He told the professor of Cracow, Wiszniewski, and Simonas Daukantas that he had written a Samogitian-Lithuanian dictionary. But those letters contain falsehoods. To Wiszniewski, Kajetonas boasts that he himself prepared a booklet about bees (in 1823), though under his brother Kiprijonas’s name (although linguistic analysis confirms Kiprijonas, not Kajetonas, as its author); that Chancellor N. Rumiantsev thanked him for that translation (in fact, he thanked Kiprijonas); that he published the booklet Rozmyślania wieśniaka rolnika (but said nothing of its author, Dionizas Poška); and that Dziennik Wileński published an account of his travels in Samogitia (although it describes only Poška’s Baublys)—the last two cases had already been noted by V. Maciūnas. In his letter to S. Daukantas, when listing his achievements, Kajetonas no longer mentioned either the translation of the booklet about bees or Rozmyślania wieśniaka rolnika—he must have sensed that Daukantas might know their true authors. In both letters, Kajetonas also says that he had completed his dictionary, although the burned manuscript had been written only up to the beginning of the letter K (V. Maciūnas). But, as can be seen from I. Loboika’s letters, Kiprijonas had written a dictionary only up to K. Thus, it is difficult to deny that Kajetonas liked to boast of works created by others.

Moreover, it is important that Kajetonas was D. Poška’s kindred spirit and at the same time Kiprijonas’s competitor. Poška wrote: “I have seen no better orthography than [...] that in Kajetonas Nezabitauskas’s primer.” On the other hand, while Kiprijonas was still working on his dictionary (March 1825), Poška too began writing a competing dictionary—that is, competing with Kiprijonas in the creation and introduction of a written Samogitian-Lithuanian language. Had Kajetonas been the author, it is unlikely that his friend Poška would not have supported his work and would have chosen to compete with him rather than help him.

Thus, even without the manuscripts having survived, many arguments indicate that Kajetonas, who liked to boast and praise himself, also wanted to claim as his own the unfinished Lithuanian dictionary written by his brother Kiprijonas. Therefore, as A. Kaupūž has already pointed out, Kiprijonas Nezabitauskas should be considered the author of that dictionary.

A BOOK ABOUT THE BALTIC LANGUAGES

In Germany, which has a long tradition of studying the Baltic languages, works of significance to Baltic studies have appeared in recent years. One of them is a book written in German by three linguists and published in 1994: “The Baltic Languages: An Introduction.”¹ The handsomely printed, 416-page book consists of four main sections.

The author of the fairly extensive introductory section (pp. 15–70) is the linguist Rainer Eckert, who has made substantial contributions to Baltic linguistics and its popularization. In a very concise, one might say encyclopedic, manner, he presents essential information about all the Baltic languages and peoples, their names and history, and discusses the extinct peoples and those assimilated by other nations: the Prussians, Sudovians, Yotvingians, Curonians, Semigallians, and Selonians. Naturally, most space is devoted here to the history of the two living Baltic peoples—the Lithuanians and Latvians—mentioning the most decisive events that have accompanied these peoples from

¹ E c k e r t R., B u k e v i č i ū t ė E.-J., H i n z e F. Die baltischen Sprachen. Eine Einführung. Langenscheidt. Verlag Enzyklopädie. Leipzig, Berlin, München, 1994.

213

from the earliest times to the present day. Drawing on the work of other scholars and concrete linguistic data, R. Eckert highlights the place of the Baltic languages in the Indo-European language family and their relationship to the languages of the nearest groups—Slavic and Germanic. He discusses the most important written monuments of Old Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian, as well as the development of the standard Lithuanian and Latvian languages. He even adds a few remarks about Latvian and Lithuanian folk songs, identifying the most noteworthy collectors and the collections they compiled and published.

Three sections of the book describe Lithuanian (pp. 71–245), Latvian (pp. 247–382), and Old Prussian (pp. 383–406) separately. Following a fairly strict, uniform plan for presenting and explaining the data, Elvyra-Julija Bukevčiūtė (Lithuanian and Latvian phonetics; the accentuation of Lithuanian nouns and adjectives; pronouns; numerals), Rainer Eckert (Lithuanian nouns and adjectives—general features and declension; adverbs in Lithuanian and Latvian), and Friedhelm Hinze (the Lithuanian verb and preposition; Latvian nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals, verbs, and prepositions) provide synchronic descriptions of the phonetic, accentological, and morphological systems of standard Lithuanian and Latvian.

The section on Old Prussian was written by R. Eckert. Comparing it with corresponding data from the East Baltic languages (Lithuanian and Latvian), he discusses the characteristic features of Old Prussian accentuation, vocalism, and consonantism, as well as some aspects of morphology: noun declension, adjective comparison and declension, numerals, pronouns, and verb inflection.

The book as a whole is written in a highly systematic manner. It includes several maps showing the western Baltic peoples and their former territories, as well as the distribution of Lithuanian and Latvian dialects. Much linguistic data on Baltic phonetics and morphology is presented in summary tables: there are 52 in the “Lithuanian” section and 46 in the “Latvian” section. The meanings of the grammatical forms described (which do not always have direct equivalents in German) and their usage are often illustrated with phrases or sentences drawn from various sources. Compare a few examples from the section on Lithuanian:

Among the fluttering headscarves, he tossed the blue one with white stripes and immediately recognized it, distinguishing it from all the others, whether identical or at least similar. ‘Among the fluttering headscarves he saw the blue one with the white stripes, and he recognized it at once and distinguished it from all the others, whether identical or similar.’ (Use of definite adjectives.)

Another three years will pass. ‘About three more years will pass.’ (Use of collective numerals.)

Not knowing the way, it is difficult to get to us. ‘If one does not know the way, it is hard to find one’s way to us.’ (Use of the half-participle.)

It is true that, alongside the fine, authentic examples, one occasionally encounters an artificial form not used in natural speech; compare the present- and simple past-tense paradigms of reflexive verbs: žiopsauši, žiopsai, žiopsomės, žiopsotės (p. 183); žiopsojausi, žiopsojaisi, žiopsojomės, žiopsojotės (p. 184).

In describing aspects of Lithuanian and Latvian phonetics, all examples are given in the current orthography of those languages and in the transcription adopted by the International Phonetic Association. Examples in Lithuanian are marked for stress throughout the book (transcri-

214

in those words only the stressed syllable is marked, while the intonation is not indicated), although the stress of one or another word (by means of the corresponding intonation mark) was left unmarked; cf.: šešiasdeimt (p. 153) = šešiasdeimt, kóvo (158) = kóvo, dvidešimt (158) = dvidešimt. Further, readers may be misled by an incorrectly indicated position of word stress, intonation, accentual paradigm, and the like. Examples of such errors requiring correction in Lithuanian include: atvykšite (p. 146), Atvỹko (193) = atvỹksite, Atvỹko, dieną (158, 2x) = dieną, švárraštis (106) = švárraštis, tirpti (107) = tir̃pti, per liepą (107) = per̃ liepą, vilktis (107) = vil̃ktis, ar̃klas (109) = ar̃-klas, ir-štvą (accentual paradigm 4, 109) = ir-stvą (accent.), kilómetrų (160), kilómetro (232) = kilómetrų, kilómetro, raũda (177) = raũda, draug-áv-o, keli-áv-o (177) = draug-áv-o, keli-áv-o, rėngi-a: reng-ė (179) = rengia-a: reng-ė, ne-si-gin-si-u (185) = ne-si-gin-si-u, Kuršiai, gyvuliui (189) = Kuršiai, gyvuliui, išsiuntęs, krėpšio (190) = išsiuntęs, krėpšio, bučiáu-tis (191) = bučiáutis, ap-si-ovil-k-o (191, 2x) = ap-si-ovil-k-o, nulaužtas, stovinčioji (199) = nulaužtas, stovinčioji, atėjo (206, 228, 231), Atėjo (231) = atėjo, Atėjo, at-nėš-ti (208, 220) = at-nėš-ti, Keliaudami, Jeruzalės, priimtų nutarimų (210) = Keliaudami, Jeruzalės, priimtų nutarimų, vaikystė, kryžkelė (212) = vaikystė, kryžkelė, leis-ki-me (214) = léis-ki-me, rytój, arklius, atsikėlęs (217) = rytój, arklius, atsikėlęs, baronienės (219) = baronienės, mūtinai (220) = mūtinai, dingusio brólio, jei dar gyvas (221) = dingusio brólio, jei dar gyvas, ciésarų, į vestuvės (222) = ciésarų, į vestuvės, paėjo (224) = paėjo, juó tolyn, juokómis (225) = juó tolyn, juokómis, aiškiai (227) = aiškiai, knygos (229), knyga (230) = knygos, knyga, (su)pykti (229) = (su)pykti, Nuėjau, laišką (230) = Nuėjau, laišką, savo (231, 2x) = savo, mokyklą (231) = mokyklą, studentų, pirkti (232) = studentų, pirkti.

Occasionally, an isolated uncorrected typographical error of another kind also occurs, for example: Palūžė, Biržiai (44) = Palūšė, Biržai; Kaip čia gražu pasidėti (133) =...pasėdėti; jūs (146) = jūs; Parduotuvė atidaryta nuo devintos iki aštuoniolikos valandos (158) =...aštuonioliktos valandos; devyniose dešimtosiose (162) = devyniose dešimtosiose; kilšči-o-ja, kilšči-o-ju (175) = kilšči-o-ja, kilšči-o-ju; ēm-e (178) = ēm-ė; praėjusieji metai (199) = praėjusieji metai; Ateisančios žiemos ilgumo nežinome (204) = Ateisančios...; džau-ki-s (214) = džiau-ki-s; mokusi, mokúsios (219) = mokíusi, mokúsios (cf. rašyti, rašė: rašiusi, rašiusios); žiūrėti (225) = žiūrėti; gatvėje (228) = gatvėje; plugų árti (228) = plūgų árti.

For those with a greater interest in Baltic studies or in one of the Baltic languages, the bibliographic information provided is also very useful. Each chapter of the book concludes with a survey, prepared by R. Eckert, of the most significant works published on the chapter’s subject. For example, at the end of the introductory chapter, in addition to the names of the founders of comparative historical linguistics, F. Bopp (1791—1867) and R. Rask (1787—1832), with which the survey of publications important to Baltic linguistics as a whole begins, several dozen researchers of the Baltic languages from various nations—Germans, French, Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Finns, Czechs, Bulgarians, Poles, Italians, Americans, Japanese, Russians, Ukrainians and, of course, Latvians and Lithuanians—are also mentioned. Separate surveys are likewise provided for

215

the most important works describing and examining Lithuanian, Latvian, and Old Prussian. In addition to these surveys, at the end of the book we find a comprehensive general bibliography (184 entries): works by individual authors and collective works published in Lithuania, Latvia, and other countries, as well as serial and periodical publications, devoted both to general questions of Baltic linguistics and to any one of the languages—Lithuanian, Latvian, or Old Prussian. One or two minor typographical details should also be corrected in the bibliography: J. GERULIS. Senieji lietuvių skaitymai (p. 408; entry 20) =... skaitymai; P. JONIKAS. Lietuvių bendrinės rašomosios kalbos kūrimasis antroje XIX a. pusėje (412; 119) =... kūrimasis antrojoje XIX a. pusėje; V. PAULAUSKAITĖ (412; 151) = V. PAULAUSKIENĖ; A. UBEKAITĖ (413; 176, 177) = A. UBEIKAITĖ.

These and other minor errors in no way diminish the value of the publication under discussion. “The Baltic Languages: An Introduction” is a carefully prepared and much-needed book. It is an excellent textbook for those studying Baltic languages at universities in Germany and other countries, for those interested in the history of these languages, and for those wishing to study modern Lithuanian and Latvian independently. The Institute of the Lithuanian Language is also grateful to the authors for their considerable work and for the copy of this book, one of the first, received from them.

Kazys Morkūnas

A MONUMENT TO JAN SAFAREWICZ

Happy are teachers who have good, grateful students. The distinguished Polish linguist Jan Safarewicz (1904—1992), professor at the universities of Vilnius and Kraków and an honorary doctor of both universities, had a large number of such students; among other things, he also left a profound mark on Lithuanian studies. Yet the very first among these grateful students whom one should mention is undoubtedly Wojciech Smoczyński, whose work and organizational abilities gave rise to the impressive volume dedicated to the memory of J. Safarewicz, “Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz Memoriae Dicata” (Edenda Curavit Wojciech Smoczyński, Cracoviae MCMXCV). It is a collection of articles that portray J. Safarewicz’s character and his contributions to various areas of linguistics, as well as individual studies of problems close to the eminent Polish scholar.

Most of the articles published in the volume are papers delivered at the symposium “Language in Time and Space,” held in Kraków on April 5—6, 1993, on the first anniversary of J. Safarewicz’s death. In all, no fewer than 56 articles are published, along with a bibliography of J. Safarewicz’s works and of literature about him, prepared with great care by W. Smoczyński. The articles are published in Latin, English, French, and German. Naturally, it is impossible to discuss, or even list, all the articles published here in a brief review. We shall mention only those that may be of particular interest to researchers of the Lithuanian language and those directly related to J. Safarewicz’s scholarly legacy.

From the latter area, the volume includes an article by Mariano Plezia (Plezia) on J. Safarewicz’s studies of Greek and Latin (”De Ioannis Safarewicz

216