Naudinga žymaus mūsų kraštiečio knyga

LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS QUESTIONS, XXX (1993) PERIFERICAL LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE DIARCHEMS USEFUL BOOK OF ONE OF OUR FAMOUS COMMANDERS Recently a consignment of books ("The Bulgarian Literary Language of the Revival Period"! and "Bulgarist Studies"?) with Lithuanian dedications arrived from Moscow from Grigorijus Venediktovas, a linguist, Slavist, famous Bulgarian language researcher, PhD in philology, for Lithuanian linguists (specifically for the language historian Dr. A. Sabaliauskas). Of these two books, the first is more interesting and accessible to our reader, but the second is more exotic, written in Bulgarian, which the author himself presents in a card with New Year's greetings as follows: "I received only a few copies of the book "bwarapucruann cryAnu" from Bulgaria. Sent to you perhaps the only one in my homeland Lithuania. Your Mr. Venediktov." The scholar, who speaks and writes beautiful Lithuanian, was born and grew up in Northern Lithuania, near Obeliai, attended the local elementary school and finished secondary school in Vilnius in the 1940s. Therefore, the author jokingly says that he learned Lithuanian first and only then Russian. He graduated from Moscow University with a degree in Bulgarian. Now G. Venediktov is the author of many books, one of the most prominent historians of the Bulgarian language. The Soviet Union. The object of his studies is the problem of standardization of the Bulgarian common language during the period of national revival. Many of the problems he has already discussed in a series of articles ir tų "From the contemporary history of the Bulgarian literary language" . Lithuania ir Bulgaria is linked by many parallels of history and ir other direct and indirect ar interconnections. Both are central European states, both 19th century a. began to be ruled by iš foreign yoke: Bulgarians iš Turkish power Greek ir spiritual oppression, Lithuanians 0 tsarist iš Russian ir Polish spiritual yoke. How In Lithuania, the language of ir science, literature, religion was customary to consider the Polish language, In Bulgaria, the Greek language had the same function. The Patriarch of the ir Lithuanian National Revival left a significant mark in the revival culture of both nations, Bulgarian and Lithuanian. J. Basanavičius. A prominent Bulgarian folklorist ir J. Venelin dar 1825 m. by nationality tried to count ir Lithuanian residents. 1877-1878 m. in the fights for Many Lithuanians iš laid their heads on the side of the Russian Bulgarians in the liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish yoke. This is seen iš 1 Beneauxmose I". K. bonrapcxuū member r | Ų + parypunū A3K6K 3INOXH BO3poxAcine. IlpoGjiewis mw. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. M., “Tlayxa®TM. 1990. 206 c. 4:. 2 Beveauxmos I". Buuwapnerwum cry sm. Copua. 1990. 242 c. 270 3 Beneauxmos I". K. Ws KCTOpHH Cospementiono Goarapexoro smreparypuoro saa. Codua. 1981. Cc, 218 The names of the defenders of the Balkan crossing at Šipka and Lithuanian prayer books remaining in the Šipka Museum". In addition to parallels in the history of the Lithuanian and Bulgarian nations, there are also considerable discrepancies caused by the specific circumstances of their development. It should be recalled that Bulgaria is the homeland of the ancient Church Slavic language, also known as the ancient Bulgarian language. In the 9th century, the Bulgarian script was adapted by the Bulgarian Baptists, the Greek monks Cyril and Methodius. After nearly five centuries of Turkish oppression, the Bulgarians had developed an immunity to resistance and stood up in the struggle for their mother tongue and freedom. The same czarist empire, which sought to rule the whole Slavic world and helped the Bulgarians to free themselves from the Turkish yoke, reserved for itself the right to protect a larger part of Bulgaria and continue to suffocate the Lithuanian nation. Many similarities (as well as differences) with the history of the Lithuanian national movement can be found in G. Venediktov’s works on the formation of the Bulgarian common language during the national revival. Until the beginning of the 19th century, religious texts in the Old Church Slavonic (or Old Bulgarian) were the dominant language. Initial secular literature appears in the late 18th century, and from the beginning of the 19th century there are more and more secular books written in the dialects of the present Bulgarian language (eastern or western). All of them actively awaken the Bulgarian self-consciousness, raise the need for the mother tongue. At the same time, more and more linguistic works appear, and there is a discussion about the basis on which a common Bulgarian language should be formed. In 1835, the first printed Bulgarian grammar was published by N. Pilski. In the same year, the first school in the native language opened in Gabrovo. The first Bulgarian newspaper was published in 1844. In 1865, the first Bulgarian dictionary was published in St. Petersburg by N. Gerov. The most lively national movement lasted from 1860 to 1878. In 1869, the Bulgarian Society of Friends of Science was founded, to which our J. Basanavičius later belonged. After Bulgaria gained broad autonomy, a university was founded in 1888. According to G. Venediktov, the common Bulgarian language was actually formed during the second and third quarters of the 19th century on the basis of the Eastern (or Balkan) dialect, since the majority of the scribes were from this area. G. Venediktov's book "The Bulgarian literary language of the Renaissance period (problems of standardization and choice of dialectal basis)" is very rich in factual material. The first chapter of the book mainly deals with the manifestations of the Bulgarian national movement and the conditions for the formation of the common language, the earliest directions and tendencies of the Bulgarian common language standardization. Separately discussed are G. Rakovski's attempt to create an archaic common language (with abundant elements of the ancient church Slavic language) and the dispute over the name of the Bulgarians themselve4 Iš to s, i.e. the ethnonym "Bulgarian, 3 Bulgarians- ". Lithuanian language dialects. Chrestomatija. V., "Mintis". 1970. P. 335. p 219 The second chapter of the book is mainly devoted to the discussion of the development of more important grammatical phenomena of the Bulgarian common language, especially the spelling and use of various morphemes and articles-like particles, various vowels and consonants. The third part, covering half of the book, is devoted to the problems of choosing the dialectal basis of the Bulgarian common language of the Revival era. First, the classifications of dialects of the time are introduced: Eastern Bulgarians (also called Bulgarian highlanders, or Balkans — Eastern ir Vidurio Bulgaria ir Thrace) ir Western Bulgarians (sometimes referred to as Samogitian Bulgarians, or Macedonians and Shops—Southern and Western Bulgaria or Macedonia). The discussions on the choice of a common language base and the various criteria are discussed below. It was primarily a monolingual language. Some defend the basis of the Eastern Bulgarian dialect, others of the Western, and others propose to rely on the synthesis of these dialects. The author methodically discusses the arguments for and against all these directions. The fact that the Bulgarian language was formed on the basis of the Eastern Bulgarian dialect was determined by the number of authors who wrote in that dialect and the number of books published, six times exceeding the authors of the Western Bulgarian regions. The book is written interestingly, innovatively, without outdated ideological stamps. With its rich material and methodology, G. Venediktovas’s book is valuable both for historians of the Lithuanian language and for all researchers of the Lithuanian national revival culture in general. It allows a broader and deeper look at the dramatic development of our region’s culture. Aloyzas Vidugiris