XVIII a. lietuvių rašyba

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVI (1996) LIETUVIŲ KALBA: TYRĖJAI IR TYRIMAI Jonas PALIONIS 18th-CENTURY LITHUANIAN SPELLING 1. General remarks. Eighteenth-century Lithuanian spelling (i.e. script and orthography) was based on principles already established in the 17th century. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (hereafter — GDL), generally speaking, the Sirvydas-based system was followed, while in East Prussia (hereafter EP) — the Klein-based spelling system1. Since there were certain differences between these systems in both script and orthography, they also persisted in 18th-century Lithuanian spelling. Moreover, in this century the two systems grew particularly distant from one another because the GDL adopted Roman type, whereas publications in EP adhered to traditional Gothic (Fraktur) script. In what follows, in reviewing the spelling of the 18th-century Lithuanian literary language and its development, for methodological reasons script (the system of characters, the alphabet) will be discussed separately from orthography (spelling principles and rules). For the same reasons, the development of the alphabet in EP will be described first, and then in the GDL. 2. The establishment of the Klein-based alphabet in 18th-century EP writings. As is known, D. Klein’s grammars presented the following Lithuanian alphabet: á, a, ä, ą, b, c, ć, č, d, é, e, ė, ę, (f), g, (h), i, y, į, k, l, ł, m, n, o, p, r, s, ś, ß, t, u, ų, w, (x), ʒ, ʒ́. It was adopted without major changes not only by authors of Lithuanian writings in EP in the second half of the 17th century, but also by those of the 18th century3. This is demonstrated by a concrete analysis of the script used in the more notable EP writings of that period. For example, the influence of the Klein-based alphabet is evident in the following features of Samuel Bitner’s 1701 “New Testament,” published in Königsberg through the joint efforts of the EP and GDL Reformed communities: 1) use of ė to denote narrow [ė]: n.sg. tam/y̌bė Acts 13,11, pret. 3 genėjo Matt.21,8, βokterėjo Luke 1,41 (but also: 1.sg.f. tażweje Matt.4.21, n.sg.f. Dalilėde Mark 6,3...)4; 2) use of ć (most often to denote the soft affricate): cond.1 bučia Matt.3,14, turečia ibid.19,16, g.pl. giminiečiu Mark 6,4, g.sg. βalčio Acts 28,2, 1 P a l i o n i s J. The Lithuanian Literary Language in the 16th–17th Centuries, V.: Mintis, 1967, 50. 2 Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, V.: Valst. polit. ir moksl. lit. l-kla, 1957, 95—96. 3 P a l i o n i s J. Ibid. 32. 4 D. Klein tended to use ė only to denote stressed narrow [ė], but in GL, contrary to his wishes (see Praefatio ad lectorem), this character was retained in some cases in unstressed position as well. 30 a.pl. genčius I Pov.1. 9,3... (but also: adv. pakarščuy I Kor.14,27, g.pl. žemčiugų Mat.7,6, a.sg.f. atenczę Mork.9,1...); 3) Use of B instead of forms from the pre-Kleinian period {ch: a.sg.f. karfštinę (fever) Mat.8,14, 1.sg.mec. beßėlu Mork.4,32, adv, ißbkey Jon. 7,13... 4) Use of į, ų to denote nasal vowels: n.sg. galįs Ap.d.18,24,a.sg. mc. dūglį “growth” I Kor.3,6, karoblį Pov.1.ž. II,7, wirßų Ap.d. 19,20, popierų II Jon.7,12... (these spellings were not used in RP until D. Kleinas). Perhaps the only more conspicuous difference in the 1701 Testament alphabet was the digraph y for marking long [i:]: g.sg. alywos Luk.10,34, gydytojo Luk.5,31, 1.pl. knijgoße Jon.20,20, praes.3 mył Mat.10,37, inf. paßtatyt Luk.14,28... In D. Kleinas’s grammars, as in later Lithuanian writings in RP, this vowel was represented by the letter y. The Kleinian alphabet, with the innovations listed here, is found in many eighteenth-century RP religious, administrative, and literary writings alike. However, it cannot be claimed that all authors of Lithuanian writings in this region adhered to the Kleinian alphabet. G. Ostermejeris had already observed that K. Donelaitis could not abide the letter č and wrote cž⁵ in its place. And indeed, in the surviving manuscripts of this renowned Lithuanian folk poet, the digraph cž (with the second grapheme elongated and crossed by a horizontal stroke) is used to denote both hard and soft [č], for example: adv. cžė “here” DR 4,23, praes.2sg. cžáulžki “chauk” ibid. 5,22, a.pl.mc. Pauklžcžuis ibid. 6,23, Cžejus ibid. 6,30... The Polish diacritic ł also failed to gain a firm foothold in eighteenth-century RP writings. D. Kleinas had included it in the lists of Lithuanian letters given in his grammars and used it in individual words (such as praes.1sg. gulu Comp.8, n.sg. tołka GL 10, matone ibid. 6,10,15). Its frequent use in the 1701 Testament, translated by a representative of the Lithuanian Reformed Church, was undoubtedly determined by the GDL tradition, especially the practice of Calvinist writings in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. From the letter lists given in D. Kleinas’s grammars, the Polish ł was also transferred (probably automatically) to the grammars of F. Hakas, Pov. Ruigys, and even K. Milkus. Only in G. Ostermejeris’s grammar was it not included in the list of Lithuanian letters (apparently the author of this grammar took greater account of the usage of written Lithuanian in eighteenth-century RP, where ł had by then become rare). 3. Modification of D. Kleinas’s alphabet in eighteenth-century RP grammars The relationship between D. Kleinas’s alphabet and the letter lists presented in Lithuanian-language grammars published in eighteenth-century RP is most clearly apparent from the following comparative table: 5 O s t e r m e y e r G. Neue Littausche Grammatik. Koenigsberg, 1791, 188. 31 D. Klein’s | F. Haack’s | Pov. Ruhig’s | G. Ostermeyer’s | K. Milkus’s grammars (1653, 1654) | grammar (1730) | grammar (1747) | grammar (1791) | grammar (1800)á a ą ą | á a ą ą | a á ą ą â | a | a a ą ąb | b | b | b | bc č cӡ | c č cӡ | c č cӡ | c č cӡ | c cӡd | d | d | d | dé e ė ę | é e ė ę | e ė ę ė ē ê | e ė | e é ę ė ē ê(f) | — | — | f | —g | g | g | g | g(h) | — | — | — | —i y į | i y į | i į i į y | i j y | i į i į y jk | k | k | k | kl t | l t | l t | l | l tm | m | m | m | mn | n | n | n | no | o | o ó ô | o | o ó ôp | p | p | p | pr | r | r | r | rs ś β | s ś β | ſ ∫ſs β | ſβ | ſ ∫ſs βt | t | t | t | tu ų | u ų | u ú ųì û | u | u ú ųì ûw | w | w | w | w(x) | — | — | — | — The table shows that the lists of letters presented in eighteenth-century grammars of Lithuanian differ relatively little from one another and from the alphabet in D. Klein’s grammars. This is especially true of Frydrich Haack’s grammar, ”Anhang einer kurtzgefassten Littauischen Grammatik” (1730), whose alphabet is almost exactly the same as D. Klein’s. The only difference is that F. Haack did not include the letters f, h, x in the list; in D. Klein’s grammars they are given in square brackets as not recommended for use. At first glance, it may seem that the writing system in Pov. Ruhig’s grammar, ”Anfangsgründe einer Littauischen Grammatik 32 matik” (1747) randamas raidynas. Šios gramatikos lietuviškų raidžių sąraše, iš vienos pusės, yra daugiau raidžių su kirčio bei priegaidės ženklais (à, â, ė, ē, į, ȯ, ô, ù, ū, ũ), o iš antros — kai kurios D. Kleino raidės (a, š, taip pat f, h, x) į ją visai neįtrauktos. Tačiau iš esmės, t.y. grafemų6 skaičiaus atžvilgiu, D. Kleino (resp. F. Hako) ir Pov. Ruigio raidynai yra identiški: turi po 23 grafemas, neskaitant f, h, x. Didelį šių gramatikų raidynų identiškumą, be kita ko, rodo jau tai, kad Pov. Ruigys (kaip ir F. Hakas) į savo rašmenų sąrašus neįtraukė grafemos j, kurią kažkodėl buvo išleidęs ir D. Kleinas, nors šiaip ją gana reguliariai vartojo palataliniam priebalsiui žymėti7. Pov. Ruhig’s list of letters was also transferred to the grammar prepared by Kristijonas Milkus, ”Anfangsgründe einer Littauischen Sprach=Lehre” (1800), which, as is known, was a new, somewhat expanded and revised edition of Pov. Ruhig’s grammar. K. Milkus nevertheless made some changes to the list: he included the grapheme j, omitted by his predecessor, but left out some letters bearing diacritical (prosodic) marks (á, ā, é). K. Milkus’s alphabet contains 24 graphemes in all. It is easy to see that the alphabet in Gotfryd Ostermeyer’s grammar, ”Neue Littauische Grammatik” (1791), differs most from Klein’s. The section ”Von der Orthographie” at the beginning notes that the authors of Lithuanian grammars do not agree on the number of letters8, and gives a list of 26 graphemes. It excludes characters bearing stress and accent marks and contains neither the Polish ł nor the so-called “nasal” letters, but includes f as equivalent to the other characters. Interestingly, both D. Klein and his followers—the authors of eighteenth-century Lithuanian grammars in Prussian Lithuania (RP)—did not regard every sound-sign differing in form as a separate letter, but rather a sign representing a particular type of sound (what we would now call a phoneme). Thus, for example, D. Klein counted only 22 letters in his list, F. Haack, Pov. Ruhig, and K. Milkus 19 each, and G. Ostermeyer 26. Following D. Klein, these grammar authors, with G. Ostermeyer partly excepted, did not regard as separate letters only the signs denoting the phonemes /č/, /ė/, /š/, /ž/, /z/, /j/. In this respect, G. Ostermeyer came closest to the modern understanding of a letter (more precisely, a grapheme), since he also treated the graphic representations of the phonemes just mentioned as separate letters. It should also be noted that the authors of eighteenth-century Lithuanian grammars in Prussian Lithuania, like D. Klein, did not include in their lists of letters the two-storey character į, which had been regularly used in the written texts of that region since the time of M. Mažvydas9. However, at the beginning of the first part of ”Gramatica Litvanica”, while explaining individual Lithuanian- 6 “Grapheme” here is understood as the graphic-level representation of a phoneme. Thus, for example, we consider e a separate grapheme, and e, ę variants (allographs) of the grapheme e. 7 j was included in the list of letters in the 1673 grammar by K. Sapūnas and T. Schultz, ”Compendium Gramaticae Lithvanicae” (see p. 1). 8 O s t e r m e y e r G. Neue Littauische Grammatik, 2. 9 See P a l i o n i s J. History of the Lithuanian literary language, V.: Mokslas, 1979, 18. 33 Despite discussing the pronunciation of the Lithuanian letters, D. Kleinas nevertheless also kept ū in view: he compared it with Hebrew pronunciation and said that the Czechs had such a letter10. He most likely omitted this letter from the lists of letters in his grammars only because it denoted not a separate vowel but a combination of two vowels (including it would have contradicted the general understanding of the alphabet as a system of distinct graphic signs denoting sounds). 4. The transition to Roman type in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania One of the most characteristic features of the development of the Lithuanian alphabet in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the eighteenth century, as noted (1), was the transition from Gothic-style letters to Roman type. The transition had begun as early as the seventeenth century, and was particularly clearly reflected in Salomonas Slavočinskis’s 1646 hymnal, in which a considerable number of hymns were printed in Roman type (alternating with Fraktur). However, Roman type began to gain almost universal prevalence in printed works in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania only from the beginning of the eighteenth century. There is no doubt that the prevalence of Roman type here was largely due to Polish influence. In Poland, too, publications printed in Roman type began to become more numerous in the second half of the seventeenth century, and in the eighteenth century its use became universal11. Manuscripts are another matter: they began to be written in Roman type fairly early. According to A. Brückner, Gothic letters persisted in Polish manuscripts until the 1530s (“After 1530, you would search in vain for Gothic script in manuscripts: Germans and Czechs printed and wrote in Gothic, Poles printed in Gothic but wrote in italic”)12. It is reasonable to suppose that Lithuanian manuscripts in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania also adopted Roman type around the middle of the sixteenth century, although the absence of surviving manuscripts from that period makes it difficult to date the transition more precisely (this hypothesis is supported to some extent by analogous facts from Prussian Lithuania: as is known, the text of J. Bretkūnas’s Bible translation was written in Roman type in 1579–1590; so if Roman type was adopted in the second half of the sixteenth century even in places where the Gothic-script tradition was stronger, why could it not also have been adopted in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where that tradition was weaker and Polish models were followed more closely?). Although Roman type began to gain more widespread prevalence in printed works in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the beginning of the eighteenth century, it cannot be said that absolutely all writings of that century published there were set in Roman type. Lithuanian Gospel texts continued to be printed in Fraktur for a long time (until 1767) in the publication “Ewangelie polskie y litewskie,” although their Polish originals had been presented in italic Roman type in that publication since 1705. Throughout the century under discussion, the German long letter ſ also persisted in printed works in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a remnant of Gothic typography; it was finally eliminated from the Lithuanian alphabet there only in the first half of the nineteenth century. 10 See The First Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, 14. 11 See B r ü c k n e r A. History of the Polish Language. Wrocław — Kraków: Zakł. narod. imn Ossolińskich, 1960, 180; Ł o ś J. A Short Historical Grammar of the Polish Language. Lwów. 1927 p. 11. 12 Ibid. 34 5. The establishment of the Sirvydian alphabet in eighteenth-century writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania At the time when, following the publication of D. Klein’s grammars, the alphabet presented in those grammars began to gain currency in the Prussian branch of written Lithuanian, the letters used by K. Sirvydas became more widespread in the writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania [a, á, b, c, č, d, e, f, g, h, i, y, j, k, l, ł, m, n, o, p, r, ſ, s, š, β, t, u, v, w, x, ž, ž]. Such letters (most often already in antique form) are found in many eighteenth-century publications of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, especially Catholic ones, for example, in the 1725 “Pamokslas krikščioniškame,” the 1726 “Balsas širdies,” the 1750 “Pedely miros,” the 1753 “Bromoje,” the 1759 “Žyvate,” and others. Essentially, the Sirvydian alphabet was also recorded in the 1737 anonymous Lithuanian grammar “Universitas Lingvarum Litvaniae.” Its introductory section (“Praenotatio de Dialectis Literis et accentu”) presents an alphabet of 28 letters (excluding capital A): A, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, l, ł, m, n, o, p, q, r, β, s, t, u, w, x, y, z, ž, ź. However, the Lithuanian forms in the grammar also contain letters not included in this list, namely: g (n.sg. mc. Kąsnis 9, n.pl.mc. kalbą 30...), ę (n.sg. Giętis 7, praes. sg. kięczu 31,39, fut.1 kięſiu...), j (g.sg.f. jós 19, g.pl. jū 19, praet.3 kalbėjo 30...), β (inf. gàyβti, grįβti 50, n.sg.mc. trokβtas 50...). Thus, if the latter letters are added to the grammar’s list, its alphabet would differ almost not at all from the Sirvydian one. Perhaps the most striking difference in the anonymous grammar’s alphabet is the letter ś, which K. Sirvydas quite often used to denote both soft [s] and soft [š], and which appears neither in the grammar’s list of letters nor in its Lithuanian forms (except, it seems, in just two examples: the aforementioned Kąsnis 9 and Krikščionis 8; in the latter, ś may have appeared through a printer’s error or under the influence of the Polish Chrześcijanin). Although ś was not used extensively in the 1737 anonymous grammar, where soft [š] was represented by the digraph [ſz and its ligature variant β (n.sg. Kiawſzinis 8, Puſzeis 12, n.pl.mc. Beβieri 54, part.ind. raβant 55)13, this diacritic letter occurs quite frequently in other eighteenth-century writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, for example: g.sg.mc. cíśćiaus Br.52,24, adv. ścray ibid.,19,29, g.sg.mc. świento PKr. 2,7, comp. świefiaws ibid. 2,1, n.sg.f. świeśibe BŚ 4,3, pieśćia “peščia” Ž 18,20, fieśy “šeši” ibid.19,4... There is reason to think that the grammar’s author left the diacritic ś out of his alphabet because he was convinced that Lithuanian had no very soft [s], such as that in the Polish word śita¹⁴. And he may not have wished to use this letter to represent soft [š] for reasons of alphabetic simplicity (he did not want to increase the number of letters). Nevertheless, the author of the Universitas did not manage to eliminate diacritic ś: this letter, with a long tradition (dating back even to the time of M. Daukša)¹⁵, was widely used in eighteenth-century publications of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Some other Sirvydian letters were also omitted from the anonymous grammar’s list: ć, v, j. The diacritic ć was presumably omitted because the affricate [ts], 13 The ligature variant occurs in examples printed in italics. 14 Žr. Universitas Lingvarum Litvaniae, V.: Mokslas, 1981, 61. 15 See P a l i o n i s J. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija, V.: Mokslas, 1979, 36. 35 As with [š], the author of the grammar did not wish to represent it in two different ways—he tended to express both the palatalized and the non-palatalized sound graphically in the same way (with the digraph cz). Perhaps for the same reasons, the single letter v is also absent from the anonymous grammar’s list of letters, although in the earlier tradition it was used quite regularly by K. Sirvydas to mark short [u] at the beginning of a word (e.g., n.sg. ugnis PS I 79,28, praep. unt ibid. 84,11, praes. 3 užėja ibid. 285,14...). Once the letter u had been included in the list, there was no need to use another sign graphically to represent the same vowel. It is much harder to explain why j was not included in the list of letters in the 1737 grammar, especially since this grapheme is often used in its Lithuanian examples to represent a palatal consonant, e.g., n.sg. Giaradėja 6, Artojis 8, n.pl. jós 19, g.pl. jū 19, praes. 1 sg. judinu 40, [p]jawnu 47, and so on. If this was not simply an oversight, perhaps this relatively recent grapheme was treated by the author as a variant of i? (cf. analogous cases in the grammars of D. Klein, F. Hako, and Pov. Ruigys!). Of the three graphemes not included in the 1737 grammar’s list of letters (č, ų, j), only v was not widely used in later eighteenth-century writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania published after this grammar, either to mark short [u] or [v]. By contrast, č and j are common graphemes in many printed works from the middle and second half of that century, e.g., cond. bučio Sp. 3,14, galėčio ibid. 14,8, prajūščia Pėd. 6,19, turėčia ibid. 2,18, inf. bučiuoti Br. 12,8, praes. 3 pažiči̇je ibid. 18,II, i.sg.mc. ploščiumi Pėd. 7,25, g.pl. Melničių Ž. 27,8, praet. 3 žwejoje ibid. 59,25, a.pl. meigtančias ibid. 160,13, g.sg. jaučio Sp. 12,5, Bažničies Pav. 45,8... As these and the earlier examples show, at the time the single-letter č was especially often used in combination with š. Thus, not all the innovations in the 1737 grammar’s alphabet were adopted by later authors of writings in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the usage of the Lithuanian written language of this region, apart from a few minor exceptions, the Sirvydas-based system of graphemes was followed more closely. 6. Attempts to formulate spelling principles theoretically RP At all times, formulating particular spelling rules and principles has been more difficult than developing a system of graphemes. Graphemes can be borrowed from the alphabets used by other peoples, which requires little creativity. Establishing regularities in the use of graphemes, by contrast, is a task that requires a certain degree of linguistic sophistication, greater knowledge of language structure, and theoretical reasoning. It is therefore understandable that questions of orthography are usually raised and discussed by the authors of grammars and linguistic works more generally—that is, by people who are better acquainted with how language works and are capable of theoretically generalizing the elements of that mechanism. A considerable number of Lithuanian spelling rules RP had already been formulated in the seventeenth century, especially in D. Klein’s grammars. Many of them were subsequently carried over into Lithuanian grammars published in that region in the eighteenth century. However, some grammars of that century not only adopted earlier spelling rules but also attempted to critically assess the spelling of Lithuanian writings up to that time, and to establish certain principles of orthography. 36 G. Ostermejeris provides a critical analysis of the spelling in eighteenth-century RP printed books in his grammar (in the section ”Anhang von der Orthographie”, p.187—194). He first noted the inconsistency of spelling at the time (it was written: Pėwa and Piewa, didy|is and didi|is, gražią and gražę, wažiūju and wažojū, etc.)16, and then discussed individual spelling cases, often reproaching authors for one or another spelling practice (sometimes, as the examples show, without distinguishing spelling from phonetics). The problem of doubling consonant graphemes is discussed at particular length in the aforementioned section of the grammar. In the author’s view, this was the area of greatest inconsistency (”Uneinigkeit”): Donelaitis almost entirely rejected doubling, whereas Pilgrimas17, by contrast, went to the opposite extreme, while Pil. Ruigys took a middle course18. The opponents of doubling were the Poles, followed by J. Bretkūnas, L. Zengštokas, and S. Vainšnor as. D. Klemas doubled more often in his hymnal, but less than was done in the Bible and J. Berentas’s hymnal19. In these circumstances, G. Ostermejeris attempted to establish rules specifying which consonant graphemes should be doubled, namely: 1) m in nouns with the endings -immas, -ummas, if they are paroxytones; 2) n in nouns and adjectives with the endings -innis, -innė; 3) s in reflexive verbs with the prefixes iš-, už- (iš|laikau, uš|geidžiu, užžengiu, užžadu...) and in pronominal adjectives and pronouns (gerą|is, šaldū|jis, ji|ji, ta|tai...), if they are paroxytones. The consonants c, j, w, and ž should never be doubled (apart from the case specified), since they are already “double” (duplies)20. Without a specific study, it is difficult to say how far these rules were followed or ignored in Lithuanian written-language practice at the end of the eighteenth century and in the nineteenth. One thing is clear: they by no means covered all cases of consonant doubling characteristic of eighteenth-century RP texts, as can be seen from publications that appeared before G. Ostermejeris’s grammar. In his grammar, G. Ostermejeris also drew attention to variation in the spelling of the consonants k, g, s, z in cases of assimilation: some wrote užmiegas, užmigti, tužgenu, weždinu..., others—užmiks, užmigti, tusgenu, we|dinu...21. In such cases, the author of the grammar recommended taking derivation into account—that is, writing užmiegas (with g), since Miegas, miegmi have g. When derivation offers no guidance (e.g., in the case of tužgenti), pronunciation should be taken into account22. Thus, G. Ostermejeris was the first to propose and formulate a morphological (in his terminology, derivational) principle for consonant spelling, which had already been followed to a greater or lesser extent in earlier… 16 See O s t e r m e y e r G. Op. cit., 187. 17 This refers to Adomas Pilgrimas (1702—1757), who corrected the 1735 Bible and translated the biblical stories published in 1742. 18 See O s t e r m e y e r G. Op. cit., 188. 19 Ibid., 192. 20 Ibid., 191—192. 21 Ibid., 188. 22 Ibid., 194. 37 RP in Lithuanian writings. In general, G. Ostermejeris was the first to write specifically on orthographic matters and the first to formulate certain spelling principles theoretically. However, given that those principles were published at the end of the 18th century, it is not possible to speak of their having had a significant influence on the development of Lithuanian spelling in that century. Moreover, it should also be remembered that, because of the Prussian brothers Milkai’s attitude toward G. Ostermejeris’s grammar (as well as toward this author’s other works), it did not become widely circulated: many copies were consigned to wastepaper23. Therefore, G. Ostermejeris’s formulated spelling principles may also have been unknown to broader circles of writers. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (LDK), unlike in RP, spelling principles were neither proposed nor discussed theoretically in the 18th century (at least, we have no information about this). In the only known grammar of the Lithuanian language of this region from that time (published at the University in 1737), even the pronunciation of individual letters is not explained, as was done in all Lithuanian-language grammars of RP at the time. Consequently, in the practice and usage of the written language in LDK, as we shall see below, there is far more orthographic variation and spelling chaos than in RP. 7. Application of the phonemic–phonetic principle Although attempts to formulate certain spelling principles theoretically were made only at the end of the 18th century, and only in RP, this does not mean that until then chaos prevailed in the practice and usage of the Lithuanian written language, or that no spelling principles were observed. As analysis of Lithuanian writings from the 16th–17th centuries shows, even in the earliest period authors—especially those in RP—relied, with varying degrees of consistency, on one or another spelling principle and on rules derived from those principles24. Indeed, no one had formulated them theoretically before the first Lithuanian grammars appeared; in other words, they implicitly existed in the writers’ consciousness and were reflected in their writings. One of the main principles applied in Lithuanian spelling in both the 16th–17th and the 18th centuries was the phonemic and phonetic principle. Theoretically, the phonemic and phonetic principles can be treated as separate, independent principles associated with different levels. However, when describing how these principles are applied in practice, it is impossible to distinguish them strictly, because spelling is an area in which the connection between phonological and phonetic phenomena is particularly close: in many cases, a given grapheme can denote both the corresponding phoneme and its phonetic realization. Therefore, below, in describing the principles of Lithuanian spelling in the 18th century and their application, these two principles will be combined into a single phonemic–phonetic principle. In the 18th century, this principle underlay the spelling of vowels, diphthongs, and consonants in many cases, both in RP and in LDK, especially when the author knew their pronunciation from the dialect of their birthplace or place of residence. However, when the author was uncertain about the pronunciation of a particular phoneme, or when, because of established tradition, the spelling of the sound realizing it was based on ki- 23 Biržiška Vac. Aleksandrynas II. Čikaga: JAV LB kult. fondas, 1963, 104. 24 Plačiau žr. Pali onis J. Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI—XVII a. V.: Mintis, 1967, 42—49. 38 In these principles, the phonemic—phonological principle was either not applied or was applied inconsistently. Moreover, the phonemic—phonetic principle was followed to a greater extent in the GDL and to a lesser extent in RP, where other principles (morphological, etymological, and differentiating) had long been more firmly established in spelling. Without embarking on a detailed analysis of all cases in which the phonemic—phonetic principle was applied (that would be the task of a specialized graphemic study), it can be stated that this principle was used in both RP and the GDL to write the short vowels [i], [e], [u], and partly [a] (not after a palatalized consonant), the diphthongs [ie] and [uo], and almost all consonants (except [f], [h], [x], and cases involving the junction of voiced and voiceless consonants). As in earlier centuries, 25 during the period under discussion the phonemic—phonetic principle was applied most inconsistently in writing the vowel [a, a·] after a palatalized consonant. Cases were not uncommon, especially in GDL texts, in which this vowel in this position was written both phonetically, i.e., e (ie), and morphologically, i.e., a (ia); cf.: praes.1 pl. dak[au]eme Sp.21,16 and praes.3 du[au]ja Pėd.61, 31, praes.1 pl. pag[au]ojemos Ž.90,9 and kloniojamos Pėd.34,24, 1.sg.m. jemme PVG 199, 25,25 and Jame RG 46, praes.3 raike KNT Mat.3,14 and reikia B1 likewise, adv. cže B1 Mat.5,23 and čia KNT Mat.6,21, a.sg.f. ateinančę B1 Ap.d.II,5 and ateinančią KNT likewise... There was similar variation in writing the diphthong [ai] after a palatalized consonant; cf.: n.pl.m. akmene y Br.25:3,27, welney Sp.122,4, senoley Br.218,17, Mokitojey PKr.2,6 and er[f]zkieč̌ay Pėd.69,27, pauk[f]zč̌ay PKr.4,9, Galwiajai DR 24,4, adv. dra[f]ey Ms.67,23, Pav.74,7, kątrey PKr.31,5, [eney Ž 52,II and Saldzay Pėd.81,4, d.sg.f. jei KNT Jon.II,23. However, in both RP and GDL texts the vowel [a, a·] was nevertheless most often written phonetically (including when it was not part of the diphthong [ai]). In the Prussian branch of the Lithuanian written language of that period, certain patterns in this spelling can even be discerned, namely: it was written phonetically after the palatalized consonants [b’], [c’], [dz’], [g’], [j], [k’], [l’], [n’], [p’], [r’], [s’], [š’], [v’], [ž’]26, except for (a) the stem-final position of the present and past simple tense of ia-stem verbs, and (b) the singular dative and inessive of masculine-gender adjectives, active participles, and pronouns of the ia-stem type jis, pats, šis (including cases where it forms part of a pronominal adjective), whose spelling was already based on the morphological principle (see 8). In the GDL, where no stronger traditions of spelling codification had developed earlier, it is more difficult to discern any broader pattern in the writing of the vowel [a, a·] after a palatalized consonant. Yet here, too, this vowel was written phonetically in almost all the same cases as in RP, although its spelling varied more. As can already be seen from the examples given above, in some eighteenth-century GDL texts (Pėd., Sp, Ž, as well as Br, AA, Pav, PKr), the present and past simple tense of verbs of the -otí, -ytí, -eití type was also sometimes written phonetically 25 See P a l i o n i s J. Cit. veik., 42—43. 26 No examples were observed in the position following [m’], [z’]. 39 stem-final -ia: pres. 2 pl. [prečiojėt ies Pav.48,23, žiȧčiej t.p.48,25, pret. 2 sg. abeiojey Pav.47,1, noriejey AA 25,6, žinojey PKr.2,2, pret.3 kętietije Pav.64,16, fužije AA 20,19, žwejoje Ž 59,25... As before, so also in the eighteenth century the diphthong [au] after a palatalized consonant was not written according to the phonemic–phonetic principle; cf.: adv.comp. Daugiaus HG 324, Didžiaus RG 45, pakčiaus OA 22,12, n. sg.f. brangiaũ/ži DRr 21,13, i.pl.mc. Bandžauninkais t.p.24.32, d. pl. kiaulems B¹ Mat.8,30, g.sg. pakaiáus Pav.13,23, pret.I sg. nužidėjau Ped.5,16, Kalbėjau U 28, fakiáu KNT Mat.24,25... In RP this was influenced by the Kleinian tradition, established by the grammars of F. Hakas and Pov. Ruigys, whereas in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania it was influenced by prior usage, in which morphological spelling had become established since the time of K. Sirvydas and was also recorded in the anonymous grammar of 1737. A problematic issue is the extent to which the phonemic–phonetic principle was applied in the spelling of the nasal vowels [ą], [ę], [į], [ų]. It is problematic because by the first half of the eighteenth century the denasalization process of these vowels had already greatly intensified, and perhaps even ended²⁷, and the “nasal” letters could not always represent a nasal vowel: in more than one case, the use of “nasal” letters at that time may have been traditional, modeled on earlier texts. However, judging from notes found in some eighteenth-century Lithuanian grammars and the greater regularity in the use of certain forms with “nasal” letters, there is nevertheless reason to suppose that the spelling of nasal vowels was based on the phonemic–phonetic principle in the following cases: a) word-medially before [s], [š], [ž]: adv. draſey Ms.67,28, i.sg.m. Iſga]čiu KNT, B¹, B² Luk.2,9, a.sg.m. Kaſmų t.p. Jon. 13,26, Raſtą t.p., Pov.1.tes. 7,5, n.pl.m. Zaſlay AA 903, pres.2 sg. ſugrąžini Ms.30,25..., inf. kžeſti BŠ 73,14, ſweſti KNT,B¹, B² Ap. d.18,21,Br.149,2, g.pl. ſkieſtanciu NA 40,9, a.sg.m. Patreſima KNT, B¹,B² II Pov.1.kor.10,11, inf. ap]kuſti KNT,B¹, B² Luk.23,2, Ap,d.24,2, ſjuſti t.p.1 Pov.1. tes.10,34; b) in a closed word ending (especially in certain pronouns and active participles, including the first component of pronominal forms): g.sg. mannęs KNT Mat.16,25, Jawęs BŠ 13,6, tawęs t.p.13,5, al.sg. ſawęſpi KNT, B¹, B² Mat.11,12, tawęsp BŠ 137,22..., pres.n.sg. ſeigs KNT,B¹, B² Mat.13,12, ſergas KAB 23,2, turris PVG 148,7, ateinaſis KNT Pov.1.tes.3,11, eſaſis t.p. Pov.1.rym. 8,38, pres.n.pl. alkſtąjie KNT 5,6, trokſtąjie t.p., pret.n.sg. alſidaweſ Br.21,1, pabaigęs DRr 4.41, fut.n.sg. gvdvſes KNT,B¹, Mork.3.2.... c) in an open word ending (in the accusative singular of nominal words and pronouns, and also the nominative plural of active participles): a.sg.m. butą C 111,25, kartą Br.78, 27, ſwentą C 19,4, viena KNT Mat.18,6, ką Ž 7,3, tą t.p.7,4, a.sg.f. Tewiſzkę PVG 208,4, žągrę t.p. 254,6, ateinančią KNT,B¹,B² Mat.3,16; a.sg. mannę KNT Jon.2,17, tawę t.p. 1,50, ſawę PKr. 3.25, a.sg.f. Akį KNT Mat.5,38, a.sg.m. buſentį t.p. 3,7, Jį t.p.17,13, Sunu t.p.16,13... n.pl.m. dirbę DR 27 T. Buch thought that the process of denasalization in the western Aukštaitian dialect had ended around 1700; see Buch T. Przyczynek do rozwoju wokalizmu języka litewskiego — Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georga Kuryłowicz. Wrocław — Warszawa — Kraków: Zakł. narod. im. Ossolińskich, 1965. 40 4,19, trų[zinėję, t.p., nuleidą KNT Ap.d.27,28, buſę t.p.Mat.26,58...; d) in the stem-final position of -inti-type verbs (RP): inf. pabuddit DRr 3,19, paniekinti PVG 248,5, paſkakyt DRr4,23, ſveikīt’ t.p.3,12, wargīt t.p.3,17,fut.3 nuſimęs KNT,B¹,B² Luk.21,25, cond.3 kaltītu t.p. Jon.8,16, imper.2 sg. atſimink DRr 9,14, 2pl. atſiminkite PVG 248,5, part.cont.n.sg. ſulygdamą t.p.204,2, n.pl. gawi̇dami DRr 3,5... The “nasal” letters were used more consistently in these positions by RP authors (especially K. Donelaitis), and irregularly and infrequently—and also often to denote tautosyllabic diphthongs—in LDK texts. If the 1737 anonymous grammar did not contain notes such as “Vocales a.e.i.u. ſi ſequatur et cum eis jungatur n, proferuntur ut cancellatae paſſim” (p.1), “Etiam in participio in eodem modo profertur quo in praeſenti Indicativi, ſcilicet per z cancellatum” (p.48), there would be no basis at all for speaking either of the existence of nasalized vowels or of the application of the phonemic–phonetic principle to the marking of nasal vowels in eighteenth-century written Lithuanian in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. However, the quoted notes, together with the fairly frequent use of “nasal” letters in the positions mentioned, allow us hypothetically to posit some reflection of nasal resonance in texts from the first half of the eighteenth century in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and, alongside it, manifestations of phonemic–phonetic nasal-vowel spelling. In the second half of that century, by contrast, the “nasal” letters, which occur less frequently here, were probably used on the basis of earlier tradition and, in individual cases (especially in loanwords), under the influence of Polish spelling (cf. pres.1 sg. łączju Br.28,25, a.sg. paſtepką Ž 7,12, wąpīt t.p.22,21, adv. nędznay t.p.28,25). That nasal resonance may also have persisted in RP in some of the positions mentioned in the first half and middle of the eighteenth century, and that the phonemic–phonetic principle may have been applied to mark vowels bearing that resonance, is indicated not only by the fairly regular use of “nasal” letters (considerably more regular than in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), but also by a note in Pov. Ruigys’s 1747 grammar: “Ueberhaupt ein ausgęſchloſſenes, aber doch implicite noch vorhandenes n angezeigt, welches mehrentheils vor dem ſ wegfällt, und alsdenn in der Ausſprache nur etwas als durch die Naſe berühret wird, als: ſákas für ſakanas”²⁸. However, by the end of the eighteenth century the denasalization process had apparently already ended in RP as well, since G. Ostermejer’s 1791 grammar states that the strokes through the letters ą, ę, į, ų indicate a dropped n and that these strokes have no effect on pronunciation: “Die Vocales a, e, i und u werden oft durchſtrichen, als ą, ę, į, ų, welcher Strich ein weggeworfenes n angezeigt. Alsdann werden ſie, wenn ein Conſonans darauf folgt, es ſey in Welcher Sylbe es wolle, etwas gedehnt; ſtehen ſie aber am Ende ohne folgenden Conſonans, ſo hat der Strich in ihre Ausſprache keinen Einfluß, ſie lauten ſo, als wenn er gar nicht da wäre”²⁹. Thus, the application of the phonemic–phonetic principle to the marking of nasal vowels in the eighteenth century was very limited and quite problematic both in RP and, especially, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 28 Beginnings of a Lithuanian Grammar... by Paul Friedrich Ruhig... Königsberg, 1747, 8. 29 Oſtermeyer G. New Lithuanian Grammar, 4. 41 Perhaps only a special analysis of all spelling cases would make it possible to define somewhat more precisely all those instances in which the spelling of nasal vowels was based on the phonemic—phonetic principle and those in which it was based on the traditional principle. In the eighteenth century, the application of the phonemic—phonetic principle was very limited in the spelling of non-nasal long vowels as well. In the GDL, long vowels then, as before, were generally not graphically distinguished from short ones; cf.: inf. atsiųti Ž 57,12, cond. 1 sg. bučio Sp.3.14, a. pl.f. krūtis Sp.60,12, AA 33.5. prt.n.sg. nuludes R₂₆ 118,8, n.sg.f. papūga Br.86,10, inf. [j]uty 43.18..., inf. apšvyrkytų Mš.34,2, lytų Ž 69,2, n.sg. arklys Sp.62₁, AA 89:26. a.sg.f. gynymų Ž 12.21. n.pl. mokitojey PKr.2,6... Therefore, this principle can be said to have been applied only in the Prussian branch of the written language. In eighteenth-century RP texts, following the Kleinian tradition, the narrow [ė] was graphically distinguished from the broad [e, e⁎], as was long [i·] from short [i], but long [u·] was not distinguished from short [u]. However, it cannot be said that this distinction based on the phonemic—phonetic principle (using the traditional graphemes ė and y for the corresponding long vowels) was maintained consistently everywhere in the usage of the written RP language of that time. As we shall see later, there was considerable variation and all kinds of inconsistencies. In consonant spelling, the phonemic—phonetic principle, as already mentioned, was applied more widely than for vowels: one could say that consonants were written according to this principle almost always, with the sole exception of certain cases at the junction of voiced and voiceless consonants. However, even in the latter cases, especially in the GDL, the phonemic—phonetic (more precisely, phonetic) principle was retained more often; cf.: part.cont.n.sg.m. atlayzdamas PKr.21,6, jauzdamas BŠ 18,4, melzdamas NA 13,3, wezdamas AA 47,21, n.sg.f. gieyzdama BŠ 54,19, inf. dirptų Br.198,22, Sp81,3, pabiek­ti NA 83,7, išzmiltų Br.2:32, 28, uždekti Sp.60,30, praes.3 miek[ta BŠ 113, 13. [prok]ta Mš.63,2, praet.3 adgule Sp.75.9, drap[te Ž 178,17, cond. raščiau BŠ 158,25, n.sg. mc. knupščias t.p.72,2, pacay Sp.19,10, warkdienis BŠ 259,4, wie[spac Ž 236:5... However, in some texts from the GDL, these were sometimes written morphologically: inf. bėgty KAB 85.27, dėgty t.p.112,188 užbiegyt t.p.6,20, n.pl. re[k]dam Sp.62.10, and so on. In RP texts, j (iota) was written according to the phonemic—phonetic principle not only after [p], [b], but also after [m], [v]: g. sg. Lobio KNT Mat. 19,22, adv. labjaus DRr.23,21, praes.3 [rebja t.p.21,27, piaują KNT Jon.4,37, praet.3 [spjaude t.p. Mat.26,67, n.sg. Pjutis t.p. Luk. 10,2..., n.pl.mc. Kurmjei DRr.18,16, g.pl. šemjų PVG 72,10, adv. pirmjau[ey t.p.72,14, n.pl.mc. Ateiwjei KNT Ap.d.17,21, Liežuwjei t.p.2,3, g.pl.f. Awji t.p. Mat.7,15, g.pl.mc. Bedewjų DR 23,32, pu[gyrujų t.p.23,30... This spelling had become established in the Prussian branch of the written language as early as the time of D. Klein (in his 1653 GL, the pronunciation [j] in the positions mentioned was clearly indicated)30. 8. The morphological principle of spelling. This principle, whose essence consists in spelling the same morphemes uniformly, was not applied as widely in eighteenth-century Lithuanian spelling as the phonological—pho- 30 See Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 108. 42 ...inal. This is understandable: a more consistent application of the morphological principle requires greater familiarity with the morphemic structure of words and greater linguistic awareness, which was lacking especially among authors in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The morphological principle is most clearly manifested in cases where voiceless and voiced consonants meet. In such cases, both earlier and in the eighteenth century, the authors of RP adhered to this principle more consistently, and the Kleinian tradition had considerable influence on them in this respect. In D. Kleinas’s grammars, prefixes ap-, at-, iš-, už- were generally spelled uniformly regardless of position, as were word roots ending in the voiced consonants [b], [g], apart from the occasional exceptional case, e.g.: a) present 1st person singular apdulk[tu (GL 97, apgalu likewise p. 140, apžaidžiu likewise p. 169, atdarau likewise p. 170, atgražinu, atšaidžiu likewise, past 1st person singular išgalėjau likewise p. 68, nominative singular išguldimas likewise, adverb užpernay likewise p. 135, present 1st person singular užpūlinėju likewise p. 129, infinitive užfalaktyti likewise p. 173, b) part.cont. dirbdams (GL 132, fut.1 sg. dirb[su Comp.62 (but cond.1 pl. dirptumbim, dirptume, cond.2 pl. dirptumbit Comp.55, fut.1 sg. dirp[su GL 16, Comp.56), inf. augti Comp.109, džaugęs GL 87, n.sg. džaug[mas (and džauk[mas) t.p.12³¹, praes.1 sg. [prog[tu t.p.97, warğ[tu t.p.101, etc. Following D. Kleinas’s example, all eighteenth-century authors of Lithuanian writings in RP adhered to the morphological principle in these cases to a greater or lesser extent. Moreover, the principle was often applied to other cases in which voiceless and voiced consonants meet; cf.: a) nominative singular neuter Apdangalas PVG 200,20, infinitive apdengt’ DR 18,22, ap[kelbti B² I Pov.1.Tit.1,6..., past 3rd person atgijo BT Luk.15,24, nominative singular neuter Atgriekáwimas OA 19,6..., adverb išbyggtinai B¹ Ez.30,21, infinitive išgunoti likewise IV Moz.21,49, išbvertž DRr 28,38..., conditional 3rd person uždegtu KNT Luk.15,8, past 3rd person uždėjo B¹ IV Moz.26,6, accusative plural užßßtatus likewise 1 Mak. 8,6..., b) adverb ap[czey KNT Pov.1.Tit.3,6, nominative plural áugdamì DRr 22,30, infinitive bautbi likewise 30,19, 2nd person singular imperative dirbk KNT Mat.21,28, infinitive džaugti̇s DRr 10,44, accusative singular neuter Džaug[mą likewise 29,21, present 3rd person gelbti PVG 246,20, genitive singular Gywa[čio likewise 316.4, present 1st person singular meg[tu KNT Mat.9,13, adverb Páwyzdžui KNT 11 Jon.1.8.5, genitive singular neuter Wal[cziaus DRr 24,41, infinitive wìrgt’ DR 12,14..., c) adverb daug[yk DRr 12,30;27,22, nominative singular draugkalinys B¹ Pov.1.kol.4,10, draugtamas likewise 4,7, adverb kasdien DRr 21,18, genitive singular neuter Rugpjučio PVG 439,10, rugpyvė B¹ Sal.p.25,20... The tendency to apply the morphological principle more widely in eighteenth-century RP writings is clearly demonstrated by the relatively infrequent spelling of the imperative mood in them (especially in Bible translations) that preserves the root-final consonant [g] before the suffixal [k]: imper.2. sg. bėgk KNT Mat.2,13, žvelgk OA 6,20, ne pabugk B¹ V Moz.1,21, ne wogk KNT Mat.19,18 (// Ne pėrženkt t.p.), imper.2 pl. áugkite B¹ I Pov.1.kor. 15.58 (// áukite KNT t.p.), bėgkit t.p.9,24, Džaugkitės KNT Mat. 5,12, wenğkite t.p.1 Pov.1.kor.6,18 (// wenkite t.p.10,14). Moreover, over the course of the eighteenth century, the increasingly strong tendency in RP to rely on voiceless/voiced 31 Regarding this noun, D. Kleinas vacillated: out of 7 instances in GL, it is written with k four times and with g three times. 43 At their junction, the morphological principle reflects the replacement of forms written phonemically—phonetically in earlier biblical texts with forms written morphologically. For example, in the 1727 edition of the New Testament we still find: praes.3 mėgſta I Pov.1.kor.16,2, n.pl.mc. Prieſałſczei Pov.1.efez.1,1, n.pl.mc. warkſtągę Mat.5..., imper.2 pl. Wenkît I Pov.1.tes., whereas the 1735 and 1755 editions have jau mėgſta, Prieſałſcė, wargſtą, wénkit. On the other hand, however, it cannot be said that the morphological principle was followed more strictly in eighteenth-century RP writing in all the cases of voiceless/voiced consonant clusters mentioned here so far. As the examples given already show, the spelling of individual word forms nevertheless still varied. For instance, although the prefixes iš- and už- were more often written according to the morphological principle, in reflexive forms of verbs they were sometimes also written phonetically: praes.3 išſigąſta DRr 21,23, praet.3 iſſipilde KNT Luk.2,21, iſſireiſkė etc. Ap.d.19,17, praes.2 sg. iſſiźoźi DRr 16,29..., part. pass. neutr. uſſiginta KNT Luk.12,9, part.act.n.sg.mc. uſſilaidawęs B¹ II Mak.12,25, imper.2 sg. uſſimink DR 9,27. G. Ostermejeris also prescribed this spelling in his 1791 grammar³². In eighteenth-century LDK writing, the morphological principle was rarely applied. Somewhat more often, only the prefixes ap-, at-, iš- and už- were written according to this principle, while in other cases, as mentioned, spelling was generally phonetic. At times one even encounters phonetically written forms that were customarily written according to the morphological principle in this region at the time, for example: adv. adzagarey “backwards” BŠ 152,15, dauk etc. 53,19, part.cont. Apringdamas NA 57,11, nelaugdamas etc. 106,22, imper.2 sg. Newog RAB 214,11, ne wog PKr.44,26. In general, by the end of the eighteenth century, the LDK dialect was moving ever further away from the morphological principle—which was in any case rarely applied there—and toward phonetic (or, rather, phonological) spelling. This is also shown, among other things, by comparing individual forms across different editions of EP. For instance, up to and including the 1779 edition of the Gospels, the spelling was: cond. I iſmęgſčia // iſſmęgſčia (with g), whereas in the 1779, 1790, 1794, and 1797 editions it was already iſźmękſčio (with k). The appeal of 30 April 1794 by the “Council of the Lithuanian Nation” (Rada Narodowa Litewska) likewise has: n.sg. f. abdin[k]ta At.127,41, inf. ac[i]stol etc. 127,33, abznaininty “to announce” etc. 128,51. 9. The differential principle of spelling This is the principle by which word forms pronounced identically or similarly, derivational morphemes of certain words, and components of certain word combinations are distinguished graphically. In the eighteenth century, as earlier, this principle was applied only in RP. For this purpose, an inverted-circumflex-shaped diacritic was used, as well as two oblique strokes. The inverted-circumflex-shaped diacritic (˄) was written fairly regularly in the genitive plural ending of declinable words and, in addition, in the genitive singular of (a)o- and ė-stem nouns, adjectives, and pronouns, for example: a) g.pl. Begunų “fugitives” PVG 108,24, Barų etc. 61,8, DRr 5,40, duriejų B¹ Jon.ev.21,8, juſų KNT Jon.ev.12,30, Koſų etc. Ap.d.2,35, būarų Paſzalių DRr 7,42, muſų B¹ Sal. išm.2,12, apjū etc. 11 Moz.7,19, Walgų 32 See Ostermejer G. Neue Littauische Grammatik, 191. 44 DR 3,37, wil[fok?]ū B1 Moz.8,21..., b) g.sg.f. A[f]os DBr 8,5, Dūnôs etc. 17,6, didžôs B1 V Moz.2,10, griežinájos Sėklós DM 7.13, Waktôs PVG 126,15..., c) g.sg.f. Duwalės KNT Pov.1.rvm.8,23. laup[?]ės B1 11 Moz.15,1. [eny?]fės etc. 1 Moz.48,10, tampibės etc. Job.10,21. Teuwibės C 41,24, Wertybės KNT Ap.D.9,1... It is not entirely clear whether the inverted-circumflex-shaped mark was written according to the differential principle in the i-stem genitive singular ending of nouns. In an unstressed ending, the mark was probably used by analogy with (i)o- and ė-stems, but in a stressed ending it could also indicate stress placement and intonation, cf.: g.sg. amžìės BT 20,34, [leuk]tìės B¹ Kron.19,22, Smertìės KNT Ap.d.25,22, Waltìės etc. 27,22... and akkìės B¹ V Moz. 32.10, naktìės etc. 11 Moz.11,4, prìe[f]tìės etc. Esr.10,9, širdìės etc. IV Moz.8,27... Judging from D. Kleinas’s grammars, in which the inverted-circumflex-shaped mark was generally not written in an unstressed i-stem ending ([fn]ertìės GL 72, [mertìes etc. 48ᵃ), there is greater reason to believe that in eighteenth-century RP writing the mark appeared in this position by orthographic analogy, while in a stressed ending it marked stress and intonation. Only orthographic (graphic) analogy or unfamiliarity with the rules for using the inverted-circumflex-shaped mark can explain forms written in this way that are found in some eighteenth-century Prussian government decrees and “letters”: g.sg.m. Lapkritio PVG 70,20, Metė etc. 64,3, paukšlelėio “in August” etc. 83,3, [au]šio etc. 76,6, tuk[stan]č[o] [ekmė] šimto etc. 64,2–3. In some eighteenth-century RP texts, two strokes (=) were occasionally used to separate a prefix, especially if an enclitic or proclitic followed it, for example: imper.2 sg. ne=mi=dūk: DM 45,22, pri=mi=stok: etc. 41,13, cond.3 ne=mi=žūdyty KIG³ 183,21. In the same way, components of certain newly coined compound words or attributive word combinations were also separated (especially often in the administrative writing of the period), for example: a.sg.m. Baudž=Ūki (Schaarwerks=Hof) PVG 410,6, Droßt=Peilį (Schneide=Me[s]ser) etc. 411,12, n.sg.f. Priiminimmo=Gromata (Annehmungs=Brief) etc. 414,18, a.sg.m. Ugniės= Jßge[/]innimmo=Dawadą (Feuer=Loesch=Ordnung) etc. 413.26, and so on. Such graphic separation of derivational morphemes, compound words, and attributive word combinations in RP, slavishly adopted from German spelling at an earlier date, tended to become increasingly widespread in the eighteenth century. However, this kind of separation was not characteristic of some authors of the period, including K. Donelaitis. 10. The traditional principle of spelling This is one of the more universal principles, characteristic of the spelling systems of many nations in later stages of language development. Moreover, it is a principle that requires neither extensive linguistic nor, more generally, philological education, since its essence consists in writing as things were written before, without regard to the phonetic or phonemic structure of language elements, the morphemic structure of the word, or the graphic differentiation of word forms. In eighteenth-century Lithuanian written-language practice, the traditional principle was applied fairly widely, though, as with the other principles, to varying degrees in RP and 45 LDK. Without going into a more detailed analysis of how this principle was applied, only its more notable instances in spelling will be discussed here. In RP, the extent to which the traditional spelling principle was applied in the eighteenth century was determined chiefly by the authoritative grammars of D. Kleinas, whose codified principal orthographic norms the authors of that region strove to follow relatively strictly. Greater variation is found only in cases where D. Kleinas’s grammars themselves were not very uniform. For example, as noted (1, note), D. Kleinas tended to write ė only when stressed, but contrary to his preference, that letter also occurs in an unstressed position in GL (probably because the approval commission held different views): n.sg.m. ėrytis 37, praet.3 fėke į 128, inf. fėgėtis 153... This inconsistency is often reflected in eighteenth-century Lithuanian writings from RP as well: there, too, especially in the first half of the century, ė is more often written only in stressed positions: praet.3 Atėjo BT Mat.3,13, girdėjoB¹ I Moz.3,8, pradėjo DR 3,22, n.sg.m. Kalėjimas KNT Ap.d.5,1, tirėjas "researcher" BT Pov.1.kor.1,20, n.pl.m. Meldėjai KNT Luk.4,23, Kudikėliai OA 13,19, a.pl. plėnisB¹ Nek.4,2, in.pl. žmonė[j]a t.p.111 Moz.19,16..., but: praet.3 audeB¹ II Moz.35,25, DR 3,13, dareB¹ I Moz.30,22, mate t.p. Kar.20,41, walde t.p.1 Sam.7,6, n.sg.f. Dailidė BT Mork.6,3, gatybė t.p.Mat.6,13, Moteriškė KNT Pov.1.rym.7,2, wertybėB¹ III Moz.27,16, a.pl.f. utteles t.p.11 Moz.8,16... However, in the middle and second half of the century, a tendency can be observed to disregard D. Kleinas’s artificial rule and write ė wherever it is narrow. This tendency is especially evident in K. Donelaitis’s writings, where that grapheme is used fairly consistently in both stressed and unstressed positions; compare: praet.3 gyrė DR 3.15, lópė t.p.4,18, paſikėlė t.p.3,33, walge t.p.4,31, n.sg.f. Saulė t.p.35,38, n.pl.f. Muſſės t.p.3,16, Pelės t.p.3,15, Pramonės t.p.3,3... From the Kleinian tradition, eighteenth-century RP authors also adopted the spelling of i-type diphthongs with y (y) in adverbial endings and in some conjunctions: adv. abelnay KNT Mat.13,33, akylay t.p.Pov.1.efez.5,15, apſtingay OA 48,11, baiſley DR 31,29, diddey t.p.29,7, mandagey t.p.39,5, ſtiprey PVG 101,1, todeley OA 26,10, tuleropay PVG 80,4..., conj. bey DR 3,20, B¹ V Moz. 9,21, jey KNT Pov.1.gal.5,15; IV Moz.6,9, jeyb PVG 64,19, ney t.p.V Moz.12,32, OA 6,25; 51,10, kacžey "although" OA 61,2. D. Kleinas’s GL justifies this spelling of adverbs on the grounds that many bear stress on the final syllable and, moreover, to distinguish them from the names from which they are supposedly derived³³ (thus, once again, the differential principle was in view). Although this rationale lacked a firm basis, it apparently seemed sufficient to seventeenth-century RP authors, and so the Kleinian tradition was followed in practice. The influence of D. Kleinas’s grammars is also clearly visible in the spelling of palatalized consonants. As in these grammars, in many eighteenth-century RP writings the palatalization marker į was often not used to indicate a palatalized consonant before the back vowels [a], [o], [u], e.g.: a) a,sg.f. Baudžawą DR 24,41, n.pl.m. Baudžáuninkai t.p.24,32, praes s sg. cžáuſki t.p.5,22, inf. cžaudit t.p.27,31, inf. kelláutiB¹ Kar.11,19, g.sg.m. karálaus t.p.11 Sam.19,43, 33 The First Lithuanian Grammar, 9. 46 a.pl.m. nießęas B¹ Job.15,35..., b) g.sg.m. brūsençō DR 22,37, kélo t.p.V Moz.31,29, praet.3 nessilówe t.p.11 Kar.3,3, n.pl.m. žogai t.p.IV Moz.13,34; 28,38...; c) g.pl. akkanū BT Mork.9,16, biçū B¹ I Sam.14,8, girru B¹ III Moz.16,22, karwū t.p.V Moz.7,13 (ir karwū B² t.p.), Storkoc3ū DR 35,9, Žmónū “people” PVG 360,3, n.sg.m. dedžus B¹ I Sam.10,14, lutas t.p.IV Moz.23,24, fut.3 dūfu B¹ V Moz.15,16, ejfu t.p.2,28, meljus BT Mork.14,32, praes.1 sg. turra B¹ Job.20,2, imper.2 sg. atfajk OA 53,10... Atskirais atvejais, ypač veiksmažodžių esamojo ir būsimojo laiko 1 asm. galūnėje, minkštinamojo ženklo ir nevartojimas galėjo atspindėti ir kietą priebalsio tarimą, taigi galėjo būti paremtas fonetiniu principu. Tačiau daug dažniau tas ženklas nebuvo rašomas laikantis D. Kleino gramatikų, kurioms buvo būdingas minkštinamojo ženklo nerašymas 1) po sonorinių [l], [r], [n] tokiose lytyse, kaip n.sg.m. Karalus GL 24, Karalaučius t.p.65, i.sg.m. Karalumi t.p.160, kėlas t.p.22, i.sg.m. kelu t.p.157, peilu t.p.158..., comp. geraus t.p.26, n.sg.f. keturolikà t.p.73, n.sg.m. ketweropas t.p. 75, praes.1 sg. durru t.p.91 (bet turiu t.p.106)..., n.pl.f. dėwnos, n.sg.m. malonāufis t.p.27, g.pl. žmonių ”žmonių” t.p.52;150..., 2) po afrikatų [č], [dž] tokiose lytyse, kaip n.sg.m. c3artas GL 5, Karalauč3onis t.p.65, adv. c3onai t.p.5, praes.1 sg. junç3u t.p...... n.sg.m. džaũg[f]mas arba džaũk[f]mas GL 12, n.sg.f. didžauja t.p.14..., 3) po pučiamųjų [s], [š] tokiose lytyse, kaip fut. 1 sg. bufu GL 122, dūfu t.p.118, eiſu t.p.122, žinnōſu t.p.115, n.pl.f. teiſos t.p.43, in.pl.f. teiſoja t.p., a.pl.m. waiſus t.p. 51, g.sg.m. ſzo 79, n.pl.f. ſos t.p., ſzeſzos t.p.44, g.pl. ſzū t.p.79... It is now difficult to say more precisely in which of these positions D. Kleinas did not write the palatalization mark because the consonants were pronounced hard. This calls for special linguistic research. However, a retrospective look at pre-Kleinian RP texts does not provide reliable evidence for confirming hard consonant pronunciation in many of the positions listed here. For example, in the 1625 psalter (“Pſalteras Dowido”), prepared by Jonas Rėza (who, like D. Kleinas, was from Tilsit), the palatalization mark į was often written even where D. Kleinas did not use it. Cf.: fut.1 sg. muźįſiu RPs LXXIX, 24, melloſiu ibid.36, ſakkyſiu (CXVI,13, tuſbijāus ibid.XIII,3, uſumokėſiu ibid.CXVI,13..., n.sg.m. Karalius ibid.XCV,3, i.sg.m. Karaliumi XCVII,1, g.pl. ſžmonių ibid.XLIV,11. It is therefore difficult to believe that consonant depalatalization in such cases could have occurred in the few decades following the appearance of J. Rėza’s psalter. In the GDL, unlike RP, the palatalization mark į inherited from earlier tradition was written not only before back vowels, but often also before front vowels, especially after k and g, e.g.: imper.1 pl. ekiem “let us go” Ž 106,18, gidok:iem BŠ 125,13, imper.2 pl. Eykiet KAB 153,7, giedokiet BŠ 46,7, a.sg.f. Kiepure Br.92,15, praes.3 kienčė ibid.105,28, fut.3 kielſes Pav.39,6–7, n.pl.m. Waykiele Br.1,3..., n.pl.f. gientis PKr.³ 35,15. adv. qierau Pav.21,11, n.sg.m. Gieras KAB 5,16, i.pl.m. gielžineys BŠ 415,16, fut.1 pl. qier[f]ma ibid.306,13, g.sg.f. knigieles KAB 8;2...(cf. also: g.sg.f. pjękiolikos Pėd. 30,20, žiemes Ž 16,24, praes.3 žienklina BŠ 11,6–7, g.sg.m. žodźie ibid.43,15...). This spelling was also adopted in the anonymous grammar of 1737 (cf.: praes.1 sg. 47 kiekių 93, kiecziu 92, kiemſzu 94, gieru ibid., gieydziu 96, praet.1 sg. regiejauſ 107...), whose norms were followed by many GDL authors of the time. The doubling (gemination) of consonant letters was also based on traditional principles, characteristic especially of RP Lithuanian texts and modeled on German spelling. As before, in the eighteenth century the following letters were quite regularly doubled after a short vowel: b, d, g, p, t, k, l, m, n, r, s. E.g.: n.pl.m. debbeſei B¹ I Moz.9,14, i.pl.f. kabbenis ibid.11 Moz.26:33, praet.3 atwedde ibid.1 Moz.2,19, adv. diddey DR 29,7, cond.3 reggeleu B¹ I Moz.2,19, n.pl. Ruggei DR 32,12, v.sg.f. leppunėle B¹, B² Iz.46.1, g.pl. puppų ibid. Ez.4,9, n.sg.m. Bittinus DR, n.pl.f. utteles B¹ II Moz.8,16, praep. ikki DM 24,22, inf. tikkieti C 57,20, i.pl.m. Szillais DR 3,7, a.sg.m. Drąſtumą DM 20,23, n.sg.f. Gimmine DR 4,39, adv. kanney B¹, B² I Moz.24,53, a. pl.m. unnis ibid.11 Moz.27,19, n.pl.f. durrys ibid.Ez.41,11, g.sg.m. wittwlo ibid.Dan.1,12, n.pl.f. Muſſes DR 3,16, n.sg.m. wiſſoks BT Luk.3,5... Doubling consonant letters was not characteristic of GDL texts. There, s was occasionally doubled, and in words of non-Lithuanian origin also m, n, f: a.sg.f. Eſſiby KAB 8,17, praes.2 sg. eſſi Br.2,3 (Eſſi BŠ 200,12), in.pl.f. aſſaboſſe KAB 13:3,25, g.sg.f. Proceſſies ibid.24,12, n.sg.m. Affierawojmas Pėd.42,9), a.sg.m. affekta Pav.25,18, n.sg.f. Panna Ž 177,24, n.pl.m. Kommunikantau Br.30,15... The use of capital letters was also largely based on earlier tradition. In RP, as before³⁴, following the German model, common nouns were often written with capital letters as well, especially in texts of the chancery style; cf. the excerpt from the 1724 “Royal Decree” concerning the wearing of bast shoes: “When, however, the Pillės or Edelmonų subjects, or other Kelmėnų servants and retainers, wearing bast shoes, go to perform their corvée, and thus arrive at the manor or go to church, the castle officials, and also the Edelmonai and kelmerai to whom these people are subject, must provide an account for this.”³⁵ This excerpt shows that at that time, i.e. in the first half of the eighteenth century, not all nouns in RP were yet written with capital letters. By the middle of the century, however, and especially toward its end, nouns began to be consistently distinguished graphically from other parts of speech (nouns are written quite consistently with capital letters in K. Donelaitis’s manuscript of “Metai,” as well as in many chancery and church texts). The situation was different in the GDL, where Polish spelling exerted a stronger influence: here (also following earlier tradition), common nouns were generally written with lowercase letters, except for certain terms denoting religious concepts, ethnonyms, and honorifics (e.g.: ſu Aniolas Ž 165,16, g.pl. Apoſtalu PKr.³ 9,1–2, g.sg.f. Dwasios Szwętos ibid. 22,3, g.pl.m. Lękų Z 1,7, g.sg.m. Francuzą ibid.V,9, ſu Ponų Dieuwu Sp.76,4–5, a.sg. Tawi PKr.³ 47,11). 34 P a l i o n i s J.-Lithuanian Literary Language in the 16th–18th Centuries, 48–49. 35 Decrees, admonitions, and accounts of the Prussian authorities to Lithuanian peasants, V.: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishing House, 1960, 85. 48 The traditional spelling principle was undoubtedly observed to a greater or lesser extent in written Lithuanian usage in the eighteenth century and in other cases as well. However, this is not always easy to determine, especially when the principle had previously been applied inconsistently. For example, it is now difficult to say how far the traditional principle was relied upon in writing words together or separately, since spelling in this respect had already varied considerably in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, both in RP and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania36. This variation is clearly illustrated by the writing of the negative ne with verbs. In D. Klein’s grammars, this negative was often written together, but sometimes separately as well (cf.: praet.2 sg. negirdéjau GL 162, praet.3 nebuwo ibid. 137, nežinnojo ibid. 166, cond.3 nepaſmáugtu ibid. 154... and praes.1 sg. ne apkenčiu ibid. 20, imper.2 sg. ne užmušk ibid. 167, ne woki ibid.). An opposite phenomenon is noticeable in eighteenth-century RP texts: ne is more often written separately with verbs, and less often together, e.g.: praes.3 ne eit BT Mat.18.38, ne galima B¹ I Moz.44,26, ne ieſhka OA 64,4, praet.3 ne atbójo BT Mat.24,39, ne norėjo DR 17,39, fut.3 ne paliks BT Luk.19,44, ne praeis ibid. Mat.5,18, imper.2 sg. ne atimk OA 63,21, ne papyk B¹ I Moz.8,32..., but also: praes.1 sg. negallu EE 148,8, praes.3 ne jeſtengia DR 14,43, nepažyſta ibid. 32,36, praet.2 pl. nenorėjot’ ibid. 34,13... The negative was more often written separately also in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where, as before, Polish usage stimulated this spelling. However, no greater uniformity is evident here either: frequently, in the same publication, the negative can be found written both together and separately, cf.: ne kięčiani BŠ 3,13—14 and Niepažindamas ibid. 28,11—12, ne wagkščio AA 16,15 and nepaſiſſoten ibid. 19,6, ne uwožoję Ž 62,3 and nepražnauoie ibid. 5,5, ne weyzieiey Pav.51,1 and neſkaytey ibid. 47,3—4. Thus, in cases of such variation, it is generally difficult to discern any spelling principle. ABBREVIATIONS AA — The Golden Altar... 1793 Ap.d. — Acts of the Apostles At. — Proclamation of 1794 B¹ — Biblia, tai esti Wissa Szwentas Raſztas... 1735 B² — Biblia, tai esti Wissas Szwentas Rasztas... 1755 Br. — Broma Atwerta ing Wiecznastį... 1753 BŠ — Balsas sidlies... 1726 BT — S. Bieronio Naujas Testamentas... 1701 C — Catechismus minor, Germanico — Polonico — Litvanico — Latinus... 1720 Comp. — Compendium Litvanico—Germanicum... 1654 DM — Dawadnas Mokslas apie duszios Iszgánimą... 1729 DR — Writings of K. Donelaitis, 1977 DRr — Manuscripts of K. Donelaitis, 1955 efez. — Ephesians EP — Ewangelie polskie i litewskie... 1705 and others Esr. — Ezra (Books of Ezra) ev. — Gospel Ez. — Ezekiel (biblical name). GL — D. Klein’s 1653 “Grammatica Litvanica” 36 See P a l i o n i s J. Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI—XVII a., 49. 49 HG — F. Hako’s 1730 “Anhang einer kurtzgefasten Littauischen Grammatik” Job. — Book of Job Jon. — Gospel of John KAB — A little book describing brotherhoods... 1773 Kar. — Books of Kings KIG3 — New... improved hymn books... 1705 KNT — J. Quandt’s 1727 New Testament kor. — Corinthians (inhabitants of Corinth) Luk. — Gospel of Luke Mak. — Books of Maccabees Mat. — Gospel of Matthew Mork. — Gospel of Mark Mš. — Holy Year or Great Jubilee... 1776 NA — Novena of Saint Anthony... 1775 Neh. — Book of Nehemiah OA — G. Ostermejer’s 1775 Agenda Pav. — Faithful Christian... 1781 Ped. — The Pearl of Myra... 1750 PKr. — Christian Sermon... 1726 PKr.2 — Christian Sermon... 1743 PKr.3 — Christian Sermon... 1762 Pov.1. — Letter of Paul PS — K. Sirvydas’s ”Punkty kazań” (1—1629; 11 — 1644) PVG — Letters of the Prussian authorities... 1960 R26 — Rosary of the Most Holy Virgin Mary... 1726 RG — K. Donelaitis’s ”Autumn’s Bounty” rym. — Romans (inhabitants of Rome) RPs — J. Reza’s 1625 “Psalteras Dawido” Sal.išm. — Books of Solomon’s Wisdom Sam. — Books of Samuel Sp. — Spasab as nabaz enstwu... 1771 tes. — Thessalonians (inhabitants of Thessaly) U — University of the Lithuanian Languages... 1737 Ž — The Life of Our Lord and God... 1759 ž. — Jews LITHUANIAN ORTHOGRAPHY IN THE 18TH CENTURY Summary The article examines the graphic and orthographic system of Lithuanian in the 18th century. Based on an analysis of the most important Lithuanian linguistic monuments (Bible translations, hymnals, grammars, and literary texts), the following conclusions are drawn: 1) throughout the century, East Prussia used the alphabet found in Daniel Klein’s grammars, with some modifications; 2) in Lithuania Proper, the alphabet used in the writings of Konstantinas Sirvydas became more widespread; 3) in the grammars of the century (especially in Gotfrid Ostermeier’s grammar), some graphic and orthographic issues were also discussed theoretically; 4) the main principle of orthography at the time was phonological-phonetic spelling, while morphological, traditional, and distinctive spelling were also used; 5) German orthography influenced Lithuanian spelling in East Prussia, while Polish orthography did so in Lithuania Proper. 50