Knyga apie baltų kalbas

he told Krakow professor Wiszniewski and Simonas Daukantas that he had written a dictionary of the Samogitian- —Lithuanian language. But there is a lie in those letters. Kajeton boasts to Wiszniewski that he himself prepared a booklet about bees (1823), only in the name of brother Kiprion (although the analysis of the language confirms the authorship of Kiprion, not Kajeton), that the chancellor N. Rumiancev thanked him for the translation (in fact, he thanked Kiprion), that he printed the booklet Rozmyšlania wiešniaka rolnika (but kept silent about its author Dioniz Poška), that Dziennik Wileriski published a description of his trip to Žemaitija (although only Poška’s Baublys is described there), — the last two cases were already noted by V. Maciūnas. In his letter to S. Daukantas, Kajetonas did not mention either the translation of the booklet about bees or Rozmyšlania wiešniaka rolnika — he must have felt that Daukantas might have known the real authors of them. In both letters, Cajeton also says that he has finished his dictionary, although the burned manuscript was written only up to the beginning of the letter K (V. Maciūnas). And, as can be seen from the letters of I. Loboika, only up to the letter K the dictionary was written by Kyprion. So it’s hard to deny Kajetona’s ability to boast of other people’s work. He was also a close friend of D. Poška and a rival of D. Kiprionis. Poška wrote: "I have not seen better orthography than [...] in Kajeton Nezabitauskas' Elementary". On the other hand, while Kiprionas was still working on his dictionary (March 1825), Poška also began writing a competitive dictionary, i.e. competing with Kiprionas for the creation and introduction of the written Žemaičių lietuvių language. If the author had been Kajeton, it is unlikely that his friend Poška would not have approved of his work and would have decided to compete with him rather than help him. Therefore, even if the manuscript did not survive, many arguments indicate that Kajetonas, who loved to boast and praise himself, also wanted to appropriate the unfinished Lithuanian dictionary written by brother Kiprionas. Thus, as A. Kaupuž has already pointed out, Kiprijonas Nezabitauskas should be considered the author of this dictionary. In Germany, which has a long tradition of studying Baltic languages, new works of significance for Baltic studies have appeared in recent years. One of them is the book "Baltic languages" written in German by three linguists and published in 1994. Ivadas".! The beautifully printed 416-page book consists of four main chapters. The author of a fairly extensive introductory chapter (pp. 15—70) is Raineris Eckertas, a linguist who has made a great contribution to the study and popularization of Baltic languages. It presents in a very concise, one could say encyclopedic, manner the most important knowledge about all Baltic languages and peoples, their names, history, and discusses the extinct, by other peoples assimilated Prussians, Suduves, Jotvinges, Curonians, Zemgalians, and Seles. Of course, most of the space here is devoted to the history of the two living Baltic nations — Lithuanians and Latvians —: the most fatal events that accompanied these nations from the beginning of the 19th century are mentioned. ine Einführung. Langenscheidt. Verlag Enzyklopadie. Leipzig, Berlin, unchen,; ancient times to recent times. Based on the works of other researchers and specific linguistic data, R. Eckert highlights the place of Baltic languages in the Indo-European language family, their relationship with the closest groups — Slavic and Germanic — languages, discusses the most important written monuments of the Old Prussian, Lithuanian and Latvian languages, the formation of Lithuanian and Latvian common languages. He even adds a few remarks about Latvian and Lithuanian folk songs, mentions the most deserving collectors of songs and the collections they have compiled and published. The three chapters 213 of the book separately describe Lithuanian (p. 71—245), Latvian (p. 247—382) and Old Prussian (p. 383—406). The phonetic, accentological and morphological systems of Lithuanian and Latvian common languages were described synchronously by Elvyra-Julija Bukevičiūtė (phonetics of Lithuanian and Latvian languages, pronunciation of Lithuanian nouns and adjectives, pronouns, numerals), Raineris Eckertas (Lithuanian nouns and adjectives — common things, conjugation, Lithuanian and Latvian adverbs) and Friedhelmas Hinzė (Lithuanian verb, preposition, Latvian noun, adjective, pronoun, numerals, verb, preposition). The author of the section on the Old Prussian language —R. Eckert. By comparing with the corresponding data of the Eastern Baltic languages (Lithuanian and Latvian), he discusses the most characteristic features of Old Prussian pronunciation, vocalism, consonantism and some morphological issues — noun conjugation, adjective gradation and conjugation, numerals, pronouns, verb conjugation. The whole book is written very methodically. It contains several maps of the distribution of the western Balts and their former areas, Lithuanian and Latvian dialects. Many linguistic data —phonetics and morphology of Baltic languages—- are presented in summary tables: in the section "Lithuanian language" there are 52, and in the section "Latvian language" — 46. The meanings of the grammatical forms described (which do not always have direct German equivalents) and their use are often illustrated by word combinations or sentences taken from various sources. See some examples from the section on Lithuanian language: : He saw a blue one with white stripes among the breasted flaps and immediately recognized it and distinguished 15 of all such or at least similar. ‘Among the fluttering head-ducks he saw the blue one with the female stripes, and he recognized it immediately and distinguished it among the number of the same or similar ones.’ (Use of adjectives in nominative.) A mint tree will pass by. ‘Three more years will probably pass.’ (Kuopiniy numervardziy use.) Without knowing the language, it's hard to get to us. ‘If you don’t know the way, it’s hard to find us’. (Usage of the participle.) True, in addition to beautiful living examples, there is another artificial form not used in natural language, cf. the paradigms of the present and past tense of regressive verbs: Ziopsaiisi, žiopsaisi, žiūpsomės, žiopsotės (p. Ziopsdjausi, žiopsėjaisi, Ziopsdjomes, es Ziopsdjotés (p. 184). When zu describing Lithuanian-Latvian phonetic subjects, all examples are given in the current spelling of these languages and the transcription adopted by the International Phonetic Association. The examples of Lithuanian are pronounced throughout the book (only the pronounced syllable is marked, and the preposition is not indicated), although the pronunciation of one other word (with the corresponding preposition mark) remained unmarked, ir cf.: šešiasdešimt (p. 153) = šešiasdešimt, kovo (158) = kdvo, dvidešimt (158) —dvidešimt. Moreover, the reader may be misled by incorrectly specified pronunciation, preposition, pronunciation paradigm, etc. Examples of such Lithuanian 214 words to be corrected are: atvyksite (p. 146), Arrived (193) = atviksite, Atvijko, dieną (158, 2x) = diéng, Svdrrastis (106) = švdrraštis, tirpti (107) = tirpti, pėr lieptą (107) = pef ličptą, vilktis (107) = vilktis, ai-klas (109) = dr-klas, ir-štva (4 pronoun, 109) = ir-štva (3 pronoun), kilėmetrų (160), kilometro (232). = kilometrų, kilometro, raūda (177) = rauda, draug-dv-- o, keli-dv-o (177) = = draug-ūv-- o, keli-ūv-o, rėngi-a: rėng-ė (179) = rengi-a: refig-ė, ne-si-gin-- si-u (185) = ne-si-gin-- si-u, Kuršiai, gijvuliui (189) = Kufšiai, gyvuliui, Išsiuntęs, krėpšio (190) = išsunitęs, krėpšio, bučiud-tis (191) = bučiuotis, ap-si-vilk- -o (191, 2x) = ap-si-vilk-- o, nulaužtas, stovinčiėji (199) = nulduztas, stovinčioji, atėjo (206, 228, 231), Atėjo (231) = = atėjo, Atėjo, at-nėš-ti (208, 220) = at-nėšti, Keliatidami, Jerūzalės, priomty nutarimų (210) = Kelidudami, Jerūzalės, priimtų nutarimų, vaikystę, kryžkelę (212) = vaikystę, kryžkele, leis-ki-me (214) = léis-ki-me, rytėj, arklius, atsikėlęs (217) = rytėj, arklius, atsikėlęs, baroniénés (219) = baronenės, mūtinai (220) = mdtinai, dingusio brolio, nes dai gyvas (221) = of the missing boy, jėi dar gyvas, ciésoriy, į vestūves (222) = ciésoriy, 4 vestuvės, paejo (224) = paéjo, jud tolijn, juokémis (225) = juo tolijin, juokomis, aiškiai (227) = discs, knygos (229), knigą (230) = knggos, knjgg, (su)pykti (229) = (su)pgykti, Nuėjau, laišką (230) = Nuéjat, laišką, savo (231, 2x) = savo, mokyklą (231) = mokgklg, studénty, pirkti (232) = studentų, pirkti. There are some uncorrected and other proofreading errors, e.g. : Palūžė, Biržai (44) = Palūšė, Biržai; How nice to sit here (133) ==...pasédets; you (146) = you; The store is open from nine to eighteen (158) =...eighteen o'clock; nine in tenths (162) = = nine in tenths kilšči-o-ja, kilšči-0-ju (175) = = kilséi-o-ja, kilséi-o-ju; em-e (178) = ėm-ė; past mint (199) = = past mint; We do not know the longitude of the coming winter (204) = džaū-ki-s (214) = džaū-kis; mokusi, mékusios (219) = worked, worked hard (cf. write, type: rašiusi, rūšiusios); žiūrėti (225) = to watch; gatvėje (228) = on the street; plovā drti (228) = near the plough. For those who are more interested in Baltic studies or in one of the Baltic languages, the bibliographical information will be very useful. Each chapter of the book ends with an overview of the most significant works published on the topic of the chapter. For example, at the end of the introductory chapter, in addition to the names of the founders of historical comparative linguistics F. Boppo (1791—1867) and R. Rasko (1787—1832- ), which begins the whole of the book. a review of important publications in linguistics, mentioning several dozen other scholars of Baltic languages from different nations —German, French, Danish, Dutch, 215 Norwegian, Finnish, Czech, Bulgarian, Polish, Italian, American, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian and, of course, Latvian, Lithuanian. In this way, separately are reviewed also those that describe and examine Lithuanian, Latvian, Old Prussian languages more importantly. related works. In addition to these reviews, at the end of the book we find a comprehensive (184 positions) general index of literature: works published in Lithuania, Latvia and other countries by individual authors or collective works, continuous or periodical publications devoted both to general questions of Baltic linguistics and to one of the languages — Lithuanian, Latvian, Old Prussian. True, one other detail of the proofreading should be clarified in the literature index: J. GERULIS. Old Lithuanian readings (p. 408: 20th position) =... readings; M. JONIKAS. The development of the Lithuanian common written language in the second half of the 19th century (412; 119) =... V. PAULAUSKAITE (412; 151) = V. PAULAUSKIENE; A. UBEKAITE (413; 176, 177) = A. UBEIKAITE. 3 Minor errors or other minor flaws do not diminish the value of the publication in question. "Baltic languages. Introduction" is a very carefully prepared and necessary book. It is a great textbook for those who study Baltic languages in German and other higher education institutions, who are interested in the history of these languages, and who want to learn the current Lithuanian and Latvian languages independently. The Lithuanian Language Institute is also grateful to the authors for the great work they have done and for receiving one of the first copies of this book from their hands. k kio Am žė MEMORIAL TO JAN SAFAREWICZ Happy teachers who have good, grateful students. A large group of such students was also the famous Polish linguist, professor at the Universities of Vilnius and Krakow, honorary doctor of these universities, Janas Safarewiczius (1904—1992), who, among other things, left deep traces in Lithuanian studies bars. However, the first among such grateful students should be mentioned first of all Wojciech Smoczynski, whose work and organizational skills are the fruit of an impressive work dedicated to the memory of J. Safarewicz “Analecta Indoevropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz Memoriae Dicata” (Edenda Cvravit Wojciech Smoczynski, Cracoviae MCMXCV). It is a collection of articles describing J. Safarevičius’ personality, his contributions to one or another field of linguistics, as well as individual studies of the problems close to the prominent Polish scholar. 4 A larger part of the published articles consists of papers read at the symposium "Language in Time and Space" held in Krakow on 5-6 April 1993 on the occasion of the first anniversary of J. Safarewicz's death. In total, 56 articles are published, in addition to a very carefully prepared bibliography of J. Safarewicz's many works and literature about him by W. Smoczynski. Articles are published in Latin; in English, French and German. Of course, it is not possible to not only discuss, but also list all the articles published here in a short annotation.” We will mention only those that may be more interesting for Lithuanian language researchers and those that are directly related to J. Safarewizcius’s scientific legacy. j From the latter field published: Article by Mariano Plezia (Plezia) about J. Safarewicz’s Greek and Latin studies (* De Ioannis Safarewicz i 216