But contact was not lost. Apparently, the name salmon spread from the Baltic region into those Indo-European languages that had not yet forgotten their ancient kinship and continued to communicate with one another.

B. Laumanė’s monograph is a notable achievement in Baltic linguistics. It is hardly possible to regard the insufficient assessment of Baltic influence on neighboring languages as a particularly serious shortcoming. After all, relatively few studies have yet explained Baltic influence on neighboring languages more effectively.

V. Rimša

K. DRAŠUTAVIČIUS (DRAŠUTIS): GLOSSARIES AND LISTS OF TERMS

A prominent but until now little-known cultural, literary, and press figure of the second half of the nineteenth century, K. Drašutavičius also made a substantial contribution to lexicography and terminology. Thirteen glossaries and lists of terms have been found in his extensive manuscript legacy¹.

While preparing curricula and questions for textbooks (multi-part “readers”) in natural science (botany, zoology, parasitology, etc.), geography, history, literature, and other subjects, gathering material for them, writing individual sections, and translating various texts from Polish, Russian, and German and summarizing them, K. Drašutavičius had to contend with the shortage of Lithuanian terminology, search for it in various sources, and compile glossaries and lists of terms in different fields.

1. Glossaries and Lists of Botanical Terms

K. Drašutavičius chiefly sought out, collected, and recorded terminology in the natural sciences, especially botany.

As can be seen from the curricula he prepared (F₁ — 2453, 2468, 2489, 2547), and as the home tutor J. Juškytė states in her memoirs, K. Drašutavičius envisaged compiling a multi-part “reader” (more precisely, textbooks), one volume of which was to provide older children with basic knowledge of natural science².

The prospectus “Programs for the Second Part” (F₁ — 2489) makes clear that this elementary natural science textbook was to discuss domestic animals, rodents, fish, beetles, trees, and other subjects. J. Juškytė was to prepare the textbook³, but K. Drašutavičius himself also contributed, writing articles such as “Worms” (F₁ — 2493), “Seedless Plants” (F₁ — 2492), “Plants in the Seas” (F₁ — 2941), “Beetles” (F₁ — 2490), “Fish” (F₁ — 2488), and others.

Here is a short extract from the article “Seedless Plants”: “All those plants that we know have flowers; fruits develop from the flowers, and a seed always appears in the fruit

¹ It is held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences (F₁ — 2324—2560, a total of 230 folders containing more than 6,400 manuscript pages of various formats).

² Mūsų senovė, vol. II, No. 4(9), 1939, pp. 11—614.

³ Ibid., p. 611.

265

a seed that has a shell (husk) on the outside and an embryo inside. When the seed falls into a suitable place, the shell bursts, and from the embryo grow a root from one part and a stem and leaves from the other. There are, however, plants that never flower, and their seed is a tiny fragment without an embryo. Such a seed is called a spore, and plants grow from spores—spore-bearing plants. There are few spore-bearing plants, but they are difficult to recognize, because most of them can be seen only through magnifying glasses.”

In a small manuscript, “Botanika” (F₁ – 2425), several remarks are given concerning the beginnings of botanical science in Lithuania: “In the schools and academy of Lithuania [botany] was not taught at all. Only Antanas Tizengauzen, when establishing a fledgling medical school in Gardynė, invited in 1776 from France (Lyon) the Doctor of Medicine Jonas Emanuilas Žilibertas. Žilibertas taught medicine, surgery, and natural science in Gardynė. In 1781 he was appointed to the Vilnius Academy as its first[s] teacher of natural science and botany. Žilibertas remained in Vilnius until 1783 and departed († 1814 in France). He published several books...⁴ Elsewhere (F₁ – 2425), some biographical and bibliographical information is provided about the prominent Lithuanian botanist Jundzilas.”

Preparing a primer on natural science led K. Drąsutavičius to take an interest in the terminology of this field, especially botany, which had previously been collected and organized by J. Fedoravičius, A. Pabrėža, L. Ivinskis, and other researchers of Lithuania’s flora, but whose manuscript works were almost inaccessible.

K. Drąsutavičius’s manuscript legacy contains five multilingual botanical glossaries, which show that the author copied Latin, Polish, Russian, German, and French plant names from various sources and sought Lithuanian equivalents for them.

1) Hectographed botanical glossary of 1902 (F₁ – 2416, 42 pp.)

This is probably not the first, but the last botanical terminology glossary by K. Drąsutavičius, the result of his great efforts and searches. It includes 74 general terms (e.g., pod, core, onion (?), embryo, branches, thorny, veinlet, grain, vessels, cone, etc.) with Russian, Polish, and German equivalents⁵, and 748 plant names with Latin equivalents. For example: Abėjūtis, ilex aquifolium, abredėlis?, aggaras, rapa natans, agrastas = dygės, aguona, papaver somniferum, aguonėlė, papaver rhoeas, agurklapis, borago officinalis and so on.

This botanical glossary begins with a “Preface,” which presents some information on the history of botanical terminology and the principles for selecting plant names. It is significant for the history of terminology, and is therefore reproduced here in full:

“Each of us recognizes the importance of botanical science for farming, vegetable gardening, horticulture, and medicine. But to this day there is neither a Lithuanian botanical textbook that has been compiled nor a description of the plants found in Lithuania proper.

⁴ K. Drąsutavičius’s text, including the language and spelling of the examples, is unchanged; only the signs č, š, and ž are replaced with the signs č, š, and ž now in common use.

⁵ Lithuanian equivalents could not be found for twenty items, and a question mark was put in their place, followed by equivalents in other languages, e.g.:?-клетчатка, комъркосата блонка;?-древесина, biel, tvardzil, holzfasser, etc.

266

Botany became known in Lithuania during the stay in our homeland of the Frenchman Gilibert (1776—1783); later, the Jundilai more or less described Lithuanian plants in Polish, although in doing so they strayed far beyond the boundaries of Lithuania proper. Finally, the Samogitian Pabrėža († 1849), practising botany as a medical practitioner rather than as a scholar, wrote several botanical works, of which he published Botany (1900); but Pabrėža’s works are outdated and their terminology Samogitian; moreover, it should be noted that Pabrėža was a man who did not know how to write in Lithuanian (see the titles of his works: Valanč. Žem. Vysk. 1854, part II, pp. 71—73; Žinyčia N2, pp. 70—71).

Before a botany textbook can be written, general and specific terms must first be established. There are already some general terms, but not enough. As for specific terms, they can be established only after plant names have been collected from every corner of Lithuania.

Two larger lists have recently been compiled: 1) Jakoby: „Litthauische Pflanzennamen“ (Mitt. Lit. lit. gesell. Heft II 133—143 psl.) and 2) Davaına-Silvestraičio: (224 names with Basanavičius’s terms added) „Iš mūsų botanikos“ (Apšvieta 1893 NN 632—652).

Here I offer a small list of general terms and a third list of specific plant names not included in the aforementioned lists. The material for the list presented here was taken mostly from the dictionaries and works of Širvydis, Kuršaitis, Miežinis, Iuška, and Bezzenberger. In presenting this list, I ask readers to supplement it with plant names they know, indicating the parish or district where they are used, to add any general terms they know, and to express their opinion on the merits of the rules which, in my view, should be followed by those compiling specific terms:

1) After collecting plant names from every corner of Lithuania, botanists should select the names most commonly used;

2) if the same plant has several names, a simple name should be chosen instead of a compound one, for example: use tinkis instead of ožkaliežuvė;

3) foreign-sounding names, names formed according to foreign languages, or those coined in more recent times should be discarded; for example, use vanuškai rather than devynmacė or devynšarvas; use kupolės instead of Švento Jono žolė or Joninžolės“.

This preface was signed by Bugienis. This was K. Drąsutavičius’s pseudonym, under which he published translations of literary works and articles in the press.

2) Latin–Lithuanian–Polish botanical glossary (F₁—2424, 32 pp.)

These are 562 plant names from A to T, for example: Antoxanthum Gordunitis Tamka, Alopecurus Koczełs Wyczyniec, Aira Smilgejte Smiałek, Andropogon Niksztaroti Palczatka, Asteracophalaus Žvžajzdunie Gwiazdnik, Asperula Žioudma Marzanka, etc.

3) Latin–Lithuanian botanical glossary (F₁—2423, large format, 23 pp.)

The glossary contains 1,120 headwords in all. Lithuanian equivalents are missing in many places. For example: Abies excelsa — spruce, Abies pectinata (alba), Acer campestre — maple, Acer platanoides — medlar, Acer pseudoplatanus (sycamore maple?), Achillea millefolium — Gajutės (Kurš.), etc. There are additions written in red ink.

267

4) Latin–Russian–Polish–German–French–Lithuanian botanical glossary (F₁ – 2422, 82 pp.)

The glossary contains 759 headwords from A to V. Lithuanian equivalents are added only in some cases. For example: Agrostemma githago; куколъ; Agrostemma, kąkal; kornrade; La lychnide nielle; rauges; kukalis. Betula alba. Береза. Brzoza. Birke. Le bouleau blanc. Beržas.

Coriandrum savitum. Coriander. Kolender koryjander. Coriander. La coriandre. Blakutes. Calendula.

5) Polish–Latin botanical glossary (F₁ – 2410, 50 pp.), which lists 983 plant names, sometimes without Latin equivalents, and often indicates one Polish plant name as equivalent to another with an equals sign, for example: Absynth = piolum, Agrest = ribes grossularia, Ajer = tatarak, Aksamitęk = Tagetes patula, Aloes, Amaryllis, Anona, Anyż – Pimpinella, Arcydziegel = Archangel, etc. Only one Lithuanian equivalent was noted – srczec = dipsacus (teasel).

Following the plant nomenclature, the same manuscript continues, with a new pagination (1–62), with Latin names of systematic-thematic groups of bacteria, infusoria, parasites, worms, insects, beetles, mollusks, fish, lizards, birds, some domestic and wild animals, and other animals, accompanied by Polish equivalents and, in some cases, Lithuanian, Russian, and German ones. For example: Muscae (Muchy), Muse (18), Tinea pellionella. Mol, Kandė (19), Cygnus, Łabędź, Лебедь, Schwan, Gulbe (51), Colymleus, Nur, Нырок, Tauchgans, Tauchente, Naras (51), etc. This is presumably material for a small zoological and parasitological glossary that K. Drąsutavičius was probably planning to compile. At the end of this material (63–84), an alphabetical index of Polish equivalents with page references is appended.

The last four multilingual botanical manuscript glossaries mentioned above (2–5) are undated, but were probably compiled at the end of the 19th century, before the botanical glossary reproduced by hectography in 1902, and served as preparatory works for it. Most plant names are the same in all the glossaries; Lithuanian equivalents are not given everywhere. According to the author, the latter were taken from the dictionaries of K. Širvydas, F. Kuršaitis, A. Juška, and A. Miežinis, as well as from printed works by A. Becenbergeris, K. Jakoby, and others. Sources are sometimes indicated by abbreviations, namely: Šir. (= Širvydas), Kurš. (= Kuršaitis), Jušk. (JJ) (= Juška), Miež. (M.) (= Miežinis), Bezz. (= Becenbergeris), etc.

K. Drąsutavičius also knew A. Pabrėža’s “Taislius augumynis,” which was published in America under a changed title and in a different language as “Botanika arba Taislius auguminis” (1900). The aforementioned Latin–Polish–Lithuanian botanical glossary (F₁ – 2424) shows that “Taislius” was used: some plant names (e.g., žioudma, etc.) are found only in A. Pabrėža’s work and are given in Samogitian forms, which do not appear in the American edition. This would seem to indicate that A. Pabrėža’s manuscript or a copy of it was used.

In addition to the sources mentioned, K. Drąsutavičius probably made use of P. Višinskis’s word list, a copy of which is among Drąsutavičius’s manuscripts (F₁ – 2558, 6 pp.). It contains 258 plant and animal names (very few of the latter), listed non-alphabetically

268

with Latin equivalents and, in some cases, notes about the plant’s medicinal and other properties, e.g.: Dievmedis – Artemisia abrotanum, Agurklas – Cucumis sativus, Braškės, Spražkės – Fragaria elatior, Vaiš(v)okliai – Ribes rubrum et album, Vandeninė mieta – Mentha aquatica (brewed as a tea to relieve headaches), Šalapuris – (It blooms blue, in spring on sandy ground; in the spring people used to go and gather it to dye eggs), etc.

At the end of K. Drąsutavičius’s transcript is the following note by P. Višinskis (?): “The names of herbs written here at the beginning were collected by me, while those that follow were copied from a collection belonging to a forester born in Joniškėlis (I no longer remember his surname). I wrote in haste, so there is no order, and sometimes I lost my way; I have many more, but I have not yet got them from the old place—I forgot them there. It would be best to write down all the names alphabetically and then, after printing them somehow, send them to specialists for additions; in this way one could collect more, and more quickly; it would also economize effort. About 300 herb names have been collected from Silvestraitis’s, Dr. “Basanavyčė’s published Apšvieta.”

The assumption that this list may have come from P. Višinskis is plausible because J. Juškytė corresponded with P. Višinskis and received various materials from him⁶. The aforementioned list of plants, which K. Drąsutavičius copied, may also have come from him. The latter noted P. Višinskis’s (?) wish that plant names be written alphabetically and somehow printed and distributed to specialists. This was done by preparing and hectographing the 1902 glossary.

2. Glossary of medical terms (F₁ – 2392, 17 pp.)

It covers more than two hundred names for body parts and diseases. Polish or Latin equivalents are given after the Lithuanian headwords, e.g.: Akių užvilkimas – zapalenie rogówki oka; Akių apvilkimas – katarakta, zaci emek; Akių liga – Conjunctivis; Akių užvietrijimas – Conjunctivis 3; Akmenligė – Kamien moczowy, etc.

The glossary contains vernacular terms whose transcribed forms or the author’s Latin and Polish equivalents are now given here in brackets, e.g.: drugus [drugys – Zimnica, febra], gružas [Artralgia], gužys [gūžys – struma], pakūnės [pakūnės – pikutės], patr auką [contusion], pleiskutes [eczema], priemetis [eclampsia], priepola, priepuolys, prietvarius, prietvaris [lien, volvulus], putmena [acdema], ražulis [ražulys] = šaltīgė, slogutis [astma nocturnum], slunktas [slanktas – cataract], smil kulis [smilkuly s – Alyargia?], Smurglys [ozaena], springulis [springulys – laryngitis], šlapdrugys [febra larvata], šašnagis [onychia onyxis], Vištakis, viš tupis [hemeralopia], Žiogulis [žiogulys – singultus], Žvarbos [febra], and others.

Some disease names are not recorded anywhere else: gibas [gybas – goitre], Lišunis [liežunis?], pusiausopa [lumbago]. The word gimtynė [uterus] is rare.

3. Glossaries of military terms

Considerable attention is devoted to the vocabulary of warfare, since K. Drąsutavičius was interested in various historical questions, wars, and weapons. Concerning Lithuanian weapons, there is

⁶ Mūsų senovė, vol. II, N4(9), 1939, pp. 611–614.

269

his “Notatki o broni u Litwinów” (F₁ – 2543, 26 pp.), which presents information from various sources about the armament of the ancient Lithuanians, with Lithuanian names for weapons given in parentheses and frequently in the text itself. For example: “The weapons for close combat include above all arrows thrown at the enemy. The original arrows were called jętis (13); later, the word jętis began to mean ‘arrowhead,’ while the arrows themselves were called šaudykle (strėla) (14)” [p. 7]. “Archers were called kilpininkai” [p. 9]. “There were also other large clubs, thick at the end, which could serve as a mace or baton; they were called buže [buože] (31), or kulė [kulė] (32)” [p. 12].

1) Polish–Lithuanian glossary of armor terminology

It is found in the manuscript “On Armor” (F₁ – 2544), which begins (pp. 1–12) with a Lithuanian account of the armor and weapons of the ancient Lithuanians (11th–15th centuries). This is followed by an A–M glossary (14 pp.): 72 terms with Polish explanations and Lithuanian equivalents, written in blue pencil and taken from the dictionaries of K. Širvydas, F. Kuršaitis, A. Miežinis, and others. For example: Arsenal, šarvinčyčia (Šyrv.); Artyleryja, in Poland from the 17th century, artilerija; Bagnet, from France in the first half of the 17th century, durtuvė (Mież.); Bardysz, a two-handed weapon, a type of axe or halberd used by the Muscovites, dalgykirtis (Šyrv., Kurš.).

Most of the terms in this glossary are the same as those in the glossary mentioned below.

2) Polish–Lithuanian glossary of military terms (F₁ – 2405, very small format, 50 pp.), containing about 120 Polish headwords with Polish explanations and, in some cases, equivalents in Lithuanian, Latin, German, and Russian; for example: Arsenal, a storehouse for weapons or military equipment [rynsztunkow] (from Arabic dar essana), an armory; арсенал = zeughaus, šarvavietė (Šyrv.), šarvinčyčia (Kurš.); Rząd, ordo, series, eila (Šyr.), eilė, Reihe (Kurš.).

4. Short list of maritime terms (“Jureivyste,” F₁ – 2409, 2 pp.)

The list contains 30 terms with Polish equivalents, for example: anka, a loop in which the yard is set; arta, yard; bukszprit, artolis, a pole for holding the yard in place; aulankis SV; auštrinis NO; brangą, kelmedis, the boat’s knee; kurpelis, a scoop for wetting sails; eldže, “eldija”; eže, shoal; kodryne, flag; pamenes [pamenės], the boat’s third seat; paragę, cabin at the end of the boat; pirmragos, Vordersteven; ribantai, sail eyelets; tulis, Stecksel, and others.

5. Short list of fishing terms (“Žvejyste,” F₁ – 2439, 3 pp.)

The list contains 28 terms, for example: aptvara, rope around a net; bradine, bradanys, a net used by two fishermen to fish […]; bučius, varžas, bukis, net, bucz?; gantine Stocknetz (in Bezzenb.); mitas [mita?]; leidinė wing of a net; salpa — Fischerwinkel, and others.

6. List of dishes (“Valgalai,” F₁ – 2412, 6 p.)

40 dish names, listed non-alphabetically, with Polish equivalents, for example: legis — z owoców, kartofli, bebre — z piwa, sąkaponiai, kapotine — siekაუკa, gruಜ-liai — małe kluski, karaišis, oladek, apora — oladek z kwaśnej, owsianej mąki,

270

sike, otadek, semensikę, blin fried in oil, and so on. The material for the list was collected from dictionaries; it is unclear, however, where the word sąkaponią ‘kapotinė’ was taken from, as it is not known from other sources to date and sounds like a neologism. No more interesting Lithuanian dish names were found; there is little material for culinary terminology.

7. Sheet of kinship terms (F₁ – 2439)

This is a tattered little diagram of words denoting kinship (more than 30), which also includes some old terms, for example: avynas, brotuszis, deveris, intė, mosza, laigonas, and others.

The glossaries and lists of terms mentioned above are small in scope; they present only a small part of the Lithuanian terminology used in K. Drąsutavičius’s time. For example, legal terms are entirely absent, although K. Drąsutavičius himself was a lawyer; legal terminology can be found in some of his manuscripts (F₁ – 2374, 2375, 2377, 2400, 2534) (e.g. bylininkas, bylinigiai, byla, tiesdarystė, tiesdarys, tiesdaryti, tiesavietė, and others). The extensive legacy of K. Drąsutavičius’s manuscripts also contains ample terminology from other fields, used in the literature and press of that period. Particularly much terminology can be found in K. Drąsutavičius’s Lithuanian–Polish and Polish–Lithuanian dictionaries (F₁ – 2393, 2394, 2395, 2396, 2414, 2415).

Thus, an important task for terminologists is to devote themselves to becoming acquainted with K. Drąsutavičius’s terminology, to study the processes of collecting and creating terms during that period and their variation, and to illuminate K. Drąsutavičius’s role in the history of terminology.

J. Kruopas