Etimologinis latvių kalbos žodynas

toyamas with the third (hence "getrai") and fourth meanings of LKŽ, cf. Polkamasze, pūsaukles (Vol. 2, p. 474) —French. half-hexagons; - No, no, no, no, no, no. or karejwio czebats (T. 2. P. 22) —fr. cuissard "thigh, part of armor covering the leg"); also Daukanto "Būdo" sentence wytoro sau stajbius wilnonomis tejpat joudomis aukliemis nu kolkszniū lig pat kėliū (P. 40). It can also be compared with the entry in Daukant- 's notes on the dictionary of F. Nesselmann (Nesselmann). Aukle, pl. aukles f. (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 1961. T. 4. P. 313), where S. Daukantas corrected only the form Auklys given by Nesselmann, but did not correct the meaning, and Nesselmann indicated the following meaning: blau und schwarz gestre:fte wollene Būnder, welche die Frauen stait der Strimpfe um thre Waden wickeln "blue and black stre:fte wollene bands, which women wrap around their calves instead of stockings”. Therefore, Daukanto nannies should not be given the meaning "shoes". In 1992 the Riga publishing house "Avots" published a two-volume etymological dictionary of the Latvian language (Latviešu etimoloģijas vardnica. I. A-O. II. P-Ž. Riga "Avots"). The scientific editor of the dictionary is the St. Petersburg linguist Nikolai Andreev. The reviewers are Simas Karaliūnas from Vilnius and Vladimiras Toporovas from Moscow. In 1993, the work was defended in Riga as a doctoral dissertation. Of course, this is an extraordinary event in Baltic linguistics: such a work has long been awaited not only by Latvian, but also by Lithuanian linguists, as well as by Baltists from other countries in general. So far, the best source of Latvian etymologies has been Janis Endzelins' notes in Karl Mulenbach's Latvian Dictionary and supplements to this dictionary (Latviešu valodas vardnica. Red., pp., continued by J. Endzelins. I-IV. Riga, 1923—1932; Endzelins J., Hauzenberga E. Addendums and corrections to K. Miilenbach's Latvian language dictionary. I-II. Riga, 1934-1946). A short etymological dictionary of the Latvian language was published by Nikolajs Lapinis (Latviešu vārdā etimoloģija. I-III. Riga, 1967—1975). It is known that in the 1870s, the author of the first scientific grammar of Latvian language, Latvian linguist of German origin, pastor of Duobele Augusts Bylenšteins (Bielenstein, 1827—1907), was preparing to write an etymological dictionary of Latvian language. Before the Second World War, the famous Latvian publisher Ansis Gulbis was determined to publish an etymological dictionary. Endzelynas had even recommended the linguist Žanas Graudas (1896—1971) for this work. In the last decades, Benjamin Jegers, a student of the universities of Riga and Göttingen, who later taught in Sweden and the United States of America, perhaps worked most successfully in the field of Latvian etymology. However, this linguist, who mainly earned his living from German studies, unfortunately did not have the conditions to devote himself solely to the study of the etymology of the Latvian language. Of course, a particularly good support for writing an etymological dictionary of the Latvian language is E. Fraenkeli's "Lietuvių kalbos etymologinis žodynas" (Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch. For people less familiar with Latvian culture, the personality of the author of the dictionary annotated here may cause some surprise. Konstantinas Karulis (b. 1915) studied law at the University of Latvia from 1932 to 1942. Since 1931, he has published articles in popular Latvian newspapers and magazines. Not so long ago, we read in the Latvian press his interesting memories as a Latvian journalist about the turmoil of political life in Berlin on the eve of the Second World War. In 1934, K. Karulis published his first book. During World War II he taught. In 1944 he was mobilized to the famous Latvian Legion. He spent the years 1945—1947 in the Far East… After returning to Riga, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of the University of Latvia. He worked as a lawyer at the Academy. He taught stenography in various courses. From 1957 to 1964 he worked at the Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. In 1959, he defended his dissertation on the history of Latvian stenography. From 1964 to 1975 he worked at the Fundamental Library of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. He published several books, of which the most noteworthy are "Latvian Book in the Centuries" (Latviešu gramata gadsimtu gaita, Riga, 1967), "Janis Reiters and his Translation" (Janis Reiters un vina tulkojums, Riga, 1986). Together with others he prepared a general dictionary of Latvian language (Latviešu valodas vardnica. Riga, 1987). He has written many articles on the history of the Latvian language, stenography, bibliography, and published reviews of linguistic works. In the last few decades, however, 1955—1965). he has devoted most of his time to the preparation of his etymological dictionary. In fact, it is probably strange that in these times of narrow 186 specialization a lawyer and a journalist decided to do such a job. By the way, we could remind you that Ernest Klein, the author of one of the most comprehensive etymological dictionary of the English language (A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, I-II, Amsterdam, London, New York, 1966—1967), is also not a Germanist, but a specialist in Semitic languages and literature, a prominent Jewish priest. Of course, when evaluating any work, the first thing to look at is not who wrote it, but how it was written. Let’s hope that Latvian linguists will evaluate K. Karolis’s dictionary in detail. However, this work is also very useful for specialists of Lithuanian language, especially its history. First of all, what has been achieved so far in this field of Baltic linguistics is presented and critically evaluated. The strong point of this work is perhaps the history of words. It is very important that in this dictionary in many cases it is explained who created one or another Latvian word (especially often we come across the surnames of J. Alunam, A. Kronvalds), where it was used for the first time. The etymological literature is also abundant. In the dictionary, K. Karulis has marked his original interpretations with a special mark. These interpretations may give rise to doubts. However, etymology is a field of linguistics where there is always a lot of doubt. At the end of the dictionary there is also a large study "Indo-European languages and etymology", which discusses such problems as: the Indo-European language family, the Indo-European ancestry, Baltic and Slavic relations, the prehistory of the Baltic peoples, the Indo-European protolanguage, the phonetic system of Indo-European languages, its changes in the Latvian language, the tasks and methods of etymology, the history of etymological researches in the Latvian language, etc. With this study, the author apparently wanted to make his work more accessible not only to linguists, but also to an otherwise larger group of readers, people who are at least slightly interested in their native language. The work of Konstantins Karūlis is the first etymological dictionary of the Latvian language. 187 nas, which in many cases is interesting and useful for Lithuanian language researchers. After all, it summarizes many decades of research into the Latvian language lexicon, and even the shortcomings or errors of this dictionary will be a stimulus for further research. Fennell T. G. The First Latvian Grammar J. G. Rehehusen's "Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam...". A fac-simile Text with annotated translation and commentary. Latvian Tertiary Committee. Melbourne 1982. —369 p. Seventeenth Century Latvian Grammatical Fragments. Text, translation and commentary. Latvian Tertiary Committee. Melbourne 1982. —322 p. Georg Dreszell’s Gantz short guide to the Latvian language. Text, Translation, Commentary, Concordance. Latvian Tertiary Committee. Melbourne 1984. —452 p. The Australian linguist Trevor G. Fennell, communicating with the children of Latvian emigrants in his childhood, probably never thought that this friendship on the school bench, the first active Latvian language lessons, would determine his future career as a scientist. It is probably possible to say that in the history of Latvian linguistics we will not find any other linguist who has worked so much in Latvian bars as T. G. Fennell. Suffice it to recall his three-volume textbook of Latvian language "A Grammar of Modern Latvian" (Vol. 1—3, The HagueParis-New York, 1980. 1370 Pr numerous articles on the history of the Latvian language. However, T. G. Fennell deserved particularly much to Latvian linguists by publishing and researching the ancient monuments of the Latvian language. I would like to introduce you to three such publications. In the first book is published the first grammar of the Latvian language published in 1644 — Johann Georg Rehehusen's "Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam", which, according to T. G. Fennello, "despite all its shortcomings, is very interesting for scholars interested in the genesis and evolution of the grammar theory of the Latvian language". This publication is of great importance, since only one original copy is known to date, which is kept in the University Library of Uppsala. In 1901, August Bylenštejn published this grammar.- But he prepared it from the corresponding transcripts and, of course, could not avoid certain shortcomings. This time the facsimile text of the grammar is published alongside the English translation. Below are very detailed commentaries, a register of all Latvian words. The title words are presented in the current Latvian spelling (noun forms of nouns, verbs). They are also translated into English, their forms are registered (the original spelling is given). Such a register will one day be very useful for the future historical Latvian dictionary 1 Plg. Blinkena A. Latvian grammar from a foreigner's point of view. —ZA Vėstis, 1982, 4. P. 135—137; Schmalstieg VW. R. (Rec.) —General Linguistics, 1982. V. 22, No. 2. P. 139-142. 188