Trys XIX a. bendrinės rašomosios lietuvių kalbos modeliai: J. A. Pabrėža, J. Čiulda, S. Daukantas

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE QUESTIONS XXXVI (1996) LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: RESEARCHERS AND STUDIES Giedrius SUBAČIUS THREE XIX a. GENERAL WRITTEN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE MODELLS: J.A. PABRĖŽA, J.ČIULDA, S. DAUKANTAS! Before I begin to talk about three different models of Lithuanian common written language in the 19th century, I would like to describe very briefly the general political, cultural, social to The State of Lithuania. Geopolitically, the ethnic Lithuanian lands never belonged to a single state: part belonged to Prussia (so-called Mažoji Lietuva), remaining Lithuania (Great Lithuania) was an independent state, and from the middle of the 16th century it was in union with Poland. By the end of the 18th century, almost all of them had died. Lithuania was occupied by Russia, so in the period of interest to me Didž. Lithuania belonged to Russia, and Maz. Lithuania — Prussia. Wh ft Culturally, Lesser and Greater Lithuania also differed from old. Little one. In Lithuania, Lutheranism had already taken hold in the 16th century, while in Great Lithuania Catholicism prevailed and dominated. Aspect of written language-- Maž. In Lithuania, a compact territory, relatively stable language norms were formed already in the 17th century and remained such until the end of the 19th century and even longer. Dig. Lithuania was very heterogeneous; one, there were (and are) two large dialect groups, Zemaičiai and aukštaičiai, their language differed so much that their representatives did not always understand each other; secondly, any single dialect as the basis of the written Lithuanian language was not yet definitively established, but in the beginning of the 19th century the Žemaičių scripts began to prevail more and more. On the other hand, Mr. The dominant language of culture in Lithuania in the first half of the 19th century was still Polish, traditionally used since the time of the union with the Polish state. Socially, societies were also different. In Prussia, peasants were officially freed at the very beginning of the century, and Didž. In Lithuania, the Russian authorities abolished the penalty only in 1861. In Lithuania, the liberalization of the peasantry, the expansion of literacy and the increase of social mobility had begun much earlier. The ideas of freedom of the French Revolution, although they had not yet changed social structures, were already gradually reaching people’s minds. In a liberating and gradually becoming a civil society only and 1 These models are discussed in more detail in other works of the author of the article: Simono The Approach of Daukanth to General Language. —Studies of the History of the Lithuanian Revival (LAIS): Simonas Daukantas 5, Vilnius: Viltis, 1993, 63—68; Juozas Ciulda and his grammar. —LAIS: The New York Times. 1994, 7—54; Jurgis Ambraziejus Emphasis on the Samogitian language. 1994, 7—54; Jurgis Ambraziejus Emphasis on the Samogitian language. 1994, 7—54; Jurgis Ambraziejus Emphasis on the Samogitian language. —LAIS: The Person: Between Nation and State 8 (printed). 51 į 3 A could have begun to form a modern brk. concept ir itself brk. (Modernia brk.. can be called the same language used by all social strata to satisfy all their cultural needs). ] All three XIX brk. a. models that I would like to introduce were iš Authors from Zemgale are creating in the Russian-controlled Dig. In Lithuania. Maz. In Lithuania, the written language was quite stable, no one was ir modeling it at that time. iš The three models presented are not arranged by jų the authors themselves. | I try to recreate, reconstruct these models in various iš (not only linguistic) manuscripts (S. (Duke — ir iš Press). 3 In order to reconstruct to the patterns of the Lithuanian language of the past; as the most | important, relevant I would tend to consider the following aspects: 1. Brk. spheres of a) consumption: social strata for whom the spoken brk. applied, b) literary types, "genres" in which the brk is used From that, for all social ar strata, all kinds of literature, ir the written language, in fact, belongs to, will be able to be called generic. ar ją 2. Brk. territory of t. y. consumptiar on, at least to satisfy the needs of some part of ethnic Lithuanians brk. applicable. | 3. Brk. relationshsu ip in colloquial language. 4. Brk. the basis — for writing as spoken, as required ar by the rules, the system of language. į Other aspects could be ir analyzed in terms of — borrowings, į new words, spelling, etc. ir principles, but let that be for the future. | I. JURGIS AMBAZIEJUS PABREZA g. 1771 m. in northern Žemaitija. In the history of Lithuanian culture he is best known as a Franciscan priest, famous preacher and the first creator of botanical terminology. ir XX a. at the beginning In Lithuania, even considerable efforts have been made to The Pope of Rome would declare Emphasis a saint or at least a beatifier. He did not leave any purely linguistic texts, but he wrote about language in the prefaces to his works and in his letters. į Emphasis thinking was formed even 18th century, in an ir environment that had little heard of the ideas of freedom and equality (modern He was 19 a. years old at the time. 29 m. For him then it was a natural, ordinary, "normal" society, where some people are free, ordinary literate citizens, the other part are dependent, — often illiterate people (benefit). From 1798 m. Emphasis ascribed a lot; thousands of pages of Lithuanian sermons. However, around the time 1828—1831 m. yet cannot speak of a common rasomaja language. It was not a formal language, but was used to jų communicate with the public, ne and was used as a means of oral o communication. — i Ir only about those 1828—1831 m. The emphasis, of course, influenced by the mood of the ever-liberating society, decides to build br. in Lithuanian. Then he had already about 60 m. age. The decision of the emphasis is documented. The end of long hesitation | can be illustrated by the following 1829 m. one jo letter sentence: "I am not inclined to change my 52 attitude about the Žemaičių spelling"*. About tą time, maybe a little later Emphasis introduces completely new characters not used anywhere else: doubles long and elongated vowels (i.e. begins to write bajooraa ‘bajors’, laapaas “leaves*- )"and soft [š'], [č'] begins to write $7, €ž (e.g.: šžerdys ‘Heart’, augmyničžyynis taugminyčinis'; here $2 and éZ were invented by contaminating the then common Lithuanian spelling with Polish spelling: šir č usually marked soft o sounds, szir cz — hard). 1. a)—b) By these characters it is easiest to recognize the type of texts to which Emphasis applied its brk. concept. This is particularly true of his works on botany and medicine. There are data that show that he applied these norms to school textbooks, fictional texts, folklore, and there are even his letters written in accordance with such norms. I could summarize —Emphasizes his brk. norms applied to all areas of secular cultural life. However, what may seem strange and unbelievable today, these norms were not observed in equally abundant religious texts. I would say: Emphasis on spiritual writings still applied the scale of the 18th century, but quite modernly began to create a secular brk. He is a representative of the transitional period. Having already understood that an ever-increasing layer of people who need a common language is emerging, he did not yet understand that sooner or later such a process will lead to a society where everyone will need that common language. (that is, where there will be no punishment, everyone will be free and written). The fact that the texts devoted to the church people were not written in Latin shows that the people and their future destiny to be only people seemed quite normal. Only for a part of society, the new enlightenment, the new brk. was only necessary. After analyzing Pabrėža- 's poems, Saulius Žukas came to the conclusion that "their analysis allows us to grasp the process of epistemic cultural break, the situation of transition from one value to another"*. In addition to the modern usage of the word, it has also been used in the old written language. I would call his model "defective", but still a model of a common written language. "Besides, your brother. The model was not applied to the entire ethnic area of Lithuanian language, but only to the Žemaites. In his words, "I spell the names of the plants as they are pronounced in our coastal region 15 miles from the sea into the depths of the land"*. Converting the miles of that time to today’s measure, it comes out about 128 km — so simply the territory of the Žemaičių dialektas. In other words, the written bk. Emphasis created only for Samogitians; he acknowledged the possible existence of 2 other Lithuanian written languages: "Prussian Lithuanian and Didž. Lithuanian-Lithuanian-Aukštaitian. For example, in his botany, when compiling lists of plant names in various languages, Pabrėža included the names of the Žemaites and Prussian Lithuanians separately, and in one letter he consoled that "Lithuanian (i.e. Dig. "Lietuvos aukštaičių Pa brezald". A Letter dated April 13, 1829 from Kretinga to Prof. J. F. Wolfgang in Vilnius. The manuscript is preserved at MAB, f. 7—309. * ŽukassS. 1993. —LAIS: Liaudis virsta tauta 4, Vilnius: Baltoji varnele, 117—118. 'No bread. A letter dated 20 September 1828 from Kretinga to prof. J. F. Wolfgang in Vilnius. The manuscript is preserved at MAB, f. 7—309. 33 names) not to miss, but so far I could not get them from anywhere”. Emphasis's opinion is categorical: "a Žemaitis will never agree on the language with a Lithuanian (i.e. with a Highlander of Great Lithuania), nor with a Prussian (i.e. a Prussian Lithuanian) or a Latvian"- *. In this context, the territory of Brk. The model shows that its author was oriented towards a more closed society, perhaps even towards the possibility of forming a separate Samogitian nation. 3. Emphasis p. his relationship with the spoken language can be described by his own words: "it is best to write as we speak" or "you will find the words written as all the Samogitians there speak"®. The need to manage the common spoken language of the Emrėzai had not yet arisen, the Žemaičiai spoke well to him, only wrote badly. This means that the dialect itself is perceived as a spoken brk. option, so they and norm not necessary. 4. From what has been said, it is already quite clear that the main point of paragraph 2. standardization criterion Emphasis was usage, colloquial language. II. 1998-1999 JUOZAS ČIULDA was born later than Pabrėža, in 1796, also in northern Žemaitija (near Plungė, so closer to the centre of Žemaitija). He was also a priest, working as a chaplain at Kaunas school, and later served as a priest in various places in Lithuania. His greatest contribution to Lithuanian culture was the writing of the Lithuanian grammar (about 1854). He was a representative of another, younger generation, who had matured in an environment where the need for freedom had been felt all along, oriented towards a free society. 1. a) Unlike the Emphasis, Čiulda already modeled a society of only free people. Not only the nobles, but also the peasants were part of the nation. The terms folk and nation in Čiuldai had the same meaning (which cannot be said about Pabrėža), e.g.: "Žemaičių eilėraščiai sudaro liaudies, t. y. paprastų žmonių, dainas [...]. In a sense, it can be said that this nation [...]’. It is clear that for this monolithic society Čiulda created his brk. norms —the same for all layers. This is already "non-defective" brk. concept. b) Although Čiulda has not specifically stated exactly to which kinds of literature he applied his brk. model, it can be assumed that all possible. It is true that Čiulda wrote both his grammar text and his letters and other works in Polish, but he did not dare to write in Lithuanian. Therefore, we can only talk about theoretically modeled, but not yet implemented in practice brk. standards. 2. Foundation for building brk. norms Čiulda took his native northern Žemaičių dialect, similar to when. Emphasis. However, the territory for which Čiulda modeled his brook was much larger. Explaining why he relied on the Žemaičių dialect, Čiulda said that "the western Žemaičių dialect is more complex- ." Emphasizes J. A. Letter of 19 December 1834 from Kretinga to J. K. Gintila to St. Petersburg /Published by K. Sendzikas. —Our Antiquity, 1938, vol. 2, no. 3(8), 491. Emphasis J. A. Letter dated 20 March 1835 from Kretinga to J. K. Gintila in St. Petersburg. —Our Antiquity, 1938, vol. 2, no. 3(8), 495. "Ibid., 493. . Emphasized by Jl. A. Uwogas nekorios aap Smerti, 1828, IV. The manuscript is kept in the National Library of Lithuania. Sign. f. 124-3. 54 siformavusiTM (than aukitaifiy) that aukstaiciy dialect "is not as gentle and pleasing to ir the ears as the Zemgalish" ", that in one part of the Zemgalish dialect "there is almost no grammar, only a distorted and corrupted mixture of Polish. nys with Lithuanian language... "11 in the other part there are no firm and uniform rules. Such denigration of the Highland dialects unequivocally shows that Čiulda was oriented only to the ne į ir į Highland readers, offering them "better- ", "more formed" Žemaičių brk. standards. So Čiulda his brk. model oriented to the whole Didž. The territory of Lithuania. However, like Pabrėža, he did not want to impose his model on the Prussian Lithuanians. Although they were also considered to be members of the same people, they were recognized as having a distinct written tradition. One example of such an attitude could be the fact that the famous 18th-century Prussian Lithuanian Christian Donelaitis's poem *"Metai" (Years) is quoted in the poem. Čiulda presented the original spelling, and next to the left in his proposed common "Žemaičių" language. . A fairly new and important aspect of Čiulda's norming — next to brk. norming and oral. This is a very clear and firm position of Čiulda. For example, he writes that "the language and writing of the people of science must be the language and writing of the people"! ?, Čiulda defines grammar itself as a set of "rules for the good ordering of language, whether spoken or written- "**. This is what I would call the concept of a mature, modern common language. After all, when the Brk. begins to form, the oral common language, oriented to the written language, inevitably begins to form (dialects are very different). 4.Čulda, quite in contrast to Pabrėža, emphasized that standardization should be based on language rules, grammar, i.e., language system, not language use. He said that "if the language of Žemaitija (i.e. Lithuanian) is to develop in the example of other European languages, then [...] for the writing of books it is necessary to adopt such a language which will appear clearer, more regular and more in accordance with the rules of grammar!"4 (from a letter to Bishop Motiejus Valančius). Čiulda tried to adhere to the system of language, i.e., to reject the exceptions to the rules that seemed to him, regardless of the fact that they were used in living language. For example, Čiulda suggests writing (and saying!) the personal pronoun vns. the noun taw [tav], and not tau, because the stem of other verbs is [v] everywhere (cf. sg. gen. tavęs, sg. acc. tave, etc.), although both then and today all Lithuanians pronounce [u] —tau. There are many examples in the Čiulda grammar where the facts used in the speech are rejected because of the language system. III. SIMONAS DAUKANTAS, born in 1793, is a member of the Čiulda generation. He was also born in the northern Lowland. He is deserving of Lithuanian culture as a historian, folklorist, philologist and in general as the new modern 9Ciuldal. A brief reflection on the grammar rules of Žemaičių kalba. = LAIS6, 233. * Ibid., 249. > Idem, 227. . , ibid., 230. to Ibid., 330. 4 Ibid., 364. 59 the creator and pioneer of the Lithuanian nation’s ideology, even a symbol. Daukantas studied In po to Lithuania, 25 worked for about a year už Borders of Lithuania — in Riga, Sankt St. Petersburg, then again In Lithuania. 1. a) Be no doubt, Daucantus was a very clear democrat, con-. jo mone already modeled a society of only free citizens. Therefore, jo the texts and the common language were oriented to ir į the lowest strata of society, the peasants. (which implies that he imagined those strata to become literate). For example, one historical work ("Works") in the preface he wrote: "I wrote for ne the heads of learned men, but for ir mothers who are able to tell their tų children the works of the proconsuls, wrote many times wrong"! *. ju o be Another very new meto to For Lithuania, it — is a fact that he, Daukantas, a pasatifietis, wrote a Catholic prayer book. As emphasizes Roma Bončkutė, Daukantas, be others” texts, sought to legalize their spelling for ir religious texts! *. It is quite obvious that it was the peasants who needed the prayer book most. Dad Daukantas broke the stereotype that religious texts should be written in simplified traditional Lithuanian religious script. 1. b) Already the iš preparation of the prayerbook shows that The range of types of Daukanto literature, which should be written in Lithuanian, is broader pabreziskaja. iz Also practically Daukantas much more decisively uz Ciulda used his brk. He was not afraid to write ir grammar and other works in Lithuanian, although Čiulda did to not dare to — be write ir grammar, other scientific works he wrote in Polish. 2. At the beginning of creative activity Daukantas very clearly oriented į the Samogitian reader, the language of Daukantas' writings iš to time very Žemaitiška. However, in the late period of his creative work he changed his opinion, using Žemaitijos and Vysoké Tatry elements in his written language. Daukantas has stated: ir ir "in my opinion, it is not possible to write neither only pure žemaičių, nor pure aukštaičių (dialect), but you have to be interested in gentleness, jų harmony, conciseness!”, | ir that is, when — writing you have to combine dialects, combine elements of tų dialects. For example, in his large Polish-Lithuanian dictionary Daukantas presented parallel sexes to mediation “hunting? (jam.) ir medoti ‘t. p.’ (height), kwiestas ‘invited’ (Aug.) ir trash “t. p." (in French). On the other hand, he took the elements of spelling (e.g. letters 4, ė, 6; i; letters i ir y values, etc.) iš Prussian Lithuanian written language ir tried to introduce Dig. Lietuviškai Yeah, it is. This was not typical of either Emphasis, neither Ciuldai (With some su minor exceptions). Of course. k ! Daukanto’s gaze is the widest of iš all the ones presented here. models — he wanted his brk. for all ethnic Lithuanians. I will not exaggerate if I say that this is the first such a broad view. į throughout the history of Lithuanian language standardization. į 3. However, the fact that He was trying to break through. to model a large territory, all ethnic Lithuanians, speaking very different, distant 15 DaukantasS. Widgets / Prepared by V. Merkys ir B. Vanagienė 1, Vilnius: | Vaga, 1976, 39. Bončkutė R. Is printed manuscript history, — Literature ir art, | 1933 m. October, 16 no. 42, 4. | DaukantasS. Widgets 2, Vilnius: Vaga, 1976, 788. 56 dialects, caused problems to standardize the spoken language, i.e. oral variant of the common language. Characteristic of Daukanto's views could be the following quote: "Kur iszpul raszyti uo, taj labaj is raszyt 4, par ta wisims gal itikti, tiefms], who first «o [i. e., to the highlanders], and those [to those], who isztar ou [i. e., to the lowlanders], because some say duoti, others douti". Such a permission for each reader to read the polyphonic character 4 according to his own dialect does not imply a uniform, general spoken language at all. This can be illustrated by another explanation of Daukantas in the preface of the work "Narrative...": *" You, dear Lithuanian reader, I beg you not to be angry at me that I have not written in the language of your parish, you can yourself, after reading once, read the second time to turn the words according to the style of your parish. And so wherever you find written patient and courageous soldiers, read patient and courageous soldiers...- "18 Thus Daukantas, like Pabrėža, did not model the spoken common language. Only Pabrėža did not do so because in the small and relatively homogeneous territory of Žemaitija the spoken language seemed to be quite uniform, and Daukantas basically imagined the common language as written, but not spoken, at least he did not care much about the spoken common language. 4.The already mentioned Daukantas’s provision to harmonize dialects was indeed very democratically formulated by him, the historian, but how to implement it in practice, Daukantas himself did not know exactly. It is easier to combine vocabulary, but how to combine different phonetic phenomena? He often does not decide himself, establish rules: "due to the pronoun asz fourth syllable, time will show, mani or maně should be written- "; "how to write —tabokis or tabokas —hard to guess!" and so on. Such formulations as "time will tell" are not found in the normative texts of neither Emphasis nor Čiulda. From all this it becomes clear that Daukantas, having decided in the late period of his work to combine different dialects, i.e., having created a normative rule, does not go further, leaving it, apparently, to history itself to choose how to combine these dialects in each specific case. The inability to decide is also symbolised by Daukanto’s frequently changed spelling, perhaps more and more often than that of any other Lithuanian cultural figure of the 19th century. The conclusion is clear —although Daukanto refused to rely only on usage, only on the genders of one dialect, the implementation of specific rules is also weakly expressed. *kk*k* In the end, you need to summarize all three different models. As can be seen, the model of the older generation, the representative of Emphasis, differs in almost all parameters from the younger ones of Chiulda and Daukanto. It is true that it coincides with Daukanto in that the colloquial bk. is not modeled, but it is not modeled, as mentioned for different reasons. Thus, the common language of Pabrėža is a written common language of Žemaičių kalba, modeled on the spoken dialect of Žemaičių kalba, intended for the brighter strata of society, for all secular texts. Čiulda and Daukantas, representatives of the younger generation, clearly distinguished themselves from Pabėža. 9 Ibid., 790, riasi with his newer, more modern approach to brk. —it is necessary for all social strata to create all kinds of literature (though in practice Daukantas is much bolder than Čiuldas here). One of the fundamental differences between their models is that Čiulda models the language only for Greater Lithuania, while Daukantas models it for Lesser Lithuania as well. This was determined by Daukanto’s view as a historian, he studied and especially felt the historical ethnic commonality of all Lithuanians and modeled a common nation and a common village for the future. On the other hand, Čiulda, as bk. a creator, more modern than Daukantas in that he needed a general spoken language, and in addition, he emphasized in his grammar the system of language, the rules, and always standardized those forms that seemed to him more appropriate to the rules (i.e. the system of language- ). This is not clearly expressed in Daukanto's works. Therefore, I could call Čiuldas a consistent and modern theoretician of his time, who modeled the general written and spoken language of Greater Lithuania for all social strata and all kinds of literature and, most importantly, based his model on the criterion of language systematicity. Daukantas, alongside Čiulda, seems to be a broad-minded practitioner — language must be created for all people and all kinds of literature, for all Lithuanians to use; huge foliants written in Lithuanian confirm his practical efforts. However, in a theoretical sense, Daukantas did not model the spoken common language and did not define how to rely on the language system, the rules. Therefore, according to the approach to bk. Čiulda is more like a linguist-- theoretician, while Daukantas is a broad-minded public figure, but not a linguist. APPENDIX CHARACTERISTICS, COLLONS AND SUBSTITUTES OF THE GENERAL WRITE LANGUAGE MODULES (P,C,D) 1. BRK. FIELDS OF USE a) SOCIAL CLASSES all not all Cc P b) TYPES OF D LITERATURE all not all C P D 2. BRK. CONSUMPTION TERRITORY all all modeled ne D z4+a Zz * C P 58 3. BRK. RELATIONSHIP WITH CONVERSATIONAL LANGUAGE šnek. bk. - Snakes. bk. non-modeled C P | D 4.BRK. REASONS TO WRITTEN, HOW TO WRITTEN, AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF SPEECH (language system) P D(?) THREE MODELLS OF THE LITHUANIAN COMMON LANGUAGE: J A. PABREŽA, J. ČIULDA, S. DAUKANTAS Summary In this article, the concepts of common language of J. A. Pabrėža, J. Čiulda and S. Džūkantas are compared according to 4 aspects: 1) the scope of use of the common language (which social strata and Varieties of literature it is devoted); 2) the territory of use of the common language; 3) the relationship between the common language and the colloquial language; 4) the basis of common language (written as spoken, or as the rules, the system of language require). The concept of J. A. Pabrėža differs in all parameters from those of J. Ciulda and S. Daukantas. J. A. Pabrėža devoted his conception only to intelligence, only to worldly texts and only to genres. The view of J. Ciulda and S. Daukantas on the common language is more modern, it is necessary for all social strata; to create all kinds of literature. A major difference between their models is that J. Ciulda devoted the common language only to Count Lithuania, and S. Daukantas also to Little Lithuania. In addition, J. Ciulda was inclined to standardize not only the written language, but also the colloquial language. When it comes to standardization, he emphasizes the importance of the language system. 59