Paminklas Janui Safarewicziui

the most important works describing and examining Lithuanian, Latvian, and Old Prussian. In addition to these surveys, at the end of the book we also find a comprehensive (184 entries) general bibliography: works by individual authors or collective works published in Lithuania, Latvia, and other countries, as well as serial or periodical publications devoted both to general questions of Baltic linguistics and to any one of the Lithuanian, Latvian, or Old Prussian languages. One or two minor proofing errors should, however, be corrected in the bibliography as well: J. GERULIS. Senieji lietuvių skaitimai (p. 408; entry 20) =... skaitmai; 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. “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, those interested in the history of these languages, and those who wish to learn modern Lithuanian and Latvian on their own. The Institute of the Lithuanian Language is also grateful to the authors for their considerable work and for providing it with one of the first copies of this book. Kazys Morkūnas A MONUMENT TO JAN SAFAREWICZ Teachers are fortunate when they have good, grateful students. The renowned Polish linguist Jan Safarewicz (1904—1992), professor at the Universities of Vilnius and Kraków and an honorary doctor of both, had a great many such students; among other things, he also left a profound mark on Lithuanian studies. Yet the first and foremost among these grateful students should be Wojciech Smoczyński, whose work and organizational abilities brought forth the impressive volume dedicated to the memory of J. Safarewicz, “Analecta Indoevropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz Memoriae Dicata” (Edenda Cvravit Wojciech Smoczyński, Cracoviae MCMXCV). It is a collection of articles that portray J. Safarewicz’s personality and his contributions to various fields of linguistics, alongside individual studies of problems that were close to the heart of the renowned 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. No fewer than 56 articles are included, along with a bibliography of J. Safarewicz’s works and writings 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 will mention only those that may be of particular interest to Lithuanian-language researchers, as well as those directly related to J. Safarewicz’s scholarly legacy. In the latter area, the volume includes Mariano Plezia’s (Plezia) article on J. Safarewicz’s studies of Greek and Latin (“De Ioannis Safarewicz 216 studiis Graecis atque Latinis”, pp. 11–14), F. Sławski’s article on two unwritten books by J. Safarewicz (“On two unwritten books of Jan Safarewicz”, pp. 15–18; the author has in mind J. Safarewicz’s research on verbal aspect and his articles on Slavic prehistory and the relations between Baltic–Slavic and Italic–Slavic languages), St. Urbańczyk’s article on J. Safarewicz’s contributions to Polish studies (“Professor Jan Safarewicz — Polish scholar”, pp. 19–25), A. Sabaliauskas’s article on the Polish scholar’s research in Lithuanian studies (“Jan Safarewicz’s contribution to Lithuanian studies”, pp. 27–34), H. Popowska-Taborska’s article on problems of ethnic history in J. Safarewicz’s works (“Problems of ethnic history in the works of Jan Safarewicz”, pp. 35–40), and M. Karpluk’s article on J. Safarewicz’s research in onomastics (“Professor Safarewicz’s research on onomastics”, pp. 41–45). We can rejoice that a large group of Lithuanian linguists honored Professor J. Safarewicz with their interesting articles. They are: S. Ambrazas, “On the origin of feminine nouns with the suffix *-(i)ē in the Baltic languages” (“On the origin of nomina feminina with the ending *-(i)ē in the Baltic languages”, pp. 47–50); V. Ambrazas, “The Baltic infinitive from the perspective of syntactic reconstruction” (“Der baltische Infinitiv aus der Sicht der syntaktischen Rekonstruktion”, pp. 51–60); S. Karaliūnas, “Proto-Indo-European *h₂ṛtk’ó- ‘bear’ in the Baltic languages” (“PIE *h₂ṛtk’ó- ‘bear’ in Baltic”, pp. 189–196); B. Stundžia, “Regularities in the accentuation of mixed-type verbs in Standard Lithuanian” (“Regularities of the accentuation of mixed-type verbs of Standard Lithuanian”, pp. 401–408); S. Temčinas, “Typological parallelism in the transformation of *u-stem adjectives in Lithuanian and Slavic” (“Typological parallelism of *u-stem adjective transformation in Lithuanian and Slavic”, pp. 443–447); and Z. Zinkevičius, “On the Polonisms in Mažvydas’ writings” (“Über die Polonismen in Mažvydas’ Schriften”, pp. 545–550). Some articles by foreign linguists are also devoted to problems of the Baltic languages. These include A. Bammesberger’s “Greek ē̄ compared with Lithuanian esi ‘you are’ and Old Lithuanian eisi ‘you go’” (“Griechisch ē̄ gegenüber litauisch esi ‘du bist’ und altlitauisch eisi ‘du gehst’”, pp. 65–73); P. U. Dini’s “On Old Church Slavonic sъborъ” (“A propos du vieux sl. sъborъ”, pp. 147–151; a Baltic-Slavic *som-bor is reconstructed, cf. Russian собор ‘cathedral, assembly’, Lithuanian sambarės ‘contributions, things or money collected’, Latvian suobara ‘contribution’); R. Eckert’s “Old Latvian-Slavic correspondences” (“Alte lettisch-slawische Übereinstimmungen”, pp. 153–171); A. Holvoet’s “On the development of the passive in Lithuanian and Latvian” (“On the evolution of the passive in Lithuanian and Latvian”, pp. 173–182); G. Michelini’s “On the position of the object in Bretkūnas’s Postil” (“Über die Stellung des Objektes in der Postille von Bretkūnas”, pp. 249–256); and W. Sędzik’s “On Baltic and Slavic agricultural terminology” (“On Baltic and Slavic agricultural terminology”, pp. 365–370). Articles devoted to other linguistic problems may also be of interest to researchers of the Baltic languages from various perspectives. Among these, we would especially like to mention L. Bednarczuk’s “Substrate and the theory of linguistic contacts” (“Substrat et théorie des contacts linguistiques”, pp. 75–88), and T. Czarnecki’s “On the problem of the oldest German loanwords in Polish” (“Zum Problem der ältesten Lehnwörter des Polnischen aus dem Deutschen”, pp. 109–121), 217 W. Mańczak’s “Critique of Laryngeal Theory” (“Critique de la théorie des laryngales”, p. 237—247), St. Stachowski’s “The Role of Greek in the History of Ottoman Turkish” (“Die Rolle des Griechischen in der Geschichte des Osmanisch-Türkischen”, p. 377—385), W. Stefański’s “Some Remarks Concerning the Inflectional Endings of Indo-European Pronouns” (“Quelques remarques concernant la flexion pronominale en indo-européen”, p. 393—400), K. T. Witczak’s “‘Prothetic Vowels’ in Hittite and Other Anatolian Languages” (“’Prothetic vowels’ in Hittite and other Anatolian languages”, p. 495—502), and others. This collection of articles is not only a tribute to a distinguished Polish linguist, a scholar with very wide-ranging interests, and a man of blessed memory, but also a substantial contribution to those fields of philology with which Janas Safarewicz was closely associated, while the collection’s editor, Wojciech Smoczyński, deserves the heartfelt gratitude of his colleagues. Algirdas Sabaliauskas ABOUT THE LATGALIANS AND THEIR LANGUAGE Perhaps many will be surprised, but even Latvia’s ambassador to Lithuania, Alberts Sarkanis, once remarked that it is easier for Latgalians to learn Lithuanian1 than standard Latvian2. We know very little about these Latgalians, who are sometimes inclined to regard even their own language as a separate Baltic language rather than a dialect of Latvian. And they are in a sense our brothers, not only of common origin but also of common fate. For, like most Lithuanians, they are Catholic. Many priests of Lithuanian origin worked in their region. For more than two centuries, this region was part of the Polish-Lithuanian state. Together, we became part of the Russian Empire. Together, we lost the right to print in Latin letters. The Lithuanian “school of hardship” has its precise counterpart in the Latgalian “moates skola pi ratiņa” (“mother’s school by the spinning wheel”). And in their state schools there hung a sign: “По латышски говорить строго воспрещается”. The publication “Baltu filoloģija. V. Rakstu krājums” (ed. in chief Dz. Paegle. Rīga, 1995), issued by the Departments of Baltic Languages and Latvian Literature at the University of Latvia, is devoted essentially to the Latgalian question. Some of the articles published here are papers delivered at the regular conference held on March 18, 1994, in memory of the distinguished Latvian linguist Arturo Uozuolo (Ozols, 1912—1964); this time its theme was “Latgale and the Latvian Language of Latgale.” The articles published in the separate volume are also of interest to researchers of the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian history. Historians will undoubtedly find E. Mugurevičius’s article “Written Sources and Archaeological Evidence on the Early History of the Ancient Latgalians” (“Rakstītie avoti un arheoloģijas materiāli par latgaļu senāko vēsturi”, p. 7—12) interesting. It discusses the Russian chronicles’ Norova (Neroma, 1 Latvians deliberately use the term latgalietsi ‘Latgalians’, because the term latgali ‘Latgalians’ denotes in scholarly literature the ancient Baltic tribe that lived both in Latgale and in Vidzeme, and gave its name to the Latvian people and state. 2 N o r k ū n a s Z. Friends, never foes. An interview with the Latvian Ambassador to Lithuania Mr Alberts Sarkanis. Lithuania in the World, 1995, 3, 18. 218