Kelios pastabos lietuvių XVI–XVII a. leksikos istorijai

SOCIAL LINGUISTICS PROBLEMS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XIX (1979) Zigmas ZINKEVIČIUS KELIOS REMARKS LITHUANIAN XVI-XVII a. Books in Lithuanian published in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 16th — 17th centuries have a dual dialectal basis. It is a written variant of the language that grew out of the eastern Altay dialect. This is K. The works of Širvydas, J. Jaknavičius,,Evangelium”, 1605 catechism, translation of Bellarmine catechism, etc. The language of others is based on the dialect of Central Lithuania at that time: M. Daukša’s writings, M. Petkevičius’ catechism, J. Morkūnas’ post, B. Chilinski’s Bible and other Reformed writings. The detailed dialectological localization of both dialects is unquestionable: the former were originated from the eastern Highland dialect of the inhabitants of Vilnius and its surroundings, the latter were based on the dialect of the Nevėžis lowland (Kėdainiai region) at that time [Zinkevičius Z., 1970 and 1972]. The fact that the writing was not created on the basis of the western Highland dialects, which do not have /prieš/ type vowels, the southern Highland dialects (at least those that use Dzūkija) and the Žemaičių dialects, shows that these dialects did not play a more important role at that time. Thus, before the beginning of writing, there must have been two spoken interdialects in Lithuania: the eastern, i.e. It is found in the surrounding areas of Vilnius, and in the middle, i.e. from the Nevėžis plains. These are the nuclei of the old Lithuanian state (Vilnius Highlands) and the Duchy of Žemaitija (Nevėžis Lowland). In fact, only the language of these places had a chance to take hold at that time. This dual spoken language was inherited by our writers from earlier times. But how did they proceed? Did they try to level the inherited difference, or did they deliberately create two written languages? We are accustomed to declaring only the first trend, i.e., to talk about “coordination with the whole of Lithuania,” “creation of a unified language,” etc. But in fact there was also the opposite tendency at that time: the attempt to create two writing languages, different for “Lietuva” (the eastern variant) and “Zemaičiai” (the middle variant). Human activity consists mainly of the creation of terminology. 16th-17th-century Lithuanian literature — religious. Let’s look at how Lithuanian religious terminology was developed at that time. Comparing the religious terms of the eastern and middle scripted variants of the language, we find many distinct differences. We would like to discuss them in more detail here. But first of all, it is necessary to distance oneself from religious terms borrowed from other languages. The oldest layer of these terms consists of religious terms, such as kalėdos, kūčios, eglutė, verba, krikštas, lent, kūmas (kiima), bažnyčia, utarnykas "tuesday", etc., which were obtained from the Eastern Slavs (Eastern rite Christians) who lived in a large part of the Lithuanian state at that time, even before the official Lithuanian baptism. These terms are used throughout the 16th — 17th century Lithuanian literature and in both variants of the language there is no difference in their form. They were acquired before these written languages were formed. nė The same is true of religious terms acquired during or shortly after baptism, mainly from Polish. There are some differences between the two languages, but they are more commonly spoken in the eastern and central parts of the country. But these differences are not marked and relatively small. Early Lithuanians began to express various religious concepts of Christianity in their own language. For this purpose, they adapted Lithuanian words from the past, giving them the necessary more special meaning, or created new ones. It is now difficult to distinguish them from each other, especially since we do not have a comprehensive historical dictionary of Lithuanian language. 119 It should be noted that the Lithuanian religious terms differed considerably in both variants of the script from the very beginning of writing. Other words were used for the same purpose. There is no clearer effort to harmonize. If we sometimes see such efforts, it usually turns out that there is a trace of Prussian Lithuanian writings, written in a written language formed on the basis of the local western Highland dialect. Let us consider some of the more important religious terms used in the Eastern and Middle scripture. For example, the concept of Christian “hell” was expressed in the books of authors who wrote in the eastern variant of the script language by the word paskunda in the eastern Altay dialect. We find it, for example, in the anonymous Catechism of 1605, in the writings of K. Širvydas, in the translation of the Bellarmine Catechism. The 1605 catechism data show that there was a pronunciation of a complaint, g. sg. paskundés [Zinkevičius Z., 1975, 36—37]. The middle variant of the scripted language (and the Prussian Lithuanian script) does not have this word at all. There another Lithuanian word is used for this purpose — pragaras. In the Eastern scriptures, the word was used as a religious term. For example, the Polish phrase of the Ladesma Catechism Z/tąpil do Piekla was translated by M. Daukša, who wrote in the middle scripture language, as Nu jege ing pragarus (in the footnote he wrote: Ing peklds), while the representative of the eastern scripture language — an unknown translator of the Catechism in 1605 — translated it as Nužinge paskundofnu (16,). Enumerating c3tęry oftateczne r3ec3y cjzlowieka, the Polish original term pieklo Daukša translated as hell, and the 1605 translator of the Catechism —pafkunda (92, -,). In the latter catechism, the term "condemnation" is always (even 8 times) used instead of Daukšos hell (and hell), e.g., redeemed nig of eternal fdeath and condemnation 26,,, wickedness will be condemnation fu amfinoy vgni 34,5, pafkiria ii dmfinémus condemnation canciémus 765. In K. Širvydas’s “Points in Sayings” the word “complaint” also prevails (used 9 times), although there is also a prologue, but mainly in Part II, published after the author’s death. But in the translation of the Bellarmine Catechism, which came out 72 years after the appearance of the Eastern Ladesma Catechism, the old term of repentance is again systematically used, e.g., Nusinge pafkundo fna, trečią dieną kieles išg nuomir [iu 7,, Gink mus nuog nuo piktos pagundos, Ir nuog vmžinos pafkundos 5644-45. This term disappeared along with the Eastern written language, with the decline of Vilnius Lithuanian enlightenment. However, ordinary people probably used it later, as we find it in the early 18th century manuscript,,Contiones litvanica”, whose author probably came from the Vilnius region [Palionis J., 1971, 37]. In the Eastern Highlands, the word paskunda in common language would be paskanda. It is associated with the verb to drown. In modern times, it has been found in the area of Daukšiai, for example, What a life here, a real taste... hell' (LKŽ IX 479). The meaning of "fall, destruction, damnation" is recorded more widely, e.g., "Gynk nuo eternos paskandos Pilviškiai, Ar jau sviete paskanda bus, ar kas, —tik jau ne prieš buitį Grūžiai" (Pasvalio raj., LKŽ IX 479). Most likely, it was an old Lithuanian word adapted for the purpose of Christianity, and not a 16th-17th century or earlier modernization. It may have been the word of faith of ancient Lithuanians. It is believed that the mythological devil of the Baltic peoples was similar to a large sea lion and lived on the seabed, where his sunken manor was. The translator of the Catechism of 1605 calls “purgatory” prausta (for pronunciation see Zinkevičius Z., 1975,24—25). For example, the Polish original words nd meki C jy fcowe, Daukša translated kanczo/n ežyfBečus, he translated Praufton aba c3yfezun (34,9_ 3,). This word was also used by K. Širvydas (PS II 190,,) in the meaning of ‘(nuodémiy) washing’. Washed — is the place where sins are washed, cleansed. The authors who wrote in the Middle Romance language did not have this term, but used the Polish word čystys. Instead of the later prevailing Slavism, the authors of the Eastern Greek script used the term prasirastis (for pronunciation see Zinkevičius Z., 1975, 36—37). For example, instead of the original Polish phrase Grzechow odpufc jenie, Daukša translated a. sg. In the 1605 catechism, we find the indulgence of the sick (Atlaidumu prin) (16,4). 33. ^ "Ira Bagniczoy Bwintoy prafirafciu atlaydimas,,". In the case of the phrase, he uses the word "devil". 120 Bet The translator of the Bellarmine Catechism did not follow Sirvydu, o returned to the earlier Eastern script term pronunciation, e.g., Tykiu iog ira Bažnicioy Pwyntoy real blowjob 17,,_,5. Neither in the original nor in the later editions this word is used. In the Middle Ages, the Slavic language was ir increasingly used by the nobility. For "restraint, moderation', the Eastern scripted language representatives used the term mestybé. For example, 1605 m. catechism translator, answering į the question How many yrd gierybiu which wėda inmogogu gierop, Polish word W/[trzymie jliwosé, Daukšos transl. Twardimaš, translated in Eastern terms Me/tybe (86,). Šį the term used ir K. Sirvydas, e.g., Turi mokitis me [tibes aba mieros gierimy i walgimy PS I 2124, It is also available Translation of the Catechism. In the texts of the Middle Romance, it appears to be absent. It is not found in later writings or in today's dialects. Fr. Kuršaitis in his dictionary put the word in square brackets, showing that he knew this word only from writings, probably jį iš Not Selman's dictionary, where it got, apparently, iš K. Other books by ar the authors of Širvydas. Instead of later polonism, the mystery ‘secret’ 1605 m. The translator of the jo Catechism used the term padingbiū: the Polish original phrase wielkich dwu tdiemnic he translated dwieitū dydąiū padingibiū 125, (Daukša had translated dwieiy tajnych). In the writings of other authors this term has not been detected, not noticed and in the dialects of today (it is not even in the academic dictionary of Lithuanian language). Most likely related to covered 'hidden'. In this case, in common language we would have the form pakrytybé (for 1975, 49—50.) pronunciation see. Zinkevičius Z., In addition to the term spirit, the representatives of the eastern script language used dvdsas, often having in mind “evil spirit”, e.g. Sauli karalu wargina piktas dwa fas, tay ira Sietonas, nuog Wiefpaties vnt io perley [tas PS 1259,, _ 45. The word Si was often used by K. Sirvydas, and it is also found in J. Jaknavicius's "Evangelii". In the Middle Ages, the word was not used in writing. It is characteristic that in the later editions of Jaknavi¢- ius’ Gospels, when changing the characteristics of the eastern script language with those of the middle language, the dvisas began to be quite systematically changed by word spirit. "As has already been pointed out, there are some differences between the Eastern and Middle scripted languages in foreign words. usually obtained from Poles. For example, the eastern language was characterized by the borrowed persona form persuna or persūna (for pronunciation see Zinkevičius Z., 1975, 42). It is used in the Catechism of 1605, in the writings of Širvydas, in the Catechism of Bellarmine, in Jaknavičius,,Evangelijos®, etc. The authors of the middle written language usually only have a person (in the postile of Many there is only one example with -u-: 1. sg. per/unoie 187148-15). The Eastern written language used the borrowed prijerauti "to commit adultery, to marry an stranger" and prijeras "a fornicator" < 1. fryjer. 1605 catechism Ne priierauk 60;5 "ne stotimoteriauk', Kdyp turim Pėftu prifakimu faugot: who forbids priéraut, aba draugaldut 68,; _.s. These words were used by Širvydas, Jaknavičius, and they are in the translation of the Bellarmine Catechism. The texts in the Middle Persian are not known. Daukša and others used stranimmoteris, stranimmoteriauti, sometimes draugalauti. At that time, the terminology was not at all standardized, strictly established. Several authors have used the same term in different ways. There is a difference in terminology between the Eastern and Middle written languages. However, the variants used for the same terms were usually different in both scripts, and there is no clear effort to standardize them in both scripts. This is shown by the comparison of the variants of terms used by the most famous representatives of both scripts — Širvydas and Daukša. For example, Širvydas uses the words repentance (Sakramento gayles dba pafakimo nuodemiu fawo PS II 1304_¢), pity (Sakramentu gayliftos iftate PS 11603_,), pity (Ne wieno tieg nera, kuris daritu gayli ti ažšu fawo nu [ideimu PS II 11635]), repentance (Diewas... gayliftawimu iu priimdamas PS 1 57) and pity (Niekas ne gal iffakit kayp funkiu tie daro gayliu aju fawo nuodemes PS I 161,;_30). See his verb to repent ‘to repent’ (only those who do not gayli ftoia au Greek fawo PS 11 116,). Daukša did not use any of these options. In his writings there is only regret, remorse, pity and pity. (The metrics of many examples of postilla are not given, because the reader can easily find them from the index-zodyn compiled 121 by C. Kudzinowski, see Kudzinowski Cz., 1977.) Instead of Širvydas's confession (PS 114855 _ 54, 206,,) Daukša used confession, instead of palaidos 'baleistuvystés, iztvėrimo" (PS I 365; may be from paleida), or palodos "etc." (PS II 100,14-12) and the planting "etc. p.' (PS I, 12445, 37059—31), Daukša used lasciviousness, instead of presentation "laziness" (PS II 653, 784) — beating, instead of entrance "endurance" (PS I 11754, II 1314, 2174) — entrance, instead of offense > offense "crime" (PS I 135,, 1464, II 21154) — failing, instead of faith "faith, faith' (PS I 25188;31, 25617—18,22,- 25s 29023, II 24052) and faith "trip. (I 4350, 205,55, 218;, 224,44, 2285, 2873, 2927, 30513 0434,2ms30645,311-234412) — faith, instead of the foreign face of the “hypocrite” (PS I 48,;_ 6,18, 8310-11) and the wealthy “greedy man" (PS II 143,,) — hypocrisy and greed, greedy man. The following terms used by Širvydas are not found in Daukšos: maldybé “piousness” (PS I 201g, II 7245-14), nemirybé “unpiousness” (PS 19153,59, 13318—-17, II 24444 30), nusidéjéjis “sinner”* (PS I 395, 4845, 18219,22, 18325—24, II 1374, 14155), paklausa “obedience” (PS II 81s, 2175), patušyti “conciliate” (PS I 48;,), patušingas “conciliating” (PS I 49,_,,), patušymas “conciliation” (PS I 4753, 99-30, 489-10), prakeiks “curse” (PS II 7655), puika “preciousness” (PS I 194543, 27955, II 12453, 4753, 16441), trokštėjimas “desire, lust” (PS I 27654, 334,,) and others. It is impossible to list all the differences here, only the most characteristic ones are mentioned. “Many of the religious terms discussed, especially those used by the Eastern scripted language representatives, have been forgotten over time. The ancient religious terms based on the eastern Highland dialect, which had been widely used in Vilnius and its surroundings in the past, have been increasingly forgotten as the city’s enlightenment has declined and the inhabitants have begun to use religious books written in the Middle High Germanic language. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, terms were re-created for all these concepts. From what has been said here, it is clear that both 16th-17th century written languages differed from each other not only in phonetics and morphology, but also in vocabulary, especially in Lithuanian church terminology. This difference was clearly understood by the unknown 1605 translator of the Catechism, who complained in the introduction of his work that people,neyfmdnu...Cathechifmo pérguldito nuog io miliftos kūngo Mikaldiaus Daukfas Kanoniko Bažnicžios zemdyciuTM, nes,,dnas pėrguldis ii zemdytipkay*. A “Lithuanian” translation was needed, i.e. in the Middle Written Language: “gieyde aniš nuog mani, idant Lietuwifkay butu pėrgulditas”. The unknown translator has fulfilled this wish of the people: „tu Ledė/mos Cathechifmu ij nauio pérguldziau*. Understanding the significance of his work, this one of the first creators of the Eastern script language variant (“Lithuanian”) declared:,,- We namine kayp primanu kitiemus taku, iau ira didis métas prieg tam takuy... kielu wiefu prafkint and grajey nudarit*. It was clearly impossible to describe the task of creating and improving the “Lithuanian”, i.e. the eastern script language, different from the middle, i.e. the “Žemaitian” language of that time, created by Daukša and others. | All this shows that we should correct the overly one-sided treatment of the process of creation of the Lithuanian written language in the 16th—17th centuries. In addition to certain efforts to create a unified language (more profane), there was also the opposite tendency: the attempt to create not one, but two written languages: for Lithuania and for the Samogitians. An analysis of ecclesiastical terminology leads us to this conclusion. This is what this article aims at = to draw the attention of researchers of the history of the Lithuanian language. Literature Kudzinowski Cz. "Indeks-stownik do "Daukšos postilė"". Poznan, 1977, t. I—II. LKŽ —Dictionary of Lithuanian Language (published by the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences). Palionis J. About the Contiones Litvanicae. —Kalbotyra, 1971, t. XXIII(1). 122 PS — K. Širvydo ,,Points Sayings". Zinkevičius Z. M. "Petkevičiaus (1598 katechizmas m." dialect. — Baltistica, 1970, t. VI(2). Zinc Sins Z. Oriental The a. 17th-century Lithuanian written language, ir its origin disappearance. — Baltistica, 1972, t. Historical Z. Iš accentuation in Lithuanian. 1605 m. catechism spelling. V., Vilnius 1975, State University Department of Lithuanian Language HECKOJIbKO 3AMEUAHHÉ K MCTOPHH JIH TOBCKOHK JIEKCHKH XVI-XVII Bs. Pe310mMe B npouecce anajin3a AH TOBeKOI KOCTEJIbHOH TepMHHOJIOTHH B IHAMSTHHKAX IHCbMEHHOCTH XVI-XVII BB. BHSABJIEHO, UTO [IPH ‘CO3]ĮaHHH JIMHTOBCKOTO HHCbMEHHOTMO S3bIKA JAelCTBOBA- “IH JIB€ IIpOTHBOINOJIOXKHbIX TEHJIEHIHH: CTDpEMJIEHHE, B OCHOBHOM CTUXHHHOE, K CO3ĮĮAHHIO eJiHKHOTO MOHOJIHTHOTO NHCbMeHHOTO A3bIKAa H TONBITKH B BeinHkom KHSDUKECTBE JlHTOBCKOM co3jiaTh [Ba MHCbMEHHbIX #3bIKa — OJMH [151 COGCTBEHHO JIMTBHI, Apyroit — years Obiamer: JKemaiTCKOro KHSDKEeCTBa.