithuanian and Russian? There is not enough material yet to answer this question precisely, but it is likely that all three factors determined the difference in forms of address.

As already mentioned, of all the published letters, only one was written in Polish. It

260

intended for the Polish linguist and folklorist J. Karlovičius. The salutation in this letter is particularly refined: Szanowny i łaskawy Panie! Dobrodzieju!

An analysis of the forms of address used by Jonas Jablonskis shows that their choice was determined by several factors. It can be argued that J. Jablonskis observed the traditions established in each language (as the letters in Russian and Polish show). Lithuanian did not yet have a tradition of letter writing, so J. Jablonskis was only beginning to create one through his letters. Comparing the forms of address in letters written in various languages, we see that J. Jablonskis did not apply the principle of mechanical transfer, but instead created a distinctive form of epistolary communication suited to the Lithuanian manner. The forms of address in his Lithuanian letters are simpler and closer to spoken language than to high style. It seems that the social standing of the addressee was taken into account when choosing forms of address. Most often, J. Jablonskis’s letters address recipients using inflected adjective forms, while addressing them with nouns in the vocative is much less common.

LITERATŪRA

DLKG – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslas,1994.

J a b l o n s k i s J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

J a b l o n s k i s J. 1985: Jono Jablonskio laiškai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

J a b l o n s k i s J. 1991: Straipsniai ir laiškai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

F i l l m o r Č. 1981: Delo o padeže. – Novoje v zarubežnoj lingvistike 10, Lingvističeskaja semantika, Moskva.

K u č i n s k a i t ė A. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos etiketas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

L K G I – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965.

L K G III – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976.

P i r o č k i n a s A. 1978: J. Jablonskis – bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

R o s i n a s A. 1988: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

WORDS OF ADDRESS IN J.JABLONSKIS’ LETTERS

Summary

The majority J. Jablonskis’ letters are written in Lithuanian (373), part of them are written in Russian (50) and only one – in Polish.

In the Lithuanian letters the adress is usually some form of adjective. The form Gerbiamasis is used very often. Sometimes we come across brangusis and very seldom mylimasis.

There are extended address forms consisting of adjectives and nouns: mano mylimasis, mano brangusis, mylimas drauge, brangus drauge.

Only once J. Jablonskis uses the colloquial form Sveikas gyvas! The person whom he addresses is not known to us.

The address consisting of a vocative noun is not typical of these letters. The form brolau apears rather only frequently and Vaikeli is used to address his son Konstantinas. J. Jablonskis addresses V. Kudirka with very worm words: Vincuti Brolau. There are no more personal names in the letters written in Lithuanian.

The addresses in the letters written in Russian are quite different. We come across number

261

of epithets used together with names and patronymics: Vaše Vysokoprevoščoditelstvo Afanasij Fiodorovič, Milostivij Gosudar Gavril Afanasjevič, Vaše Prevoschoditelstvo Aleksej Aleksandrovič, Mnogouvažajemij Aleksej Aleksandrovič. Professor E. Volter is addressed with the words Mnogouvažajemij Eduard Aleksandrovič in the Russian letters, and with the words Mano brangusis in the Lithuanian letters.

The addresses in the letters written in Polish to the famous linguist J. Karlovich are very refined: Szanowny i łaskawy Panie! Dobrodzieju!

It could be said that J. Jablonskis considered the etiquette of the letters written in the Lithuanian language more simple, closer to the colloquial speech which does not demand a higher style. That is why close people and those having many things in common with J. Jablonskis are usually addressed warmly–brolau, in other cases adjectives expressing respect are used. The same person can be addressed in different ways depending on whether J. Jablonskis writes to him as to somebody higher in office or to a person sharing common ideas. His letters evidence that J. Jablonskis paid great attention to the position the person he was writing to occupied, as well as to their personal relationship, choosing the language accordingly.

262