Jurgio Gerulio laiškas Jonui Jablonskiui

one senses: the translator knew too little Prussian for such a task. I would gladly add that he could converse fluently, roughly as a Baltic German landowner understands Latvian. But that is not enough to speak grammatically correctly or to set anything down in writing, especially when the text is so convoluted. Here even a good translator could not help much, because he did not understand the meaning of the difficult passages. Willis or his translator heard the intonation well. The Prussians of Pabėčiai probably spoke very clearly. But how can this be reconciled with the “corrupted” language? Of course, for those who have to describe Willis’s translation as poor, not everything that differs from Lithuanian or Latvian is wrong and non-Prussian. Moreover, Prussian has too many striking features that are absent from Lithuanian and Latvian. All the more regrettable, then, that Willis’s Enchiridion remains so ambiguous; after all, it is hardly possible to determine satisfactorily from Willis’s poor work what is a purely Prussian feature that differs from Lithuanian and Latvian, or what must be attributed to genuine German, that is, Low German, influence. Translated by Nijolė Čepienė* Jurgis Gerulis’s Letter to Jonas Jablonskis The library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore (F 52—199) holds a letter from J. Gerulis to J. Jablonskis, dated November 29, 1922. The letter is interesting for J. Gerulis’s views on standard Lithuanian and questions of spelling, as well as for his own language. The language and punctuation of the letter published here have not been corrected (only a couple of obvious typographical errors have been corrected). A. Sabaliauskas 29. XI. 22 Dear Sir, Heartfelt thanks for sending me your “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language.” Would it not be a good idea to sell your books, along with a few others such as Būga’s “Language and Antiquity,” and so on, in Germany as well? Švyturys and the Publishing Commission could set up a “commission” for such books with Vinteris in Heidelberg. It is not enough to write good books; propaganda is needed too! I suppose this must be done not for the authors’ glory but for Lithuania. The world must learn that quite serious work is being done in Lithuania, only people did not know about it. Such dilettantes as that Basanavičius bring us shame! (I know that B. worked more steadfastly for Lithuania than a hundred others, but the world reads his writings about the Thrakus and laughs at such a “Litauischer Sprachforscher”.) As for spelling, when Būga was staying at my home, I strongly urged him to join forces with you and publish a short spelling manual. My view is this: a spelling manual, even an imperfect one, is far better than one which, I suppose, without agreement1 * Citations from Latin translated by Kazys Eigminas. 205 but it will come out in the time of our children’s children. I myself pronounce and write (though knowing better) “pjauti,” “spjauti,” “bjaurus,” “labiau,” but “sunkiau,” “geriau.” If I wrote “piauti” and so on, I could not distinguish “pjauti” = schneiden, pautas ‘Ei’ and Old Prussian peuse ‘Fichte’ (we would write ‘piausė). But these are trifles! If Mr. Jablonskis and Būga tell us “write uniformly ‘piauti,’ ‘geriau,’ ‘labiau,’” then we shall all write that way and rejoice to have achieved uniform spelling. Until the two of you put the textbook in order, some will say “we pronounce ‘labiau’ but ‘geriau,’ and write them that way,” while others will ask, “Why should the same diphthong be written sometimes ‘lab-jau,’ sometimes ‘ger-iau’!” There will be no end to it! You mentioned Žemaitė. She is a woman whose writings I like very much. Indeed, we sons of Lithuania Minor have many Germanisms in our language, but we know how to distinguish what is pure from what is not. Žemaitė’s language is the most beautiful. It is not artificial. Reading Šviet. darbas or some other writing from today, I am annoyed by newly coined words, syntax, and so on, for no reason at all. I must admit that I often do not understand what these men write: σκοτεινοί εἰσιν2. From Žemaitė’s writings and yours I am learning to write truly Lithuanian, that is, purely and “ungekünstelt”3, as the German says. When writing the preface to my Mažvydas, I write as my mother taught me to speak Lithuanian—that is, not elegantly, but also not in an unnecessarily distorted way. I deliberately wrote poorly; next time I will write better. I hope that in 8 days I will be able to send “Mažvydas” to you. — Next summer I intend to search in Vilnius and elsewhere for old Lithuanian writings. I firmly believe: I will find them! Wishing you heartfelt good health Your devoted admirer Jurgis Gerulis Kronprinzstrasse 15. 1 deficiency 2 dark they are 3 naturally, simply P. S. DATA FOR F. KURSCHAT’S BIOGRAPHY 1. Letter from F. Kurschat’s father, Mikelis, to J. Schneller In the Manuscripts Department of the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (Ludwig Rhesa Collection, F 228—624) is a letter from the father of the renowned linguist of Lithuania Minor, Friedrich Kurschat (1806—1884), Mikelis Kurschaitis, a teacher at the school in Lenkviečiai— 206