Raštų leksikos pateikimas didžiajame „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXIII (1995) GRAMATIKA IR LEKSIKOLOGIJA MARIUS DAŠKUS PRESENTATION OF WRITTEN-RECORD LEXIS IN THE GREAT “DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE” This article seeks to discuss several principles of lexicographic work. 1.0. The lexis presented in dictionaries is, in a sense, brought up to date and incorporated into contemporary culture. Whatever their type—historical, etymological, or dialect dictionaries—the words included in them, whether long forgotten, used by someone at least once, or newly coined, become part of our present-day culture. These words are presented according to certain rules and, where necessary, standardized; only then do they begin to function in contemporary usage. Only forms presented and approved in a dictionary subsequently find their way into written texts—scholarly, journalistic, etc. 1.1. First, spelling is established; without it, linguistic facts cannot be presented systematically. Headwords do not reflect and cannot reflect the history of spelling. Specialized dictionaries—historical, etymological, etc.—for which original spelling is important, give specific spellings after the headword or in an illustration. Only when compiling a narrow dialect dictionary (of a single speech variety) is it possible to present headwords in phonetic transcription. Even in this case, however, Lithuanian lexicography is dominated by transcription using the spelling of the standard language (abbreviated as bk) (cf. DūnŽ, DrskŽ, etc.). 1.2. In a general-purpose dictionary, the terminological diversity of the Lithuanian language must be presented on a single basis. In Lithuanian lexicology, dialectal forms are transposed according to their phonetic equivalents in the standard language. The most important thing here is to determine which dialect the word belongs to, correctly identify its sound correspondences, and replace them without changing its morphological form. This is often quite difficult, since dialect morphology is complex. There are cases in which transposition is unnecessary: for example, in a dialect dictionary, headwords can be given in the form in which they are used in the dialect. Other dictionaries apply the principle of transposing dialectal forms. 1.3. Contemporary dictionaries include words not only from dialects but also from other, older dictionaries, old written sources, and literary works. The forms found in them vary considerably, owing to the different dialectal bases of the written sources, the authors’ choices, and editors’ corrections. Words from written sources, like those from dialects, need to be standardized on a single basis—in other words, a dictionary’s structure should be systematic. 2.0 The presentation of lexis from written sources depends on the type of dictionary. Since Lithuania has no historical or etymological dictionaries, nor any dictionary of the lexis of old written sources, problems concerning the presentation of written sources must be addressed with reference to the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.” It is to be hoped that these observations, formulated as principles, will help in compiling other dictionaries as well. 231 2.1. A clear dialect form found in old writings should, like dialect forms recorded from living speech, be transposed according to its standard-language equivalent. The LKŽ contains quite a number of cases in which dialect forms from older writings are presented without transposition, with references to transposed forms or alongside transposed forms. Such untransposed forms are an unnecessary surplus. The distinctive dialect features of one source or another can also be reflected after the headword (that is a separate question). Cf.: the Žalininkai form x klėštarius SD91, SD297 LKŽ VI 63 alongside the transposed x klėštorius (l. klesztor) Al, OZ25 LKŽ VI 63; 1x kalioti SD128 = kolioti KLŽ V 140 (the compiler of the “First Lithuanian Dictionary” also hesitated, giving klėštarius in the word index (p. 748), but kalinti (dial. — and recorded in dialect form — kylė (A.J. II 112); the Aukštaitian form with un < an: kunkarežis (dial.) SD367 LKŽ VI 898; monophthongization ai, ei < a, e in Samogitian and Prussian Lithuanian: 1 ladyti N, [K] = laidyti LKŽ VII 9; kunigakštis R = kunigaikštis; kunigakštystė R = kunigaikštystė LKŽ VI 893; karvatė (=karvaitė) R234, N LK= V 354; kelatis (dial. kelaitis) N see kelias LKŽ V 504; knevoti (dial.) S.Dauk, J = kneivoti 1 LKŽ VI 220; dialect forms with mixed diphthongs instead of bk nasal vowels: génšė R, [K], Š, Enc VIII 1011, C II 150 LKŽ III 237 alongside gėšė J.Jabl, K.Būg, Grg LKŽ III 280; génžė Jn, génžė J, Mc LKŽ III 239 alongside gėžė Kv, Rt, Mc, J.Jabl LKŽ III 281; lenšė BB2Sam 17, P, MŽ327, K II 31, lenšis K, lenšvikis LBŽ LKŽ VII 359 alongside lėsis LKŽ VII 380; sklensti M LKŽ XII 983, ránšis (dial.) M LKŽ XI 174. In writings from Lithuania Minor, forms with confused o — uo, ė — ie (a dialect feature) are frequent, so the following were left un-restored: x kripbomis K II 24 LKŽ VI 610 (= kripbuomis); 2 komet R, N LKŽ VI 319 (= kuomet); kókštas N, K I 223 LKŽ VI 303 (= kuokštas); kela N = kielė LKŽ V 504; 1 kelė N = kielė LKŽ V 506 (here e denotes ė). These forms are given inconsistently, alongside numerous transposed forms; cf., for example, Prussian writings pašli(u)odnimas (orig. pašliodnumas) K I 13 LKŽ IX 577—578, pašli(u)odnas (orig. pašliodnas) Mit I 391 LKŽ IX 578, pašli(u)onùmas K II 153 (orig. pašlionùmas), NdŽ LKŽ IX 578; Aukštaitian forms with an restored (dial. un): kankos (orig. kunkos SD312) LKŽ V 217, 1 kanką SD 312, 337 LKŽ V 210; x kankinis [K], N (from kunkinė SD138 = lunkinė) LKŽ V 213; also ū-nininkas pronunciation: sriekšlės G111 (orig. srykles) LKŽ XIII 582, and so on. Sometimes it is difficult to transpose a word without knowing the dialectal (and orthographic) features of the writings from which it was taken. Our old writings have not yet been studied sufficiently, and this therefore poses many problems for lexicographers. For example, if the compilers had known that the great majority of words in Miežinis’s dictionary have mixed diphthongs instead of the standard language’s nasal vowel, they would have transposed sklensti LKŽ XII 983 and ránšis LKŽ XI 174 more carefully. After all, Miežinis’s kensas, szvensti, sprensti, anžulas, ražyties and the like are restored in the LKŽ, e.g.: 1 spręsti 1. M LKŽ XIII 206, rąžytis M LKŽ XI 342, etc. 2.2. Transposed and untransposed (dialect) forms of a word should not be presented in a dictionary as separate headwords (even with a reference to the transposed form). Doing so creates undesirable duplicates, e.g.: kadunagi SD423 LKŽ V 46 and 1 kadángi SD 423, B, MŽ350, K LKŽ V 42; ižumbis, -ė 232 SD379, įžūmbiai SD387 LKŽ VI 288 and įžambis, -ė SD379, įžambiai SD379 LKŽ IV 282—283; krumstus SD86 LKŽ VI 704, krumtus SD387 LKŽ VI 705 and kramstūs SD86 LKŽ VI 414, kramtūs SD387 LKŽ VI 417; kėntingas (dial.) SD30 LKŽ V 821 and kėntingas SD30, SE227, SD174 LKŽ V 572; kremzlė (dial.) SD27, J, Vaižg LKŽ VI 600 and kremzlė SD27, J LKŽ VI 524, and so on. 2.3. When presenting a word from writings, it is necessary to distinguish clearly between a dialect form that should be transposed and a neologism, borrowing, or nonstandard form that entered the writings at the author’s discretion. For example, lėkna adj. M, BzF135 LKŽ VII 303 is questionable, given that alongside it there is liekna adj. (1) SInt, NdŽ, Ms, Sr, Žd “a low, damp place without bushes” LKŽ VIII 417. Here, A. Panašių (D.D.)... (G94) gives the form lėkna, recorded in the donininkai area (Plikiai, Priekulė). Thus we have a dialectal variant of the word liekna. The abbreviation BzF135 should therefore be listed under liekna. This is an example of how insufficient study of the writings complicates lexicographers’ work. The form in Miežinis’s dictionary, lėkna (masculine in Miežinis!), remains unexplained by the dictionary’s dialect features. Apparently Miežinis took the Latvian form lekņs “wet, damp” (leknums “a wet place”) and included it in his dictionary in a somewhat Lithuanianized form. Such a word should be presented without corrections, since it is an individual formation; cf. here also 2x lopas (Latv. lops) S.Dauk “cattle” LKŽ VII 648. Regarding the form 2 guonė Ser LKŽ III 739, K.Būga wrote that it was a word coined by J.Elisonas, absent from Lithuanian dialects (RR II 23). Such individual “neologisms” should be appropriately characterized so that they are not confused with folk words. Taip pat reikėtų elgtis su tokiom formom, kaip gongagalvis, -ė smob. A 1885, 225(Bs) LKŽ III 482. K.Būga taip aprašė šio žodžio gimimą: ”Jonas Basanavičius 1885 metų ”Auszroje” (p. 225) iš gongalvio, negerai jo padalyto į sudėtines dalis (gong[ia]-galvis, užuot gon[ia]-galvis) ištraukė nesamą ir mūsų kalboje net nė negalimą gongį gonio vietoje” (RR II 23). Jeigu pateikiame tokius ”naujadarus”, reikia būti nuosekliems, ir šalia gongagalvio pateikti gongį! Only words characteristic of particular authors and unattested in other writings should be given in the dictionary without changes, e.g.: naujukynas see naujokynas: S.Dauk, naujukystė M.Valanč, P LKŽ VIII 592; kočios K, K I 684 LKŽ VI 283, and so on. 2.4. All these principles also apply to lexicon drawn from original literary works. Dialect forms (when their identity has been established) are transposed into the standard language. Thus, the following forms should not be included in the LKŽ: sklidėnti LzP alongside sklydėnti End LKŽ XII 994, sklydúoti NmŠ, Als, Kl LKŽ XII 996 (sklidúoti J is an untransposed form), where i < y in an unstressed position; kėmelis J.Balt alongside 1 kėmelis Skp, Sl, Pl LKŽ 556, here a Kupiškėnai form in which stressed e > ė; jūdstrazdis (dial.) D.Pošk, jūduarnis, jūdžemis D.Pošk LKŽ IV 372—373 — these are Dunininkai forms; kviekšti Žem LKŽ VI 1084 alongside kvėkšti Užv, Vdk, Kal, Krš, Plt, LKŽ VI 1064, where the Samogitian form with ie < ė has been retained, and so on. Authors’ or editors’ neologisms and variously corrected forms may be included in the dictionary unchanged. This would reflect the history of editing, e.g.: brązguolis Vaižg LKŽ I 1025. Geographical distribution shows that the dialects have only brūzguolis 233 Čk, Lš, Šmk, J, Nmn, etc. LKŽ I 1102. The first form is a fact of written texts, a completely new form engendered by them. It would be worth presenting it as an individual neologism. 3. This article sought to show how many problems dictionary authors face when encountering older writings and attempting to interpret their lexicon. A few of the principles outlined should help systematize this rather disparate area of lexicographic work. 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 Standard 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 always carried out quite accurately. There was a tendency to leave these forms untransposed. In this article the presentation of the dialectal forms is being discussed. The author proposes the systematical transposition without any exeption. 234