Dėl vienos veiksmažodžių grupelės kirčiavimo

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVII (1997) The Problems of Lexicography and Lexicology. Reviews. Notes and Opinions. Reviews. Observations and overviews. Reviews. Anmerkungen DEL ONE VERB GROUP PRONUNCIATION The pronunciation rules of the dictionaries are sometimes not accepted by almost all users of the common language, they are avoided. What are the reasons, what is! Confusion, complexity of the basis of norms? 1. Sometimes there was an attempt to arrange the derivatives of the suffix -fuvas (so that it is not necessary to pronounce puréntuvas, but purintūvas, tintuvai, but tintūvas, etc.). 2. Especially now, the rules for the pronunciation of CC-ieti forms and derivative forms of verbs are unrealistic. There are 9 of these verbs — their norms are as follows: a) lieti, lieja (pronounced lėja), Ifejo (pronounced Iėjo) “pour water” rieti, rieja (pronounced rėja), riejo (pronounced rėjo) sketi, skrieja, skriejo “fly” Zvieti, Zvieja, viejo “fish” The related forms ti, ryti “prepare, eat”, skėti (Zvieti does not have such a form) also correspond to them. The derivative forms — the participants of the non-ending kind are also adapted in this way: nurietas, -a, sužvietas, -a, aplietas, -a. b) Other verbs of this type vary greatly, and the usage goes a completely different way. The dictionaries mainly recorded gliéti, ja, -jo, vad. gliejaū, gliejai, gliejū, glieji (in dialects the 3-person form varies greatly: es. |. glėja, gliėna, būt. k. glinė) — LKŽ III 421. Snakes are and gliet; End, adapted to the four mentioned (see also g/"fjau, recorded in Gitdiská in 1964), form gličti is given also in DZ, Thus, common language users would have to raise the accent in certain forms to the ending, and this cannot be taught to anyone, e.g. of the new kind participants apglietas, -a, suglietas, -a no one has heard. The forms dpgliejo, antgliejo, išgliejo written by E. Sragis are an anachronism in the pronunciation of verb forms — there is nothing like it in the whole verb system (maybe the forms were mixed with the verb g/t; glina, glin€?). Similarly, the verb griéti (LKZ III 594-595, DZ,): gričti, griéja (gréja, griéna), griéjo (gréjo, grinė, griéné). There are mixed forms i from the verb grinti, -a, -ė (LKZ III 612-613). The forms griejaū, griejai are rarely heard, for example, even LKŽ III 594 records the form atgriéai Ktk — this is already an anomaly, such a pronunciation cannot exist. You can't hear the participants nagrietas, -a (only nugrie-tas, -a Sug). The confusion here will be caused by the two mixed verbs, their separate forms. c) The form given by all dictionaries and textbooks is Jiėti, -ja, yo “to melt, form”. Tvirtagalė root is recorded 263 only in the very west of Žemaitija (LKŽ VII š44-445), and everywhere else only /ieti. Archaic or completely unexplained pronunciation of prepositional forms: nuliejo, sūliejo, priliejo, etc. (Is this from sof'eje —sūlejė, pril'eje ~ prilejo to the diphthong ersusiliejus with j, o —a> e (as with —ė> e) or something else? However, even the Samogitians say the participants nu/'ėic, pril'čic, sol éic Krp, Akm, Ub, Eig, Trš, Rdn, nuf'fc Vn, Grd, Krš and others. Thus, the greater part of the Lithuanian language area indicates the existence of a good, correct, suitable for general language lets, -ja, -jo (cf. /ydyti “fat, metal”, Jydinys (3*) and others. d) For a long time the dictionaries claimed only siéti, -ja, -jo (dialectal forms es.l. srėna, sėja, but. k. siėnė, sinė, sėjo). Apparently, according to the verb syti, syja, siejo, in conversations there are sieti, sėja, siejo Rdn,Kiš, Sts, Sd, Eig (LKŽ XII 533 nusisiétiyra netiesa"- ), Jdr, Vn, Jrb and others. Teaching young people sieju, sieji, sieja, siejai, susietas, -a (3%), pasietas, -a (3%), and not sieju, sieji, siejau, siejai, susietas, -a (3), pasietas, -a (3) and others is not very successful, even the linguists themselves do not use it. The interface sieti —syti has features of antiquity, therefore it is understandable with DZ, the second form of siets, -ja, -jo and common language. By the way, some writings srēf—may be influenced by common language dictionaries from tradition. The forms of srėti are also mixed with the verb form of siūti (sinti?, cf. the participant immersed Lš, Vs, etc.). e) The strong root verb Š7rėti is also the norm of common language for many years. Its forms šflrēna, šlinė, šlėjo may have come from the verb s/iati. According to LKZ XIV 1064-1067 sliéti was written mainly from one other eastern, western schnekta, and š/feti by A. Juška, J. Jablonski from DKS, other writers from Šts, Ry, Kin, Prk, Ds, Tis Ar, Bb, Upt and others. From there into common language on -a (3%), pridlietas, -a (3P) and r etc. (cf. the noun sTéiemiios pri vir'es’n’iiju/t'i-ka kuo written by Eigirdžiai). The internal connections of the forms in DZ allowed the authors to propose a common language as well (but cf. also there teiktaja pri-stiétos, sušliėji! DZ, 618). There are many forms of verbs that are not accepted by the common language, even the scientific and colloquial language of linguists themselves: these are norti, panorsti, panorstū, panoraū, panorai, panortas, panorta, užsinorta; atitolti, atitolstū, atitolaū, atitolai, nutolta, etc. (This is how the forms of the prepositional verb with the strong-end should be pronounced). Sometimes, when determining the pronunciation norms of the general language, it is necessary to examine the history of certain words, the system of all forms. It is possible that there may be unforeseen or even accidental aspects of norm-setting and norm-affirmation. Vytautas Vitkauskas 264 LITERATURE DŽ,-Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. LKZ III, VII, XII, XIV —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956; 7: Mintis, 1966; 12: Mokslas, 1981; 14: Mokslas, 1986. A Lithuanian military dictionary has been published (Smetona 1995). Here I would like to give a little background to the vocabulary and touch on some of the problems I encountered in compiling it. Until now, no one had put Lithuanian military terminology into one place, although there have been attempts. The first attempt was the Lithuanian-Russian and Russian-Lithuanian Dictionary of Military Terms, prepared by P. Rusecko and published in 1919. It is small, and contains many doubtful or even completely unpresentable things from the point of view of modern linguistics. Later, of course, statutes, various guides, manuals, instructions were written. However, they can no longer be used, because both weapons and methods of warfare have changed. Finally, they reflected the language of that very time — the language of the time of the formation of the common language. Here are some examples from the vocabulary prepared for artillerists at that time: vertical intersection —nasecka, rintė —vint, bryliai —zakrainy, sestarné —šesternia, Thunder silver —gremucaja rtutj. Of course, there were some well-developed, especially general technical terms, but all about the Russian 1902 cannon, which is completely obsolete. Before the war, J.M. Laurinaitis, Chairman of the Ministry of National Defence’s Terminology Commission, was perhaps the most interested in military terminology. In the 1930s, A. Salys and Pr.Skardžius taught and studied military terminology in more detail in the General Staff courses. In one of his articles (Laurinaitis 1938) M.J. Laurinaitis states that a large dictionary of military language is being written, to which, I think, Pr. Skardžius and A. Salis also had to contribute. Unfortunately, the war prevented the dictionary from being completed, and the manuscripts disappeared. Fragments of this work can be found in general dictionaries. For example, just before the war a small (about 15,000 words) Russian-Lithuanian dictionary by S. Rozen (Rozen 1941) appeared. In the preamble, thanks to Mr. To the coffin. And there it is written that narirad is a service group, not a service, as all modern dictionaries state, except that this word has no meaning of "group of people" (LKZ XV), and that is precisely the most important meaning of member. After the war, the military terminology, as we know, was only Russian. I found a small conversational dictionary for a young soldier published by the agro-industrial complex in 1986 (Kratkij... 1986). As a curiosity in this area, we can mention a small conversation book published by the Russian army during the war, apparently intended for interrogation of people who speak only Lithuanian (Šebalin 1944). It is about the collection of military data needed for the frontline units, destruction battalions. The booklet was even transcribed, but it was not worth the dictionary. Thus, modern Lithuanian military terminology until recent years as if 265