A. Mejė apie „Aistiškus studijus“

J. KARACIEJUS A. MEJĖ ABOUT,,AISTISTIŠKUS STUDIJUS“ The first part of K. Booga’s,,Aistiškų studijų“ (Aististic Studies), published in 1908, in which the author outlined the main statements of his teacher K. Jaunius, received not only one praise, signed with the cryptonym N (see,,Draugija®, 1908, No. 17, pp. 83—85), but also two comparatively negative reviews: one by J. Endzelynas (printed in the publication,,Anzeiger der Finnisch-ugrischen Forschungen“, Helsingfors—Leipzig, IX, H. 1, pp. 28—32; this review had a decisive effect on K. Booga’s renunciation of K. Jaunius’ teaching) and one by one of the most famous French linguists, A. Mejė (see,,Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris“, LVII, pp. CLXXIII—CLXXIV). This shows that A. Meiė already followed and read the relatively sparse Lithuanian linguistic literature. It is now difficult to say what effect A. Meje’s review had on K. Buga’s decision not to publish the second part of the Aesthetical Studies and to decide to write and publish an auto-criticism of the first part, but the content of the review was undoubtedly known to K. Buga. In the manuscript of the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute of the MA of the LTSR there is an imprint of A. Mejė’s review (Signature F 2—770) with the stamp of the Paris Linguistic Society. Although, as we have already mentioned, A. Mejė’s review is not positive, but knowing how all his life K. Būga cherished the truth of science (cf.,,The autocritique of Aistiškos studijos” and his letter to J. Endzelyn dated January 14, 1911, in which K. Būga thanks the Latvian linguist for the criticism of one of his articles —K. Būga RR, vol. 3, p. 837), we believe that the strict evaluation of the great French linguist,,Aistiškos studijos” does not diminish in the least K. Būga’s merits for linguistics. Since the review written in French is less known to the Lithuanian reader and in Lithuania, it can be said, is a bibliographical rarity, we print its Lithuanian translation (translated by J. Karaciejus). | Kazimieras Bogus Aistiški studio, part I. (Kasimir Buga, Aistic Studies. Beitridge on the Comparative Grammar of the Prussian, Latvian and Lithuanian Languages. Petersburg, 1908, in-8°; XVI—216 p. (price: 3 rubles). Except for the parallel title and parallel content in German, the whole book is written in Lithuanian. The author is a student of the late Jaunius, to whose memory the work is dedicated. He is not inclined to adhere to traditional terms and, borrowing the name of the people used by Tacitus and Ptolemy, without hesitation ventures to call the Indo-European Baltic peoples — Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians — Aists; so he, avoiding ambiguity, uses a name that no one will understand. He [the author] quotes a fairly extensive bibliography, but there is no mention of F. de Saussure. This first part, after a few general remarks on the Baltic languages, has a study of the Baltic vocalism, clearly but vaguely titled Ablautas. The author is fluent in Lithuanian language, the work could be very useful. 50 ir jo But he does not want to obey any phonetic regularity, teaching will spread to ir jo compatriots a kind of jo error. There are many etymologies in the book, but most [of them] are clearly false in both form and meaning; about it we will have an understanding if we know that B[ūga] unwaveringly aligns liet. kruim ‘,buisson’ (su #, u ilgu) Gr. su rpduvų, s. sl. kriima ‘,poupe’ (p. 188). He claims that Į in the old Prussian [word] gelatynan has become [conjunct] ela, and in the Lithuanian [word] geltas [conjunct] el, and it seems to him that sl. s. žlitu existence is no doubt be sufficient proof of affirmation, so here are jo only examples of many cases, o accepted by B[ūga] with proof of this power or even du less. Among iš the */ comparisons already raised, the most questionable are those which he [Buga] uses very lustfully; The distribution of y, and x in the word yax)x6c makes the comparison of yodxés with s.sl quite unbelievable. žėlėza, lit. iron, gelžis and s. prussian gelso,,fer*; the most reliable is that the name of the Slavs on the one hand, the Baltic — on the other, whose form differs considerably, were borrowed from some unknown language, as the name of the Slavic silver sirebro, for which we meet in the Baltic and Germanic [languages] approximate unabridged equivalents of the Slavic k[alb] form, p. 16, p. 129 and elsewhere, B[ūga] tries to combine yahxéc and iron; Bezzenberger, who refuses to give up [such] comparison, recently called it “unmodern” (K. Z., XLII, p. 387). There is no evidence that the Indo-European language of the peoples who spoke the proto-Indo-European language was known to the peoples who spoke the Indo-European language. Given a brief overview of Lithuanian dialectology B[ūga] would have done a great service. It is to be regretted that he preferred to write a work of comparative grammar in Lithuanian, without having knowledge of the strict method, which is mandatory. A. Meillet