W. Mańczak’s “Critique of Laryngeal Theory” (“Critique de la théorie des laryngales”, pp. 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”, pp. 377–385), W. Stefański’s “A Few Remarks Concerning the Endings of Indo-European Pronouns” (“Quelques remarques concernant la flexion pronominale en indo-européen”, pp. 393–400), K. T. Witczak’s “Prothetic Vowels in Hittite and Other Anatolian Languages” (“’Prothetic vowels’ in Hittite and other Anatolian languages”, pp. 495–502), and others.

This collection of articles is not only a fine tribute to the renowned Polish linguist, a scholar of remarkably broad interests and a man fondly remembered, but also a substantial contribution to those branches of philology with which Jan Safarewicz was closely associated; 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 Šarkanis, once remarked that for Latgalians¹ it is easier to learn Lithuanian 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 Latvian dialect. Yet they are in a sense our brothers, sharing not only a common origin but also a common fate. Like most Lithuanians, they are Catholics. Quite a number of Lithuanian-born priests 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 publish in the Latin alphabet. Lithuania’s “school of hardship” corresponds exactly to the Latgalian “moates skola pi ratina” (“mother’s school at the spinning wheel”). And in their government schools there hung a notice: “По латышски говорить строго воспрещается”.

The publication “Baltu filoloģija. V. Rakstu krājums” (ed. Dz. Paegle. Riga, 1995), issued by the University of Latvia’s departments of Baltic Languages and Latvian Literature, is devoted essentially to the Latgalian question. Some of the articles published here are papers presented at the traditional conference held on March 18, 1994, in memory of the distinguished Latvian linguist Arturs Uozuols (Ozols, 1912–1964); the topic this time was “Latgale and the Latvian language of Latgale.”

The articles published separately in this volume are also of interest to researchers of the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian history. For historians, E. Mugu-revičius’s article “Written Sources and Archaeological Evidence on the Early History of the Latgalians” (“Rakstītie avoti un archeoloģijas materiāli par latgaļu senāko vēsturi”, pp. 7–12) is undoubtedly of interest. It discusses the Russian chronicles’ Norova (Neroma,

¹ specifically uses the term latgalietsi ‘Latgalians’, since the term latgali ‘Latgalians’ in scholarly literature denotes the ancient Baltic tribe, which 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 Šarkanis. Lithuania in the World, 1995, 3, 18.

218

Morava), which was tentatively associated with the Neuri of ancient authors and with our Neris, while others regard it as a copyists’ error for Lotowa. Henry the Latvian (13th century), in his “Chronicle of Livonia,” uses the names of the Latvians and Latgalians as synonyms: “Lethos, qui proprie dicuntur Lethigalli” (“the Letts, who are properly called Latgalians”). It is thought that from the 17th century onward, the Latgalians were already called Latvians.

Among the works especially deserving the attention of language historians is A. Stafecka’s article “The course and present state of standardization of the Latgalian written language” (“Latgaliešu rakstu valodas normēšanas gaita un stāvoklis mūsdienās”, pp. 18—23). The author notes that alongside standard (literary) Latvian, which developed on the basis of the Latvian Lowland dialect (lejaslatviešu), a second written tradition of Latvian has existed for almost three centuries, based on the Latgalian varieties of the Latvian Highland dialect. This is the Latgalian written language, which “having endured a second ban on the press³, is being reborn.” S. Stafecka offers specific proposals for reforming contemporary Latgalian. She proposes enriching it with dialect vocabulary, “reviving” certain morphological forms, establishing phonetic features that are more widely used in the dialects, and so on.

From I. Kristovska’s article “A look at 19th-century Latgalian grammars” (“Ieskats 19. gs. latgaliešu gramatikās”, pp. 13—17), we learn that the first Latgalian grammar was published in Vilnius in 1817, with a print run of 400 copies. According to some, its author was J. Akelēvičius; according to others, J. Rimkevičius. One of the two known 19th-century Latgalian manuscript grammars is kept in Vilnius, at the Martynas Mažvydas Library. It was written in 1817. The author is unknown⁴.

L. Leikuma’s article “The Latvian language of Latgale at school” (“Latgales latviešu voloda skolā”, pp. 24—33) presents many interesting facts. Around 1625 (no later than 1628), the Jesuits founded the first school in Latgale, in Daugavpils. From 1757 to 1844, a Theological Seminary operated in Krāslava, the most important cultural center in Latgale at the time. In 1907, the first parish school was opened in Rēzekne, where not only religion but other subjects as well were taught in Latgalian. In 1923, at the direction of the Ministry of Education’s Schools Department, all subjects in Latgale schools were taught in Latgalian during the first two years; “the literary dialect of the state language is taught from the third year of study.” Since 1989, a special course, “Latgalian Written Language,” has been taught at the Faculty of Philology of the University of Latvia (since 1994, this course has been taught in Latgalian). The Latgalian press is reviving. However, the native language (or dialect) of this region is only making its way into Latgale schools very hesitantly. As an interesting detail in this article, it should be mentioned that F. Trasuns, encouraged by Lithuanian seminarians, together with J. Višnevsk’s, began teaching Latgalian to seminarians from Latgale at the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary in 1884.

Also related to the subject of Latgale are O. Bušs’s article “Latgalian place names in standard Latvian. Problems” (“Latgales vietvārdi latviešu literārajā valodā. Problēmas”, pp. 34—37) and V. J. Zep’s article “On Latgalian place names in Endzelīns’s Selected Works” (“Par Latgales vietvārdiem

³ Here the author means that from 1934, nearly only standard Latvian was introduced in Latgale schools. In 1938, the newspaper “Latgolas Škola” ceased to exist, and the Second World War and Soviet rule brought the Latgalians a second, albeit unofficial, ban on the press.

⁴ B r e i d a k s A. Anonims latgalīšu gramatikas manuskripts. — Katōļu Dzēive, 1990, No. 8, 34.

219

Endzelīns’s Selected Works,” pp. 38—39).

Among the articles on other subjects published in the volume, one would first like to draw attention to P. Vanags’s article “The origin of the text of the 1586 Latvian catechism” (“1586. gada latviešu katehisma teksta izcelsme”, pp. 52—62), which provides a meticulous analysis of the sources of this monument of the Latvian language.

Other articles published here may also be of interest to Lithuanian language researchers: M. Rudzytė’s “On the lexicon of the Braslav dialect” (“Par braslaviešu leksiku”, pp. 40—43), V. Rūke-Draviņa’s “Old fences in Northern Vidzeme around Valmiera” (“Senie žogi Ziemeļvidzemē ap Valmieru”, pp. 44—51), A. Rēķena’s “Features of verb forms in J. W. Goethe’s translation of “Faust”” (“Verba formu īpatnības J. V. Gētes “Fausta” atdzejojumā”, pp. 63—71), A. Kalnača’s “The category of tense in Latvian grammars” (“Laika kategorija latviešu gramatikās”, pp. 72—80), and J. Grigorjevs’s “The acoustic characteristics of vowels in standard Latvian” (“Latviešu literārās valodas patskaņu akustisks raksturojums”, pp. 81—83).

P. Vanags reviews a new edition of Adolphijo’s Latvian grammar (1685), prepared by the Australian linguist T. G. Fennell. He also provides a very detailed overview of Lithuanian linguistic literature from 1993—1994. L. Baluodė writes about the international seminar “Lithuanian Studies at Universities around the World,” held at Vilnius University in 1994, and the conference “Lithuania-Latvia: Past, Present, Future,” held in Kaunas that same year at Vytautas Magnus University. A. Stikanė reports on the activities of the Latvian Philologists’ Society, T. Karma on a conference held at the University of Tartu on issues concerning the written languages of the peoples of the Baltic region, and S. Kļaviņia on a seminar held in Riga, “Language and Technology in Europe after 2000: A Baltic Perspective.”

The memory of the distinguished Latvian linguist Alysė Launa (1914—1994) is honored.

Algirdas Sabaliauskas

SYNTAX OF LATVIAN FOLK SONGS

At last, we have received the monograph “Lettische Syntax: die Dainas”¹ (Latvian Syntax: (Folk) Songs), written several decades ago by the distinguished Latvian linguist Alfreds Gāters. Based on a very extensive body of folk-song material, it provides a detailed analysis of the morphosyntax of the language of Latvian folk songs. A. Gāters is the only researcher to have devoted a separate, substantial work to the syntax of Latvian folk songs (the analytical and synthetic parts of the book together comprise 648 pages).

A brief note about the author of this work. A. Gāters was born on April 24, 1921, in Spyvuli, in the Kalnciems district of northeastern Latvia. After graduating from the Madona Gymnasium in 1941, he studied Germanic philology and Indo-European linguistics in 1942—

¹ Gāters A. Lettische Syntax: die Dainas. Herausgegeben von Hildegard Radtke. Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; New York; Paris; Wien: Lang, 1993. 679 p.

220