XVIII a. lietuvių rašyba

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVI (1996) LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: RESEARCHERS IR STUDIES Jonas LITHUANIAN WRITING IN THE 18TH CENTURY 1. General remarks. The 18th-century Lithuanian script (i.e., graphic and orthographic) was based on the foundations established in the 17th century. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (hereinafter - GDL) in general, the Sirvyd script was used, and in East Prussia (hereinafter - EPP) - the Klein script". Since there were some differences between these systems, both in graphic and orthographical terms, they remained in the 18th-century Lithuanian script. In addition, in this century the two systems were particularly distant from each other because the LDK had switched to the Latin script of antiquity, while the Polish printings followed the traditional Gothic (fractural) graphic. Furthermore, in reviewing the spelling of the Lithuanian literary language in the 18th century and its development, for methodological reasons, we will talk separately about graphic (character system, alphabet) and orthography (spelling principles, rules). Furthermore, the development of the alphabet will be described first in RP and later in LDK. 2. The introduction of the Kleinish alphabet in 18th century Polish writings. As is known, D. Klein's grammars contained the following Lithuanian alphabet: d, a, 4, 4, 0, ¢,¢, ca, d, é,¢,¢, 65 (1), 9, (0), 1, 9,5 8 LLmmn of 2,70% 58, Luu, uy (x), 3. 32 It was adopted without major changes not only by the authors of Lithuanian writings of the second half of the 17th century, but also by those of the 18th century.” | This is shown by a specific analysis of the graphic of the RP most prominent manuscripts of the time. For example, in Samuel Bitner's "New Testament- ", published in 1701 in Karaliaučius by the joint efforts of the Reformed Churches of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the influence of the Kleenian alphabet is shown by the following facts: 1) the use of ė for the narrow [ė]: n.sg. tam/[injbē Ap.d. 13,11, praet. 3 pruned Mat.21,8, Bocteréyo Luke.1,41 (but also:1.sg.f.in the boat Mat.4.21 n.sg.f. Dailide Mark.6,3...)*; 2) č usage (usually for soft Afrikaans): cond.l buéia Mat.3,14, turėčia t.p.19,16, g.pl. Mark 6:4, cf. Palčio Ap.d.28,2, i 1 Palionis J. Lithuanian literary language in the 16th—17th centuries, Vilnius: Mintis, 1967, 02 95—9 3PalionislJ. Idem. 32. D. Klein was inclined to use ė only to mark the kiréiated narrow [ė], but GL against his will (see Praefatio ad lectorem) remained in some places in the unpronunciated position., g rmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, V.: Valst. polit. ir moksl. lit. l-kla, 1957, a.pl. tribes I Pov.l. 9,3... (but there are: adv. pakarcžuy I Cor.14,27, 30 g.pl. žemcezugū Mat.7,6, a.sg.f. atencje Mark.9,1.- ..); 3) Use of B instead of pre-clause /ch: a.sg.f. karfting (the second) Mat.8,14, i.sg.mc. Mark 4:32, adv, 4Bkey Jon. 7,13... | 4) Use of 4, for nasal vowels: n.sg. 18,24,a.sg. mc. 1 Cor.3,6, the warrior Paul 1.v. II,7, wirBų Ap.d. 19,20, papers II John.7,12- ... (until D.Klein these letters were not used in RP). Perhaps the only more striking difference in the 1701 Testament alphabet is the digraph jilgajam [i:]: g.sg. alijuwos Luke 10:34, healer Luke 5:31, 1.pl. knggopfe Jon.20,20, praes.3 myl Mat.10,37, inf. paftatyt Luk.14,28.- .. in D. Klein's grammars, as in later Lithuanian writings of the RP, this vowel was marked with ygreku (y). The Kleinian alphabet with its innovations mentioned here is found in many religious, clerical and fictional writings of the 18th century. However, it is not possible to say that all the authors of Lithuanian scripts in this region followed the Kleenian alphabet. Already G. Ostermeyer has noted that K. Donelaitis could not stand the letter č and wrote ¢3° instead. In fact, in the surviving manuscripts of this famous Lithuanian folk song, both the hard and soft [č] are marked with the double sign ¢% (with the second grapheme elongated and crossed over with a horizontal brush), e.g.: adv. cze "čia" DR 4,23, praes.2sg. c#dufzki "čiauški" t.p. 5,22, a.pl.mc. Pauk[zczus t.p.6,23, Czefus t.p. 6,30... The Polish diacritical ¢, which D. Klein had included in the lists of Lithuanian letters presented in his grammar = and used in individual words (such as praes.lsg. gulu Comp.8, n.sg. tlofka GL 10, matone etc.6,10,15), did not become more firmly established in 18th-century Polish writings. In the Testament of 1701, translated by a representative of the Lithuanian Reformed Church, the frequent use of this script was undoubtedly determined by the tradition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, especially by the practice of Calvinist writing in the 16th-17th centuries. From the lists of letters in D. Klein's grammar Polish! (probably automatically) was transferred to F. Hako, Pov. Ruigi and even K. Milkaus grammar. Only in G. Ostermejer's grammar it was not included in the list of Lithuanian letters (apparently, the author of this grammar took more into account the usage of the Lithuanian written language in the 18th century, in which! rarely occurred. 3. Modification of D. Klein’s alphabet in 18th-century Lithuanian grammar The relationship between D. Klein’s alphabet and the lists of letters in Lithuanian grammar published in the 18th century is most clearly shown in the following comparative table: Osterme y er G. Neue Littauische Grammatik. Koenigsberg, 1791, 188. 31 D. Kleino F. Hako Pov. Ruigium G. Easter K. Grammar Grammar theory Grammar theory of language Grammar theory of language (1653, 1654) (1730) (1747) matic (1800) (1791) dada dada adaqgad a aaqa b b b b b ¢:éc3 ¢. 6(c)(cc)(c) eg d d d d d ece eee ele tie eecée ee (f) i - f 5 g g g 9 g (h) - - - - iy iy ittty ijy k k k k 15279] k Lt [t Lt l Lt m m m | m m n n n n n o 0 006 o 000 p p p p p T T r T r s $B ssp I IIs £ R [Is t t t t £ SE u Y % UY, UU Ys u u wh Yuu w w w w w table (2) = = 5 - Iš shows that The lists of a. letters presented in the 18th-century Lithuanian grammar differ relatively little from each other from ir D. Klein's grammar alphabet. Especially this is true of Frederick Hako (Haack) grammar "Annex to a brief Lithuanians Grammatik" (1730), whose alphabet is almost exactly the same as D. Kleino. The difference here is only that F. Hack excluded list į letters f, h, z, of which D. In the case of the glossary, it is not recommended to be used. Iš at first glance may seem that from D. Klein's writing systems differ considerably Pov. In Rugi's grammar "Anfangsgrūnde einer matik" Lithuanians Gram32 (1747) finds the alphabet. The list of Lithuanian letters in this grammar, on the one hand, contains more letters with accent and preposition marks (a, a, ė, é, 1, 4, 6, 6, ū, ū, ū), and on the other — some letters of D. Klein (a, š, as well as f, h, z) are not included at all. However, in essence, i.e. in terms of the number of graphs, D. Klein’s (respectively F. Hako’s) and Pov. The Ruigi alphabets are identical: they have 23 grapheme each, not counting f, h, x. The great identicity of these grammar alphabets, among other things, is already shown by the fact that Pov. Ruigys (like F. Hakas) did not include in his lists of characters the grapheme 7, which for some reason was also published by D. Klein, although otherwise he used it quite regularly to mark the palatal consonant." and Pov. The list of letters of Rugi was also transferred to the grammar prepared by Kristijonas Milkas "Anfangsgriinde einer Littauischen Sprach=Lehre" (1800), which, as known, was a new, somewhat expanded and corrected Pov. Ruigi's Grammar Edition. However, K. Milkus changed the list a little bit: he added the grapheme j, which his predecessor had omitted, but omitted some letters with diacritics (d, a, é). In total, there are 24 grapheme in the K. Milkaus alphabet. ; It is easy to see that the most different from the Kleinian Gottfried Ostermeier's grammar "Neue Littauische Grammatik" (1791) is the alphabet. In the section "Von der Orthographie" at the beginning, it is noted that the authors of Lithuanian grammars are not unanimous on the number of letters, and a list of 26 graphs is presented. It does not include letters with accent and preposition marks, it does not include the Polish 1, the so-called "nose" letters, but it includes the f as an equal with other letters. It is interesting that both D. Klein and his followers — the authors of Lithuanian grammar in the 18th century — considered not every sound marking sign that differed in form as a separate letter, but a sign representing a certain type of sounds (now we would say — a phoneme). Therefore, for example, D. Klein counted only 22 letters in his list of letters, F. Hak, Pov. Ruigys and K. Milkus — 19 each, and G. Ostermeyer — 26. Following D. Klein, these authors of grammars, with the partial exception of G. Ostermeier, did not consider as separate letters only the signs denoting the phonemes /č/, /ė/, /š/, /ž/, [z/, |i/. In this respect, G. Ostermeier came closest to the present understanding of the letter (or rather — the grapheme), who also considered the graphical representatives of the phonemes just mentioned as separate letters. It should also be noted that the authors of 18th-century Lithuanian grammars, like D. Klein, have not included in their lists of letters the double-height letter 1, which has been regularly used in the writings of that region since the time of M. Mažvydas.” However, at the beginning of the first part of "Gramatica Litvanica", when explaining the individual words6, "Grafema" is here understood as the representative of phoneme in the graphic domain. Thus, for example, € is considered a separate grapheme, and e and ¢ are allographs of €. | it was added to the list of letters K. Sapūno —T. 1673 in Schultz's grammar * Compendium Gramaticae Lithvanicae” (see ¢.1). 80O0sterme y er G. New Lithuanian Grammar, 2. 18 See Palionis J. History of Lithuanian Literary Language, V.: Mokslas, 1979, 33 The pronunciation of the chicken letters, D. Klein nevertheless did not lose sight of and 4: compared with the Hebrew pronunciation, said that such a letter have the Czechs!". He did not include this letter in the lists of letters of his grammar probably only because it denoted not a single vowel, but a combination of two vowels (its inclusion would have contradicted the general understanding of the alphabet as a system of graphic signs denoting individual sounds). 4. Transition to Latin antiquity One of the most characteristic features of the development of Lithuanian alphabet in the 18th century in the LDK, as mentioned (1), was the transition from Gothic style letters to Latin antiquity. This transition had already begun in the 17th century, and it was particularly clearly reflected in the hymnal of Solomon Slavocinsky in 1646, where Latin antiqua (substituted with fraction) was printed for a large number of hymns. However, almost universally the Latin antiquity in the prints began to take hold in the DRC. territory only since the beginning of the 18th century. There is no doubt that the influence of the Poles was the main factor in the emergence of Latin antiquity in this area, since in Poland too, in the second half of the 17th century, there was a proliferation of publications printed in ancient scripts, and in the 18th century they were in general use! The manuscripts were written in Latin antiqua rather early. According to A. Brūkners, Gothic scripts in Polish manuscripts remained until the 1530s ("Po r.1530 przežno byš szukal gotyku w rękopisach: Niemiec, Czech drukowali i pisali gotykiem, Polak drukowal gotykiem, pisal italic)!*). In the Lithuanian manuscripts of the LDK, it is to be assumed that the transition to Latin antiquity could also have taken place around the middle of the 16th century, although in the absence of surviving manuscripts from that time, it is difficult to chronologise this transition more precisely (this hypothesis is supported by similar facts in the RP: as is known, the text of J. Bretkūno Bible translation was written in antique script in 1579—1590). ; so if there, where the traditions of Gothic writing were stronger, the transition to antiquity was already made in the second half of the 16th century, then why could it not have been made in the LDK, where those traditions were weaker and where the Polish sect was more prominent?). Although the Latin antiquity in the printed works of the LDK began to prevail more generally from the beginning of the 18th century, it cannot be said that absolutely all the writings of this century were published here in antique script. For a long time (until 1767) the Lithuanian texts of the Gospels were printed in fracturial font in the publication “* Ewangelie polskie y litewskie- ”, although their Polish originals were already presented in antique italics in this publication since 1705. During the entire spoken age, the German long letter [, which was finally eliminated from the Lithuanian alphabet only in the first half of the 19th century, remained in the printed works of the LDK as a relic of Gothic graphics. | 10:9, The First Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, 14. 3 Zr. Bra ck ner A. History of the Polish language. Wroclaw —Krakow: Zakl. People. inm Ossolinskich, 1960, 180; L o s J. Krétka historical grammar of the Polish language. Lviv. 1027 $11. 5142 my, pat. 34 At the time when the alphabet presented in D. Klein's grammars became more common in the Prussian branch of the Lithuanian written language after the appearance of these grammars, the letters used by K. Sirvydas became more common in the writings of the Great Duchy of Lithuania [a, d, b, c, ¢, d, e, "bot uy 4 ll am, mye, pi 7, 808, Bit uy uw 2,05, 3]. Such works (most of them in an antique form) can be found in many 18th century publications, especially Catholic ones, e.g. in "Pamoksle krikščioniškame" (1725), "Balse širdies" (1726), "Pėdely miros" (1750), "Bromoje" (1753), "Žyvate" (1759) and others. In essence, the scribe alphabet was also recorded in the 1737 anonymous Lithuanian grammar "Universitas Lingvarum Litvaniae". In its introductory section (“Praenotatio de Dialectis Literis et accentu- ”) the alphabet of 28 letters is presented (excluding the capital A): A, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, ml, tL, m,n, 0, p,q T, B st u w x, y, 2 £, z However, in the Lithuanian grammar of the grammar there are letters not included in this list, namely: ¢ (n.sg. mc. Kašrtis 9, n.pl.mc. języką 30...), ę (n.sg. Gietis 7, praes. sg. kieczu 31,39, fut.1 kiefiu...), j (g.sg.f. jos 19, g.pl. ji 19, praet.3 kalbėjo 30...), 8 (inf. gaypti, grifti 50, n.sg.mc. trokfitas 50...). In addition to the glossary, the dictionary is almost entirely in English. Perhaps the most striking difference in the alphabet of the anonymous grammar is the character $, which K. Sirvydas quite often used to denote both the soft [s] and the soft [š] and which is not present either in the list of letters of this grammar or in its Lithuanian variants (except, it seems, for only two examples: the aforementioned Kašrtis 9 and Kriszcionis 8; in the latter $ may have appeared because of Deis’s fault or the influence of the Polish Chrzeséianin). Although the $1737 anonymindle grammar was not widely used and the soft [š] was denoted by the digraph [z and its ligature variant f (n.sg. Kiawf[zinis 8, Pufzis 12, n.pl.mc. Pefieri 54, part.ind. rafant 55)! '*, but in other 18th-century LDK writings this diacritical mark was quite common, for example: g.sg.mc. éidéiaus Br.52,24, adv. $éiray t.p.,19,29, g.sg.mc. $wiento PKr. 2.7, comp. swiefiaws t.p. 2,1, n.s.g.f. swiesibe BS 4, 3, piescia "on foot" Z 18, 20, Jiešy "six" etc.19,4... there is reason to believe that the author of the grammar did not include the diacritical § in his alphabet because it was isistic in the absence of a very soft [s] in Lithuanian, such as in the Polish word šila'*. mark with this character the soft [3] he, a possible thing, did not want for the simplicity of the alphabet (did not want to increase the number of characters). However, the author of the Universito did not succeed in eliminating the diacritical §: this character with old traditions (reaching back to the time of M. Daukša)!” was widely used in 18th-century Lithuanian publications: Some other syriac characters are not included in the list of anonymous grammar letters: č, v, j. Diacritical ¢ probably because of the African [ts], 13 in the Ligature variant occurs in printed examples in italics. 4 See. Vilnius: Lietuvos universitetas, 1981, pp. 61. 36 15 See PalionisJ. Like [š], the author of the grammar did not want to double-sign both soft and hard vowels — he tended to represent both soft and hard vowels graphically in the same way (digrafu cz). Perhaps for the same reasons, the list of letters of anonymous grammar does not include the singular w, which from the earlier tradition was used quite regularly by K. Sirvydas to mark the short vowel [u] at the beginning of the word (e.g.: n.sg. vgnis PS I 79,28, praep. vnt t.p.84,11, praes. 3 vįž/eta t.p.285,1435 ...). In addition to the letter u, there was no need to use another sign to graphically represent the same vowel. to It is much more difficult to explain why the letter 7 was not included in the list of letters of the 1737 grammar, even though in its Lithuanian examples this letter is often used to denote a palatal consonant, e.g.: n.sg. Giaradéja 6, Artojis 8, n.pl. 76s 19, g.pl. Jul 19, præs. 1 p.g. judinu 40, [pjawnu 47 et al. If this is not a simple misunderstanding, then perhaps this relatively recent character was treated by the author as a variant of ¢? (see analogous cases in the grammars of D. Klein, F. Haak and P. Ruigis!). Of those three characters not included in the list of letters of the 1737 grammar (¢, v, j), only v was not used more widely in later 18th-century LDK finds, which appeared after this grammar, either for the short [u] or [v]. Meanwhile, čir j — frequent characters in many prints of the middle and second half of that century, e.g.: cond. oxen Sp. 3,14, gallies t.p.14,8, prajuščia 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90. 3 pažičije t.p.18,1I, i.sg.mc. 7,25, g.pl. 1977. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. 2000. pp. 27. Sleeping t.p.160,13, g.sg. Vaičio Sp.12,5, Bazniéies Pav.45,8... As can be seen from these and previous examples, the single sign ¢ was then especially used in combination with Šš. Thus, not all the innovations of the 1737 grammar alphabet were adopted by the authors of later LDK writings. In the usage of the written Lithuanian language in this region, except for one other minor thing, the system of writing was more closely followed. 6. Attempts to theoretically formulate the principles of spelling in RP At all times, the formulation of certain rules and principles of writing has been more complicated than the creation of a system of scripts. Because the characters can be seen from the alphabets used by other nations, and you will not show much creativity here. Meanwhile, to determine the laws of the use of letters is a task that requires a certain linguistic knowledge, greater knowledge of the structure of the language, and the power of theoretical thinking. Therefore, it is understandable that the questions of orthography are usually raised and discussed by the authors of grammar and linguistic works in general, i.e. those people who are better acquainted with the mechanism of language and are able to theoretically generalize the elements of this mechanism. the: A number of different Lithuanian spelling rules were formulated in the RP as early as the 17th century, especially in D. Klein’s grammar. Many of them were later transferred to the Lithuanian grammar that appeared in the region in the 18th century. However, some of the grammars of this century not only adopted earlier spelling rules, but also attempted to critically evaluate the litholonian spelling of Lithuanian scripts of the RP, to establish certain orthographic principles. 36 | A critical analysis of the spelling of 18th century printed books has been given by G. Ostermeier in his grammar (in the chapter "Anhang von der Orthographie". p.187—194). Here he initially stated the unevenness of the spelling of that time (it is written: Pėwa and Piewa, didyfis and didifis, gražią and gražę, wažūju and wažoju and t4: 8), and then wrote about individual cases of spelling, often reproaching the authors for one or another issue of spelling (sometimes, as can be seen from the examples given, without distinguishing spelling from phonetics). In particular, the problem of doubled consonants is touched on extensively in the mentioned section of grammar. In this area, in the author's opinion, there is the greatest inequality ("Uneinigkeit"): Donelaitis almost completely rejected the duplication, Pilgrim!" —on the contrary, approaches to insignificance, and Pil. "Ruigys čia einąs vidurio keliu**". The enemies of the duplication are the Poles, followed by J. Bretkūnas, L. Zengstokas, S. Vaišnoras. D. Klein doubles more often in his hymn, but less than we do in the Bible and in J. Berent's hymn!?. In such circumstances, G. Ostermeier attempts to establish rules for the duplication of consonant letters, namely: 1) m in nouns with suffixes -tmmas, -ummas, if they are paroxitones, 2) n in nouns and adjectives with suffixes -innis, -innė 3) s in sangrazin verbs with prefixes is-, za-(iffilaikau, u[figeidžiu, užžengiu, ujjadu...) and in nominative adjectives and pronouns (geraf[is, [alduf[is, ji[Jai, taf[ai...), if they are paroxitones. Never double the consonants c, j, wir § (except as specified), because they are already "duplicates- "*?. To what extent these rules were followed or not followed in the practice of Lithuanian written language in the late 18th and early 19th centuries is difficult to say without a specific study. One thing is clear, that they (as can be seen from the earlier publications, which appeared before G. Ostermeier- ’s grammar) were far from covering all cases of consonant duplication characteristic of 18th century Polish writings. In his grammar, G. Ostermeier also drew attention to the variation in the writing of the consonants k, g, s, 2 in cases of assimilation: some rasa zasmigs, zasmigti, tuzgenu, weždinu..., others —užmiks, zamikti, tusgenu, we[dinu..?*. In such cases, the author of the grammar recommended taking into account the derivation, i.e. writing ujmigs (with g), because Miégas. miegmi turį g. And then, when the derivation is not helpful (e.g. in the case of tuzgenti), it is necessary to consider | pronunciation“*. Thus, the morphological (in his term, derivative) principle of consonant spelling was first raised and formulated by G. Ostermeier, which was more or less observed in the previous 16 Zr. Osterme, G. Cid. 17 This refers to Adam Pilgrim (1702—1757), who revised the 1735 Bible and translated the biblical stories, published in 1742. 18 See Osterme yer G. Cid. Week 188. 19 Ibid., 192. 20 Ibid., pp. 191-192. 2 Ibid., 22 Ibid., 194. 188. 37 RP in Lithuanian writings. In general, Ostermeier was the first to write specifically about orthography, the first to theoretically formulate certain orthographic principles. However, given that these principles were proclaimed at the end of the 18th century, it is not possible to speak about their greater influence on the development of Lithuanian writing in this century. Furthermore, he does not forget that Ostermeier’s grammar (as well as other works of this author) was not more widely distributed because of the hostile attitude of the Milk brothers towards it: many of its copies were handed over to recycling- .”* Therefore, the principles of writing formulated by G. Ostermeier may not have been known to the broader strata of writers. In the LDK, unlike in Poland, the theoretical principles of spelling were neither raised nor discussed in the 18th century (unless we have any data about it). The only known grammar of the Lithuanian language of this region at that time (Universite, 1737) does not even explain the pronunciation of individual letters, as was done in all ‘anuometinėje RP Lithuanian language grammar. Therefore, as we will see in the following, there is much more orthographic variation and spelling chaos in the written language of the LDK than in the RP. T. The application of the phonemic- -phonetic principle Although attempts to theoretically formulate certain principles of spelling were made only at the end of the 18th century and only in the RP, this does not mean that until then there was chaos in the practice and usage of the Lithuanian written language, that no spelling principles were observed. As the analysis of Lithuanian writings of the 16th-17th centuries shows, even in the earliest period, especially the authors of the Lithuanian RP (albeit with varying consistency) relied on some or other spelling principles and rules derived from those principles**. Only until the appearance of the first Lithuanian grammars no one had formulated them theoretically, in other words, they were implicit in the consciousness of the writers and reflected in the writings. One of the main principles applied in Lithuanian spelling in the 16th-17th and 18th centuries is phonemic and phonetic. In theory, phonemic and phonetic principles can be treated as separate, independent, related to different consonants. However, when describing the application of these principles in practice, it is not possible to distinguish them more strictly, because writing is a field in which the interface of phonology and phonetics phenomena is particularly close: a certain grapheme can often denote both the corresponding phoneme and the sound realization of that phoneme. Therefore, further here, in describing the principles of Lithuanian spelling in the 18th century and their application, these principles will be combined into one phonemic- -phonetic principle. In the 18th century, this principle was supported in the Polish and Lithuanian spelling of both vowels, diphthongs and consonants, especially when their pronunciation was clear to the author from the dialect of his native place or place of residence. However, when the author was in doubt about the pronunciation of a phoneme or when the writing of the sound that realized it was supported by established tradition by other 103 2 Biržiška Vac. Alexander II of Russia Chicago: U.S. LB Cult. fondas, 1963, 24 Moresee Palionis J. Lithuanian literary language XVI—XVII a. V.: Mintis, 1967, 42—49. 38 DR:3,37, wilfokiū B' Moz.8.21.... (b) g.sg.f. Aflés DRr 8,5, Dūnės t.p.17,6, did36s B! 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 100, 101, 102, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109. Dwafés KNT Pov.l.rym.8,23. laup[és B! 11 Mos.15,1. feny[tės n.p.1 Exodus 48:10, tamphibés cf. Job 10:21. Tewifkés C 41.24, Wertybės KNT Ap. D; 9,1...: It is not quite clear whether, according to the differential principle, the roof-shaped sign was written on the 1st stem ending of the singular noun. In the non-accentuated ending, the sign was probably used by analogy with (i)oir, but in the accentuated ending it could also mark the place of the accent. and the pretext, p.g.: g.sg. 20.34, |lenk[tičs B! Chron.19,22, Smertiés BNT Acts.25,22, Waltiés etc.27,22... and akkiés B! In Moz. 32.10, naktiės t.p. 11 Moz.11,4, priefaftiést.- p. Judging from D. Klein’s grammars, in which the roof-shaped sign was not usually written in the unaccented:stame ending ([mérties GL 72, [merties t.p.48“), it is more reasonable to believe that in the 18th-century RP writings that sign appeared in this position because of the orthographical analogy, and in the accented ending it marked the accent and the preposition. Only the orthographic (graphic) analogy or the non-application of the sign in the rules of use of the roof-shaped sign can explain the gender written as follows in some 18th century Prussian government orders and "gromates": g.sg.m. November PVG 70,20, Meto t.p.64,3, paukflėkio "August: t.p.83,3, Jaufio t.p. T6,6, tuk[tanc; é [ekmé Bimto t.p.64,2—3. EE Two hyphens (=) were occasionally used in some 18th-century Polish writings to separate a prefix, especially if it was followed by an enclitic or proclitic. e.g.: imper.2 sg. ne=mi=dūk DM 45,22, pri=mi=slok t.p.41,13, cond.3 ne=mi=žuddytu KIG* 183,21. They were also separated in the same way (especially in the chancery writings of the time). components of certain newly invented compound words or combinations of attributive words, pPVZ. : a.sg.m. Baudj=Uki (Schaarwerks=Hof) PVG 410.6, Droftt=Knilį (Schneide=Me- [fer] t.p.411,12, n.sg.f. Pritminimmo=- Gromata (Annehmungs- =Brief) t.p.414,18, a.sg.m. Ugniés= JPge[[innimo=- Dawadq (Feuer=Loech- =0rdnung) etc.413.26 etc. 2 This graphical distinction of the combinations of action morphemes, compound words and attributive words in RP, slavery taken from the German spelling already earlier, had a tendency to spread steadily more and more in the 18th century. However, for some authors of this age, including K. Donelaitis. such assignment was not typical. 10. Traditional spelling principle: i This is one of the most universal principles that characterizes the writing of many peoples in later stages of language development. Moreover, it is a principle. requiring neither higher linguistic nor philological education in general. because its essence consists of writing as it was written before, regardless of the phonetic or phonemic structure of language elements, the morphological structure of the word, or the graphical differentiation of word forms. ; In the 18th-century Lithuanian written language practice, the traditional principle was applied quite widely, but, like other principles, it was not applied to the same extent in RP and 45 LDK. Without going into a more detailed analysis of the application of this principle, only the most prominent cases of spelling based on it will be touched here. The extent of the application of the traditional orthographic principle in the Polish language in the 18th century was largely determined by the authoritative grammar of D. Klein, in which the authors of that region tried to adhere relatively strictly to the basic orthographic norms. There is a little more variety here only in cases where there was no greater uniformity in D. Klein’s grammar. For example, as mentioned (1, note), D. Klein was inclined to write é only in pronounced form, but against his wishes GL (probably because of different views of the approval commission) also uses the letter in unpronounced position: n.sg.m. ėrytis 37, praet.3 [eké[i 128, inf. [érgétis 153... This inconsistency is often reflected in Lithuanian writings from the 18th century: in them too, especially in the first half of this century, € is usually written only in the accented position: praet.3 He came BT Mat.3,13, heard B' I Mos.3,8, began DR 3,22, n.sg.m. 1995. pp. 151. "About Us". www.aboutus.com.au. pp. 151. "About Us". www.aboutus.com.au. Meldėjai KNT Luk.4,23, Kudikėliai OA 13,19, a.pl. Plane B! 4,2, in.pl. žmonėjJa t.p.111 Exodus 19,16..., but: Proverbs 3 aude B! JJ Moz:35,25, DR 3.13. give B! I Mos.30,22, mate t.p. Kar.20,41, walde t.p.1 Sam.7.6, n.e.c. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90. a.pl.f. utteles t.p.11 Exodus 8:16... However, in the middle and second half of the century there is a tendency not to follow D. Klein's artificial rule and to write é wherever it is narrow. This tendency is particularly pronounced in K. Donelaitis’ writings, where the letter is quite regularly used both in the pronounced and unpronounced position, cf.: praet.3 gyrė DR 3.15, lope t.p.4,18, pafikéle t.p.3,33, walgė t.p.4,31, n.sg.f. 35–38, pp. 35–38, n.p.f. Muf[és t.p.3,16, Pelės t.p.3,15, Pramonės t.p.3.3... From the Kleist tradition, the authors of the 18th-century RP also adopted the writing of i-type diphthongs with ygreku (y) in the prepositional ending and in some conjunctions: adv. abelnay KNT Mat.13.33, akylay t.p.Pov.l.- ephez.5.15. ap [see OA 48,11, baifey DR 31,29, diddey p.p.29,7, mandagey p.p.39,5. [tiprey PVG 101.1, todéley OA 26,10, tuleropay PVG 80/4..., conj. bey DR 3,20, Bl V Moz. 9,21, again NT Rev.1.Gal.- 5,15; Ex.6,9, also PVG 64.19, again Ex.12,32, OA 6,25; 51,10, again "nors" OA 61,2. Such writing of adverbs by D. Klein's GL is motivated by the fact that many jy have accent in the last syllable, and also by the desire to distinguish them from the nouns from which they are supposedly derived- "? (so again the differential principle is in mind). However, this motivation had no solid basis. but to the authors of the 17th-century RP it seemed “sufficient, and therefore the Klenian tradition was followed in practice. The influence of Klein's grammar is also evident in the writing of soft consonants. As in these grammars, as in many 18th-century RP writings, the softness mark 4 was often not used to mark a soft consonant and before the posterior vowels [a], [o], [u], e.g. : (a) a,sg.f. Baudjawg DR 24,41, n.p.m. 24, pp. 32, pp. 42, pp. 43. cįdaufiki p.p.5,22, inf. c3audit’ p.p.27,31, inf. keliauti B*' Kar.11,19, g.sg.m. kardlaus t.p.11 Sam.19,43, 33 Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 9. 46 Aka chicken pocket Aka aa = a.pl.m. niefežas B' Job.15,35.- .., b) g.sg.m. bufenczo DR 22,37, kélo t.p. V Exodus 31:29, Proverbs 3:11 Kar.3,3, n.p.m. laws e.g. Exodus 13,34; 28.,38...; (c) g.pl. alkunū BT Mark.9,16, biežū B' I Sam.14,8, girru B! 16,22, karwū etc. 5 Mos.7,13 (and karwū B* etc.), Storkoc3žū DR 35,9, Žmėntū "people" PVG 360,3, n.sg.m. I Sam.10,14, lutas t.p. IV Mos.23,24, fut.3 dd fu B! In Moz. 15,16, eifut.p.2,- 28, mel[fūs BT Mark.14,- 32, praes.l sg. turru B* Job.20,2, emper.2 sg. atfdfk OA-53,10... In individual cases, especially in the present and future 1st person endings of verbs, the non-use of the softening mark 4 could also reflect the hard pronunciation of the consonant, and thus could be based on a phonetic principle. However, much more often this sign was not written in accordance with D. Klein's grammar, which was characterized by not writing the softening sign 1) after the sonorous [1], [r], [n] in such casts as n.sg.m. Karalus GL 24, Karalaučius t.p.65, i.sg.m. Karaalumi t.p. 160, kėlas t.p.22, i.sg.m. kelu t.p.157, peilu t.p.158..., comp. good t.p.26, n.s.g.f. keturolika t.p.73, n.sg.m. kekwerepas e.p. 75, pres.l sg. sorghum t.p.91 (but I have t.p.106)..., n.pl.f. worn, n.e.s. malondufis t.p.27, g.pl. money "žmonių" t.p.52;150- ..., 2) after the Afrikaans [č], [dž] in such syllables, as n.sg.m. c3artas GL 5, Karalaucjonis t.p.65, adv. cjonai t.p.5, praes.1 sg. [unce t.p.--+-n.- sg.m. djaug[mas or djauk/mas GL 12, n.s.f. didjaufia e.p.14..., 3) after blowing [s], [š] in such casts as fut. 1 p.g. bufu GL 122, dūJu t.p.118, eifut.p.122, jinn fu t.p.115, n.pl.f. teifos t.p.43, in.pl.f. teifofa t.p., a.pl.m. waifus t.p. 51, g.sg.m. [z0 79, n.p.l.f. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44, pp. 44. [Įzūt.p.T9... To say more precisely, in which of these positions the softening sign D. Kleino was not written because of the hard pronunciation of consonants, is not easy now. This requires special linguistic research. However, a retrospective look at the pre-Kleinic RP writings does not provide reliable data to confirm the hard pronunciation of consonants in many of the positions mentioned here. For example, in the 1625 psalmbook ("P [alteris Dowido]"), which was prepared by Jonas Rėza (he, like D. Klein, was from Tilžė), the softening sign i was often written where D. Klein did not write it. plg.: fut.l sg. mutjifiu RPs LXXXIX, 24, mello [iu t.p.36, fakkyjfiu CXVI,13, tupifids t.p. XIII,3, uBumokefin t.p.CXVL13..., n.sg.m. King t.p.XCV.3, Lsg.m. King XCVIL1, g.pl. Sžmontū t.p.XLV,11. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that in the few decades after the appearance of J. Rēza’s Psalmbook, the depalatalization of consonants could have occurred in such cases. In the LDK, unlike in the RP, from the earlier tradition the softness mark 1 was written not only before the posterior, but often also before the anterior vowels, especially after K, g, e.g.: imper.l pl. ekiem “go" Ž 106,18. gidakiem BŠ 125,13, imper.2 pl. Eykiet KAB 153.7, giedokiet BŠ 46.7, a.sg.f. Kiepure Br.92,15, praes.3 kienéie t.p.105,28, fut.3 kielfes Pav.39,6—7, n.pl.m. Waykiele Br.1,3..., n.pl.f. gientis PKr.? 35.15. adv. gieray Pav.21,11, n.sg.m. Gieras KAB 5,16, i.pl.m. gielZineys BS 415,16, fut.1 pl. gier[ma t.p.306,13, g.sg.f. knigieles KAB 832...(see also: g.sg.f. pigkiolikos Péd. 30,20, Ziemes Ž 16,24, praes.3 Zienklina BS 11,6—7, g.sg.m. Zodzie t.p.43,15..- .). Such writing was also adopted in an anonymous grammar of 1737 (cf.: praes.l sg. 47 kieykiu 93, kigcziu 92, kiem [zu 94, gieru t.p., gieydziu 96, praet.l sg. regiejaws 107...), the norms of which were followed by many authors of the LDK of that time. The traditional principle was also used for the twinning of consonant characters (gemination), which was particularly characteristic of the Lithuanian scripts of the RP and was based on the German spelling. As before, in the 18th century, after the short vowel, there was a fairly regular diphthongation of b, d, g. p, t, k, I, m, n. r, s. e.g.: n.pl.m. Aebbejei Bl I 9,14, i.pl.f. kabbemis t.p.11 Yo. 20.33. oe 3 atwedde t.p.1 2:19, adv. diddey DR 29.7, cond.3 reggēlu B! I Mos.2,19, n. pl. Rugge: DR 32,12. v.sg.f. leppunéle B", B? 12.46.1, g.pl. puppū t.p.Ez.4,9, n.sg.m. Bittins DR. n.p.l.f. utteles B' T Mas: 8.16. praep. hls DM 24.22, inf. ticket C 57,20, i.pl.m. Szillais DR 3.7. 58.111. Drafummg DM 20.23, n.sg.f. Gimminé DR 4,39, adv. [kanney B", on I Mos.24.53. a. pl.m. winnis t.p.11 Moz.27.19. n.p.l.f. durrys t.p.Ez.41,- 11, g.sg.m. wirralo t.p.Dan.1,- 12. n.p.l.f. Mu[fes DR 3,16, n.sg.m. wiffoks BT Luke 3:5... In the 1990s, there was no standardization of the IPA letters. Here the s was occasionally doubled, and in words of non-Lithuanian origin also m, mn, f: a.sg.f. Effiby KAB 8,17, praes.2 sg. e[fi Br.2,3 (E[[i BS 200,12), in.pl.f. affabojje KAB 133,25, n.e.c. Proce] [ie t.p.24,12, n.sg.m. Affierawoim Pėd.42,9, a.sg.m. a Pav.25,18, n.s.f. Panna 7 177.24, n.p.m. Kommumikantay Br.30.15..: The writing of capital letters also largely relied on the earlier tradition. In RP, as before*- *, following the German example, common nouns were often capitalized. particularly in the texts of the clerical style, cf. an excerpt from the 1724 "Royal GrammarTM" on the wearing of the wigs: "Kadda bettaig Pillės abba Edelmonū Padūnei /abba and kitaip Kelmėnnū Tarnai bey Slujaninkai ejomis ap fiw ilkę ing baudžiawą eina /ir taip ing Dwarą atteina /abba ing bažnyczią eina /tur Pillininkai /prieg tam ir Edelmonai bey kelmerai /kuriem tie žmones prieina /ujtattai rokunda di” 3° This excerpt shows that at that time, i.e. in the first half of the 18th century, not all nouns were written in capital letters. However, in the middle and especially at the end of the century, the graphical separation of nouns from other parts of the language became consistent (noun capitalization is quite consistent in the manuscript of K. Donelaitis “Metų”, as well as in many clerical and ecclesiastical writings). What is different is the LDK, where the Polish spelling influence was stronger: here (also from the earlier tradition) common nouns were usually written in lowercase, except for certain names of concepts related to religion, pronouns; Honorative (e.g. fu Aniolas Ž 165,16, g.pl. Apafztalu PKr.? 9, 1-2, g.sg.f. Dwasios Szvelos t.p. = 3, g.p.m. Lek Z 1.7, g.sg.m. French t. p. V.,, Ju Ponu Diewu Sp.76,4—5, a.sg. Tawi PKr.? 47,11). 34 ES otherwise not J.:Lietuviy literary language XVI — XVIII a., 48—49. “ The 1950s and 1960s in the United States: A History ir of the American Revolution, 1950–1960, 1960, pp. 85–86. 48 The traditional principle of spelling was undoubtedly more or less observed in the usage of the Lithuanian written language in the 18th century and in other cases. However, this is not always easy to determine, especially where the principle has been applied inconsistently in the past. For example, it is now difficult to say how much the traditional principle of writing words together and separately was used, because in the 16th-17th centuries both Polish and Lithuanian dialects were already significantly varied.” This variation is clearly illustrated by the writing of the negation not with verbs. In D. Klein's grammars this negation was often written together, but sometimes separately (e.g.: praet.2 sg. negirdėjau GL 162, praet.3 nebuwo etc.137, nežinnojo etc.166, cond.3 nepafmdaugtu etc.154... and praes.l sg. ne apkenčiu etc.20, imper.2 sg. ne užmušk etc.167, ne wok etc.). XVIII a. In RP writings the opposite phenomenon is observed: ne with verbs is more often written skyrium, less often —drauge, e.g.: praes.3 ne eit BT Mat.18.38, ne galima B! I Mos.44,26, not jefka OA 64,4, praet.3 not fulfilled BT Mat.24 "39, not wanted DR 17,39, fut. 3 will not remain BT Luk. 19,44, will not pass away, e.g. Matt.5,18, Imp.2 sg. no orb OA 63,21, no angry B! 1 Mos. 3, 32..., but also: praes.l1 sg. negallu EE 148.8, praes.3 neliftengia DR 14,43, nepažyjių t.p.32,36, praet.2 pl. nenorėjot' t.p.34,13... more frequently not separately was written then and in the LDK, where, as before, such writing was stimulated by the Polish example. However, there is no greater uniformity here either: often in the same publication you see the negative. we can read the written together; and separation, cf.: not hardened BS 3,13—14 and NiepaZindamas t.p.28,11=- 12, not waykscio AA 16,15 and nepafifoten t.p.19,6, not uwozoje Ž 62,3 and nepraznawoie t.p.5,5, not weyzieiey Pav.51,1 and nefkaytey t.p.47,3—4. It is therefore difficult to identify a common orthographic principle in the case of such variation. ABBREVIATIONS AA —Golden altar... 1793 Ap.d. —Acts of the Apostles Father. —1794 recall B! —The Bible, that is Wissa Szwentas Ra[ztas... 1735 B? —Biblia, to est Wissas Szwentas Rasztas.- .. 1755 Br. —Broma Atwerta ing Wiecznasti... 1753 BS —Voice of the Heart... 1726 BT — S. Bitner's New Testament... 1701 C —Catechismus minor, Germanic —Polish —Lithuanian —Latin... 1720 Comp. —Compendium Lituanico—Germanicum... 1654 DM; —Dawadna The Science of the Expulsion of the Soul... 1729 DR —K. Donelaičio raštai, 1977 DRr —K. Donelaičio rankraščiai, 1955 efez. —Ewangelie polskie] 1 litewskie... 1705 and others. Esr. —Ezra (Book of Ezra) ev. —evagelia No, no, no, no. = on (biblical name). GL-D. Klein 1653 ”Grammatica Litvanica” 36 jr. Palionis. Lithuanian Literary Language XVI—XVII a., 49. 49 HG-F. Hako 1730 m. " Appendix to a Concise Lithuanian Grammar" Job. —The Books of Job Jon. —The Gospel of John KAB —Knigiale apraszanti brotctwa... 1773 Snow. —Books of Kings KIG3—New- ... Improved Hymnal Books... 1705 KNT — J. Quandto 1727 New Testament Cor. —Corinthians (inhabitants of Corinth) Luke —| The Gospel of Luke Mac. —The Book of Maccabees Mat. —The Gospel of Matthew Mark. —The Gospel of Mark Ms. —Metai szweti or jubileuszas didis... 1776 NA —Nowena szwa... 1775 Neh. —Books of Nehemiah OA — G. Ostermejerio 1775 m. Agenda Pav. —Pawinastis krykscionyszka... 1781 t Ped. —* Pedelis's Death... 1750 PKr. —Pamokslas Krikséioniszkas... 1726 PKr.? —Sermon by Krzysztof... 1743 PKr.? —Pamokslas Krikēioniszkas... 1762 Pov.1. —The Epistle of Paul PS — K. Sirvydo ”Punkty kazan” (1—1629; 11 —1644) PVG —Prussian government gramata- ... 1960 Rog —Rozancius szweciausios Maryos Pannos... 1726 RG —K. Don't miss "Autumn Breeze". —rymiecial (Inhabitants of Rome) RPs —J. 1625 "Psalteris Dawido" Sal.išm. —The Book of Solomon 1Sm%es Sam. —Books of Samuel Sp. —Spasabas nabazenstwu... 1771 tes. —Thessalians (inhabitants of Thessaly) —Universitas Lingvarum Litvaniae... 1737 Ziwatas Pona yr Diewa musu... 1759 —zydai pec | LITHUANIAN LEGISLATION IN THE XVIII CENTURY Summary The article deals with the graphic and orthographic system of Lithuanian in the 18th century. Based on the analysis of the most important Lithuanian language monuments (Bible translations, hymnals, grammar books and fictional texts), the following conclusions can be drawn: 1) the alphabet found in the grammar books of Daniel Klein (somewhat modified) was used in East Prussia throughout the century; 2) in Greater Lithuania had further spread in the writings of Konstantinas Sirvydas used alphabet; 3) in the grammar of the century (especially in the grammar of Gotfried Ostermeyer) some graphic and orthographic questions were also discussed theoretically; 4) the main principle of orthography at that time was phonologicalphonetic writing, but also found use morphological, traditional and distinctive. spelling; 5) in East Prussia the influence on Lithuanian spelling was German, in Greater Lithuania — Polish spelling. 50