Raštų leksikos pateikimas didžiajame „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXIII (1995) GRAMMATICS IR PRESENTATION OF THE LEXIC OF MARIUS DAŠKUS WORKS IN THE LARGE "LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE DICTIONARY" In this article we would like to discuss some of the principles of dictionary work. 1.0. The vocabulary presented in the dictionaries is in a way updated, included in today’s culture. Whatever the dictionaries — historical, etymological, dialectical — the words that enter them — recently forgotten, at least once used by someone or created — become the identity of our current culture. These words are presented according to certain rules, if necessary — regulated, — and only then they begin to function in modern usage. Only the forms presented and approved in the dictionary are subsequently used in writings — scientific, publicistic, etc. 1.1. First, spelling is determined — otherwise it is impossible to present language facts in a systematic way. Title words do not reflect and cannot reflect the history of spelling. Specialized dictionaries—historical, etymological, etc.—for which the original spelling is important, provide specific entries under the heading or in an illustration. Only when creating a narrow dialect dictionary (of one or two speeches) is it possible to present the title words in phonetic transcription. Even in this case, our lexicography is dominated by the transcription of the spelling of the common language (cf. bk) (cf. DūnŽ, DrskZ, etc.). 1.2 The dialectal diversity of the Lithuanian language must be presented in a general dictionary on a single basis. In Lithuanian lexicology, dialectal forms are transposed according to their phonetic equivalents in the common language. Here the main thing is to determine what dialect this word is, to correctly find the corresponding sounds and replace them without changing the morphological form. This is often quite difficult because of the complex morphology of dialects. There are cases where transposition is not necessary, for example, in a dialect dictionary the title words can be presented in the form they are used in the dialect. In other dictionaries, the principle of transposition of dialectal forms is applied. 1.3 The current dictionaries contain words not only from dialects, but also from other, older dictionaries, ancient writings, fictional literature. The forms found in them are very diverse — here the influence of different dialectal basis of the writings, the authors' will, the editors' corrections. Words from scripts, as well as from dialects, should be presented organized on a single basis — in other words, the structure of the dictionary should be systematic. 2.0 The presentation of written vocabulary depends on the nature of the dictionary. Since there are neither historical, etymological, nor lexical dictionaries of ancient scripts in Lithuania, the problem of presenting the scripts has to be solved by referring to the great "Dictionary of the Lithuanian language". It is expected that these observations, which have been tried to be formulated as principles, will help in the preparation of other dictionaries. 231 2.1. The distinct dialects found in the ancient writings should be transposed ir as dialectal forms of the living language iš according to their equivalents in the common language. In the LCZ there are quite a number of cases where dialectal forms of older writings are presented untransposed iš with references transposed next to transposed forms. su į ar Such untransposed forms are an unnecessary balance. Reflecting the dialectal characteristics of one other ar source can be ir po heading (this is a separate question). E.g.: the form of a clamp x SD91, SD297 LKZ VI 63 next to transposed x klėštorius (1. klesztor) Al, OZ25 LKŽ VI 63; 1x kaliotes SD128 = colliotes KLŽ V 140 (in the two-week period) ir "The first dictionary of the Lithuanian language, which included klėštaris in the index of words" (p. 748), but imprisoned (m TAN)) smoke lr f OC 0 TTR Ca TT OD The RTE kos dictionary even refers — to gaji. — ir dialectally — pronounced kyle (A.J. II 112); Altay form with un < an: kunkarézis (dial.) SD367 LKZ VI 898; Zemaites and Prussian Lithuanian consonant ai, ei < a, e: 1 ladyti N, [K] = laidyti LKZ VII 9; kunigakstis R = princis; kunigakstysté R = duchy LKZ VI 893; karvaté (=karvaité) R234, N LK= V 354; kelatis (dial. kelaitis) N see kelias LKZ V 504; knevoti (dial.) S. Dauk, J = kneivoti 1 LKZ VI 220; dialectal forms with mixed diphthongs instead of bk nasal vowels: gēnšē R, [K], Š, Enc VIII 1011, C II 150 LKŽ III 237 next to gēšē J. Jabl, K. Būg, Grg LKZ III 280; gēnžē Jn, gēnžē J, Mc LKZ III 239 next to gēžē Kv, Rt, Mc, J. Jabl LKZ III 281; lerišē BB2Sam 17, P, MZ327, K II 31, lerišis K, lenšvikis LBZ LKZ VII 359 next to lēšis LKZ VII 380; sklensti M LKZ XII 983, rdnšis (dial.) M LKZ XI 174. Forms with confused o —uo, ė —ie (a dialectal feature) are common in the scripts of Lesser Lithuania, so they remained unrestored: x kripbomis K II 24 LKŽ VI 610 (=kripbuomis); 2 comet R, N LKŽ VI 319 (=when); blue-throated N, K I 223 LKŽ VI 303 (=blue-throated); keel N = keel LKZ V 504; 1 keel N = keel LKZ V 506 (noted here). These forms are presented non-systematically, alongside many transposed forms, e.g., Prussian writings pašliuodnūmas (orig. pašliodnumas) K I 13 LKŽ IX 577—578, pašliuodnas (orig. pašliodnas) Mit I 391 LKŽ IX 578, pašliuonūimas K II 153 (orig. pašlionūmas), NdŽ LKŽ IX 578; High Germanic forms with reconstructed an (tarm. un): kankos (orig. kunkos SD312) LKŽ V 217, 1 kanka SD 312, 337 LKZ V 210; x martyr [K], N (from kunkinė SD138 = lunkinė) LKZ V 213; also mud mining: srieklės G111 (orig. sryklės) LKZ XIII 582 and so on. Sometimes it is difficult to transpose a word without knowing the dialectal (and spelling) characteristics of the scripts from which it was taken. Our ancient writings have not yet been sufficiently studied, which poses many problems for dictionaries. For example, if the authors had known that In the dictionary of Barzens, the vast majority of words have mixed diphthongs instead of the nasal vowel of common language, they would have been more closely transposed to sound LKŽ XII 983 ir rancis LKŽ XI 174. Juk Barley kensas, szvensti, sprensti, anžulas, ražyties ir etc. LKŽ submitted for reconstr1 uction, e.g.: riešti 1. M LKZ XIII 206, Rezytis M LKŽ XI 342 ir kt 2.2. Transposed not ir transposed (dialectal) word forms are not suitable as separate headings in the dictionary (even su referenį ce transposed form). This results in unwanted duplicates, e.g. kadungi SD423 LKŽ V 46 ir 1 Whereas: SD 423, B, MŽ350, K LKŽ V 42; the inlet, -ė 232 SD379, jzumbiai SD387 LKZ VI 288 and jzariibis, -ė SD379, įžambiai SD379 LKŽ IV 282—283; krumstus SD86 LKŽ VI 704, krumtus SD387 LKŽ VI 705 and kramstūs SD86 LKŽ VI 414, kramstūs SD387 LKŽ VI 417; kintingas (dial.) SD30 LKŽ V 821 and kentingas SD30, SE227, SD174 LKŽ V 572; krimzlė (dial.) SD27, J, Vaižg LKŽ VI 600 and kremzlė SD27, J LKŽ VI 524 and so on. 2.3 When presenting a word from the writings, it must be clearly distinguished between the dialectal form, which is transposable, and the novelty, loan or irregular form, which has entered the writings by the author’s will. For example, there is a doubt about the flight of SF. M, BzF135 LKŽ VII 303, when next to it is a thin sf. (1) Sint, NdZ, Ms, Sr, Zd "low wet nigra bush" ha THT WITA17 Čin A Ronnankangrnis (N IT) Uri Bri VAT (G94) presented the form lėkna, which is recorded in the Donians area (Plikiai, Priekulė). So we have a dialectal variant of the word slim. Thus, the abbreviation BzF135 should be given next to slim. This is an example of how insufficient study of scripts makes the work of dictionaries difficult. It remains the form of the dictionary of Barziņš, which cannot be explained by the dialectal characteristics of the dictionary. Apparently, Miežinis took the Latvian form lekns "wet, damp" (leknums "wet place") and somewhat latinized it in his dictionary. Such a word should be given without corrections, since it is an individual construct, cf. here and 2x lopas (la. lops) S. Dauk "galvijas" LKŽ VII 648. About the form 2 guonė Ser LKŽ III 739 K. Būga wrote that it is a word created by J. Elison, which is not found in Lithuanian dialects (RR II 23). Such individual "novelties" need to be described accordingly, so that they are not confused with popular words. We should also deal with such forms as gonggalvis, -ė smob. 1885, pp. 225. K. Būga described the birth of this word as follows: "Jonas Basanavičius in 1885's "Auszra" (p. 225) extracted from the gongalvis, incorrectly divided into its component parts (gonglia]-- head, instead of gon[ia]-head), a nonsense and in our language even impossible gong instead of gonio" (RR II 23). If we present such "new things", we must be consistent and present the gong next to the gong head! In the dictionary without changes are provided only words typical of certain authors, not confirmed by other writings, e.g.: naujukynas zr. naujukynas: S. Dauk, naujukysteé M. Valané, P LKZ VIII 592; kėčios K, K I 684 LKZ VI 283 and so on. 2.4. All these principles apply to vocabulary taken from original fiction. Dialectal forms (when their identity is established) are transposed into common language. Therefore, the LKZs not to be presented are: scattered LzP next to scattered End LKZ XII 994, scattered NmS, Als, KI LKZ XII 996 (scattered J is an untransposed form), here i < y in an unpronounced position; seat J. Balt next to 1 seat Skp, SI, PI LKŽ 556, here Kupiškis form, where e > e is pronounced; jūdstrazdis (dial.) D. Pošk, jūdvarnis, jūdžemis D. Pošk LKŽ IV 372—373 —the forms of mudmen presented here; kviekšti Žem LKŽ VI 1084 next to kvėkšti Užv, Vdk, Kal, Krš, Plt, LKŽ VI 1064, here the Žemaičių form with ie < ė, etc. is preserved. The authors or editors of the dictionary may make changes or corrections to the dictionary. This would reflect the history of editing, e.g. brūzguolis Vaižg LKŽ I 1025. Geography shows that in dialects there is only a bruzgul Čk, Lš, Šmk, Nmn etc. 233 J, ir LKŽ I 1102. The first form is the fact of scripturjų e, born in a completely new form. It should be presented as an individual novelty. 3.This article aims to show how many problems dictionaries authors encounter when trying to interpret the vocabulary of older writings. Several principles mentioned should help to systematize this rather scattered field of lexicographic activity. THE PRESENTATION OF THE OLD WRITINGS VOCABULARY IN THE DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Summary The vocabulary of the old writings (including dictionaries) is an important part of the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (DLL). The spelling of dialectal words is presented in DLL by correlatives of their sounds in Standart Lithuanian. Transposition is carried out adhering to the phonetic laws of dialects on which the special features of the language of old writings and dictionaries are based. In the first volumes of DLL the transposition of old forms is not allways carried out guite accurately. There was a tendence to leave these forms untr osed. In this article the presentation of the dialectal forms is being discussed. The author proposes the systematical transposition without any exeption. 234