S. M. Slavočinskio giesmyno (1646 m.) kalba

2:0:D 21.4 FORMS ER ond FF Vie AS RS OLSEN A LITE TU V. O 8 T'S RR MOK SLY AK ADEMIJA Z. ZINKEVICIUS S. M. SLAVOCINSKIO GIESMYNO (1646 M.) LANGUAGE The author dedicates this article to Prof. dr. In memory of Jurgis Lebedis The language of S. M. Slavočinski's hymn is considered by scholars to be a mixture of different dialects. In the academic history of Lithuanian literature it is written that although the hymn “is based on the Žemaičių dialektas, it clearly shows an effort to combine elements of various dialects, to make the hymn accessible to as wide as possible strata of Lithuanian readers”- ?, the preparator of the photographic edition of the hymn and its first researcher Prof. dr. Jurgis Lebedys writes that "the dialectal basis of the hymn is not very pronounced, it does not fall immediately into the eye, but it is still easily palpable. Many phonetic, morphological, and partly vocabulary, syntactic characteristics link the hymn with the Žemaičių dialektas- ”2. After pointing out the characteristics of Zemaitytės, the researcher states that "the translator was a Zemgaite mud-maker, but he was fluctuating, or his work was being corrected by others". Having brought to the fore some elements of the Eastern Highland dialect in the hymn, J. Lebedys assumes that “it is possible that the translator of the hymn, using the dictionary of K. Sirvydas, sometimes failed to distinguish dialect phonetics or unconsciously gave in to suggestion and took the word from the dictionary in the form it was””*. Having established that “many of the phonetic and partly morphological features of the hymn are characteristic of transitional dialects”*, the author draws the following conclusion: “In preparing the hymn, we tried to adapt to as many people as possible. The translator himself, not to mention his possible correctors, probably knew more than his own dialect. It should be assumed that the at least superficial knowledge of other dialects, the desire to be read more widely, and the example of earlier writers helped to debunk dialects. Inconsistencies and fluctuations can also be explained by the lack of a firm criterion, a fixed norm of literary language.- ”“* J. Palionis, agreeing in essence with J. Lebedis' conclusions, states that "the language of the hymn contains a considerable mixture of dialects: elements of the Žemaičių mudininkai, the western Highlanders, especially the Veliuoniškiai, and the Middle Eastern and Eastern dialects"". 1 History of Lithuanian literature. I. Feudalism epoch. Edited by Prof. K. Korsakas. Vilnius, 1957, p. 151. * J. Lebedys, hymn of 1646. - S. "Slavocinskis, M., Hymns to the Catholic Faith: suitable for 1646". Photographic permit. Vilnius, 1958, p. 20. 8 J. Lebedys, ibid., p. 21. 4 Ibid., p. 24. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., pp. 24–25. 7 J. Palionis, Lithuanian Literary Language XVI—XVII A., Vilnius, 1967, p. 90. 137 A mixture of dialects emphasized by researchers S. M. Slavočinskio hymn ir interested the author of this article, prompting him to undertake a jį special study of this aspect of the hymn language, to clarify the tu existing elements of individual dialects, to localize them, to illuminate the process of translation of the hymns and the preparation of the hymn for printing, finally to highlight the significance of the hymn for the history of ir the Lithuanian language and historical dialectology. The author expected that ir The a. comparison of localized dialectal elements of the mid-17th century hymn with su the corresponding dialectal data of today will allow us to better understand the origin and development of some Lithuanian language phenomena. jų Elements of the Žemaičių dialect It is believed that the su earliest ancestors of the modern humans came from the continent of Africa. The hymnal contains the following features of the Žemaičių dialektas: 1. Consonants used t, d instead of Afrikaans č, dž before an ancient short vowel, n. e.g. pl. medey II 109,, ‘medZiai’, 30dey II 29,, "Words", i. pl. ErPkieteys II 84, 'thorns', peteys I 97, "shoulders", words I 18, "in a. words", sg. f. ne if you have: II 105 "without", Priderante I 3,; 'appropriate', 3. praes. gieyd I 131, ‘geidZia’, Jaut 1129 ‘jaucia’, kient 192, "suffer- ", refl. gaudes II 6,, "coalesce", 2. pl. praes. kientete II 20,5 “kentiate’, adv. didey II 12,; ‘didZiai’, kartey I 88, ‘kardiai’, Jkay ftey II 5,4 ‘skaisciai’. But plg. a. s.g. m. kiantanti 1 87, "sufferingg. ", pl. refl. message ciphers 1 140, ‘meldzianciusi, t. y. meldžiančiųjų', d. pl. m. Melting II 82,3 ‘meldZiantiems’, a. pl. m. 100 mg/ day II 102,44 "feeling", "feeling" II 4,, "suffering", a. pl. f. Gieydencias II 110,; "desiring". Iš the whole hymnal is 51 an su example of preserved "the zemaitic law of sounds". Samples su t, d There are no *4 ir retroflex vowels in the hymn, which are present in the western part of the current Žemaičių dialektas. 2. Instead of the diphthongs uo, the hymn ie often uses “dūninkiški” monophthongs ū, i, e.g., a) g. s.g. Mute II 60, ‘gluosnio’, a. sg. Kudeli I 66,, "kuodelį', a. pl. obulus 165, "apples", 3. past. poultry I 53,, ‘puolé’, i. pl. /zlutomis I 78,, "swept", 2. sg. Praet. Bhuftey II 76,, ‘Šluostei'; b) g. s.g. Diwa II 126, “dievo”, inf. gidot 142, ‘giedoti’, i/5koti I 131, "search", g. sg. Iwos1 15,; ‘Ievos’, l. sg. lipfnoy I 129; "in the a. flames", pl. f. isglitas II 27, "išlietas", g. pl. pitul 148, ‘piety’, prif II 26, “prie¥’, 1. sg. filwarte II 94, ‘sielvarte’, a. sg. /higa II 23, ‘sniega’, adv. siedine I 71, today", p. Thu I 25; ‘ties’, adv. Tifey II 90,5 ‘tiesiai’, 1. sg. winibiey 1129, ‘one-third’; ¢) i. s.g. m. tu I 1034 ‘tuo’, pl. n. m. Ti II 44, ‘tie’, sg. g. fell II 104,, "party," 3. fucking. Izluf I 301, ‘iSliuosuos, i§vaduos’, 1. sg. refl. iaudius II 5594 I feel", sg. 1. fucked. Rafiut I 65,4 "I'll find you' (~rasiuo t[i]). Iš There are about four and a half hundred examples in the whole hymnal instead of su i, i uo, ie?. The words willow, leva, cuddle, lunch, grief, broom, sweep, at the present tense form of the verb remain are written ir only in Žemaičių. There are no highland variants of these words and forms in the hymnal. Also predominantly Žemaitija words search, flame, verb * The subject of the study was taken J. A photographic permit issued by 1958 m. Lebedev. Jo missing pages supplemented by photocopy iš The complete microfilm of the Osolinski Library in Wroclaw (Poland), in the possession of the Lithuanian TSR Library of the Academy of Sciences. * It is not possible to give an exact number because some forms can be interpreted ambiguously, e.g. inf. refl. at the end of ‘this (e.g., hearing loss) I 1393, *hearing*) we could see only ne Žemaitija -tis (=height -ties), but the ir high-Italic variant of + thousands. 138 attacking present tense forms, pronouns sg. i. m., sangraziniy verbs sg., sangraziniy 1. pusdalyviy pl. n. m. ir corresponding to some other limbs. 3. Vowels o, é often diphthongized, e.g., a) g. s.g. m. Tuo I 72, ‘to’, g.sg. f. those 1 774 ‘tos’, pl. n. f. those I 441, ‘tos’, pl. I. fupuofe I 105,, ‘lipose’, 3. praes. Sitduot I 59, "warms you' (~ warm [i]); b) 3. praes. Biegal 1944 "run", inf. diethyl 31, ‘deéti’, 3. praet. ieme II 14,5 ‘émé’, sg. 1. fucked. giridefiu II 48,, "I'll hear", 3 past. kwiepawa I 62,, ‘kvépavo’, 1. sg. mistletoe II 58, "manure3. ", praes. kidney II 8215 ‘néra’, g. sg. pavyefium II 64, ‘pavésio’, g. sg. Tiewa I T4a,s ‘tévo’, pl. a. vimusieius II 264 ‘uZmudéjus’, n. sg. m. wieringas II 40, ‘vétringas’, n. e.g. wives II 66,, ‘Zvérys’; c) n. s.g. Ductio I 104, "daughtg. er", sg. cleans II 53,, ‘garbés’, 1. sg. giamiey II 10,, "on the d. ground", pl. People I 98, "people", pl. 1. Ziamiefa 1 99, ‘Zemése’, 3. refl. lauties I 871, ‘jautési’, 2. e.g. refl. wadinaties II 95, ‘vadinatés’. Much more frequently diphthongized vowel ė. Only in position ne po K, g, š, Žž (the letter after these consonants may be a i softening mark) find examples. 159 The o diphthongation of the vowel is much less common, iš only examples have been found, all of 12 them su 0 > uo in flexion resp. in single-stemmed pronoun forms. 4. Su ą, ę, ų, į in general, they behave like the Žemaites: the nasal ir element is retained in the oxytonic endings of the word roots, in the baritone jo endings it is usually absent. Ancient nasal vowels ą, ¢ roots ir oxytoninése ends marked with letters q, ¢ or I am a, ‘cross branch’ (due to technical difficulties, the example of this article se replaces Ąą, e), as well as combinations of letters an, (rarely)®®, e.g., a) adv. en drqfey II 583, ‘drasiai’, a. sg. iBgå/ti 11 24,, 'fear', inf. return 11 99,4, 'return', 1. sg. fucked. ne Fiu fish | 64,5 ‘nejkasiu’, i. pl. ką nays II 19, ‘kasniais’, a. pl. /pą/tus 11 935, ‘spastus’, 3. roasted. f4/i I 91; “tasé”; b) 3. praes. ne jersey I 76b, ‘nedrista’ (~downhill), Greg II 6a1 drilling, inf. Kigft I 155,, "tolerable"; c) a. s.g. an I 45,, ‘ang, JU, kurę I 93,, ‘kurig’, g. sg. me I 67,, quiet 1 17; “taves”, fawes I 17, ‘saves’, n. sg. m. nefigs I 1215," andSas', pl. n. m. fergq II 114,, ‘serga.’ In some places, especially in the text in Gothic font, the “cross branch” is printed unclearly, almost ar ir completely shattered. A clear exception are the singular alif forms manęsp, tavęsp, savęsp, which are systematically written with the be noun sign, t. y. mane/p, tawe/p, fawe/p (why?), although the corresponding origins von man, von dir, von sich usually have a noun (at least 104 samples iš 110) In baritone endings, instead of the ancient gq, letters ę are usually written a, e be no sign of nausea. Iš of the examples of the noun 1200 singular final ending found in the hymn only a few -ą dozen, which could be suspected to have ,,transverse branch”, although ir those examples are not quite clear, because either that branch is blurred (perhaps the most prominent in the word wargą I 135,,), or it could be multiple causes ir (e.g., Teyf/ing I 93; "the right ones? ', Angry I 99,, "angry ?") su oxytocin-- terminal -ų, in the hymnal often marked -ą (more precisely a su ,,cross-sectional’’). Somewhat more frequentko ly a random letter č marked trunk acc. s.g. limb -¢: 53 cases (not all of them are equally clear) available almost iš examples. 300 But here, ir as we see, clearly prevails -e “-¢’ (approxim8294 ately all samples). The same is true of the ir former laię 1% "Graphite, Graphite, Graphite". en writing today or | 71, seven days 171, "today" (22 examples), No/g II 49; ‘nes’ (~nesang), ten I 11713 "ten" (a dozen examples), past. 3. Kienteia 11 754 "suffered." 1 Quite clear letter e (without any traces of the nose mark) have only three noble examples of the other three strokes may be (1 12719, II 43,4, 11919), nutrupéjes. Nevertheless, those three examples, unless they su e, are proofreading errors, could indicate that the translator- 's speech already contained a ba - the ritonic variant mdnes, túvęs, sevis, which has become universally accepted in the current Žemaičių dialektas. 139 of participants in the limbs: from 145 n. sg. 134 examples of the ending -ęs are written with a clear -es or -ias (without the sign of nasalization or its remains), all 25 found examples of the n. pl. ending -¢ are written with -e or -ia (the breaking of the,,crossing branch“ was not observed)? ?, Baritone forms of present tense participants with endings -ąs, pl. -ą were not observed at all. Thus, in the translator’s native dialect, as in today’s Žemaites, the baritone endings already contained short denazalizuoty vowels a, e”. The nasal vowels ų, į are marked in the hymn with the letters w, i (the printing press did not have the letters ų, į or w, i with a "cross branch"), sometimes with a combination of letters with n, instead of ų is also written ¢ (more precisely a with a "cross branch"). With the ancient ų, only 8 forms of the verb siųsti have been found in the roots of words, of which 7 have the letter combination un instead of ų, e.g., 2. sg. imp. Siun/k II 10, ‘siusk’, n.s. m. Jiunfdam 1 122,,'senden'. One form is written with # (n. sg. m. Siū/tas 1 3, ‘systed’- ), but it is also equivalent to un, because in the hymnbook a sign similar to a circumflex is often placed instead of n and m (it is often printed unclearly and resembles a dash) on the vowel before it, e.g., on the ductus 1 132,, “ant dangaus’, pota I 146,'po tam, t.y. po’, n. sg. 1305–1306, "Saint", 3. praes. I 144,; ‘tremia’ (~ trem), i.e. sunū 1 132g ‘sunumi’ (~ sanum), inf. palik/mit 1 137, 'to entertain'. Oxytocinese is written w or Ąą (i.e. a with a "cross-branch"). The latter writing has been observed in as many as 89 cases, e.g., g. pl. ig I 126, ju’, kalbą 1 96,, ‘kalby’, /ilpną I 92, "silpnų', piktąiu II 5,, 'evil', Tą weykalq 11 57, ‘tu veikaly’, werk fmingq funą 1 29, ‘verksmingu sūnų', tarp jmoniq netey/ingą 11 10,, ‘tarp žmonių neteisingy’, 3. cond. ne prajutq II 9,, 'not to perish', Kad trintq piktybės I 8, ‘to erase evils’. Apparently, since the printing press did not have the letter ы, a similar a with a "cross branch" was used instead. In baritone endings, u is written. With ą (more precisely a with “cross branch”) only 6 examples have been observed, which are considered to be a translator’s mistake or a printing error. The distinction between baritons and oxytons is particularly clear from such writings as Del tą słowią II 25,, "because of those words". In the baritone, the vowel u is short**. The old nasal vowel í, both pronounced and unpronounced, is represented by the letter i (no substitute for the letter í, e.g.:a)3. Praet. drifal 76a,, ‘driso’, Paži/t 1 43.4 "knows" (with the root i i’ there are 17 examples)! *, b) n.d. m. galis 1 146,, ‘galis’, Jtowis 1 156, "stovėjos" (total endings of participants -is “-įs' 10 e.g. ; n. pl. m. examples 12 The latter data support the author’s assumption that the current Zemgalian nom. pl. the ending -¢ (in the southeast pronounced -en) is secondary, introduced from the conjugative verbs, see Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius, 1966, p. 77—78. 18 Jų shortness indicates verse: ends at the ends of hymn lines -a *-ą', *-e*, -e -es “-¢s’ rhymes with endings of other verbs or persons with the short vowels a, e, e.g. a.sg. f. rootitd 123, "seen"' rhymes with n. sg. f. filled "filled", sg. a. f. wifa II 103s ‘visa’ —su 1. sg. diki/a "akyse", a. sg. motind 11 583, ‘motina’ —su 3. praes. gina, a.sg. ‘apsakyma’ sul. — pl. fucked. jinofime "we'll know", through the buklifte I 115, ‘per buklistę* — su voc. s.g. Fonts "Christopn. her", sg. m. mines I 56; ‘atmings’ — su a. pl. gimnes, n. sg. m. aptureias II 3518 ‘apturez, t. y. gaves’ sun. — s.g. abgineias ‘apgynéjas’. '* Plg. rimavima a. sg. Sunu II 103; "son" su i. s.g. Kuna, pl. g. numirufium II 643, ‘numirusiy’ in 1. sg. fucked. I'll be. 15 Vertéjo Snekta į had (possibly, optionally) in future tense ir forms, e.g. as. 3. Jugragis 11 521, ‘sugraZins’, 2. sg. arm(s) II 433; "poznasi2. ", pl. pajifit II 16,, ‘paZinsite’. Plg. riming pl. I. Papyrus II 37,3 ‘iSpaZinsime’ su sdkifime ‘sayysime’. The phrase is also written as. n. m. refl. Rupidūmis 11 2633 ‘rupindamiesi’ (~Zem. rapjdamis), 3. cond. clear II 96, ‘garbinty’ (~garbijty). However, the latter example in the corrections iSpravytas garbitu, i garbintų t. y. nerastas), c) 140 a. sg. dali I 1045, ‘dali’, gimufi I 22,, ‘born’ (a.sg. -i “-į* many examples). Iš The rhyming shows that the oxytonic endings of the participants had a long vowel, the baritone o endings — a short one, e.g., n. sg. m. galis II 103,, "galįs' rhymes with g. sg. dalis “dalies' (~Zem. dalis), bet turis II 70,5 "turėjos' —su n. sg. m. which or II 58,, with a. pl. duris®®. Whether the long vowel is pronounced with a nasal accent is unclear from the spelling. However, the present Southern Zemgale dialect, from which the translator originated, makes such a pronunciation possible. Preposition and prefix should be discussed separately į. Instead of the current prefix ing į examples are used in the hymn). (59 There is no other option. The įprefix before non-explosive consonants is written i-, e.g. inf. iley/ti 1 106,5 'to let in', 1. sg. cond. imaničiau II 243, ‘imanyCiau’, 3. praet. inika I 758 "įniko", a. sg. f. iruftintas II 5, 'infuriated*, 3. praet ifaki I 76a, 'commanded', I. sg. Praet. 2nd ed., 2nd ed., 5th ed. imp. Ižwelk II 5;'see' (a total of 51 examples- ). It is also written before k, g, e.g. 3. praet. ne ikalbina 1 78; ‘neikalbino’, n.e.c. m. ikankintas 1 100,, ‘jkankintas’, ikdrSintas 11 78,5 ‘ikarSintas’, 1. sg. fucked. ne ikanfiu I 64,; ‘nejkasiu’, 3. past. igawa I 141, “igavo’, inf. igiti I 60,4 “igyti’, n. sg. m. Igundes I 25,, ‘igundes’ (all 50 e.g.). Before f, d written in-, e.g. sg. 2. imp. enter I 124,, “iteik’, 3. praet ne sukulueia I 118,, ‘neijtikejo’, intikd II 70,5 ‘itiko’, indeia I 85,, ‘idéjo’, n. sg. f. indeta II 119, ‘idéta’., The exception is made by only three examples (from the 42nd), namely, n. sg. f. itiku fi II 104,, ‘itikusi’ sg. a. m. itikufi I 105; ‘itikusi’, a. pl. m. Itikincius 13 ,4 'convincing' (other 2 examples of the verb please have in-). There is only one example before leafy consonants: n. sg. f. impinta I 110, 'wrapped'. Since the Samogitians no longer have a verb prefix and have introduced the variant nm before all consonants, the position recorded in the hymn could be considered older, be indicating a certain phase of the introduction of the variant before explosive consonants. įį Perhaps, in the interpreter's speech against explosives, especially t, d, both variants were still used optionally. The influence of other ir dialects and writings could be seen, e.g. prefix ing ‘i’ (used by M. Mažvydas, J. Bretkūnas, M. Daukša, M. Petkevičius, K. Sirvydas) next to the prefix įbefore consonants k, g. 5. In the hymn, the extremities are often shortened in Zemgalian, e.g. n. s.g. m. wakars I 50,, ‘vakaras’, 3. praes. kient I 92, "suffer', wadin 1 129,, ‘vadina’ (we don’t expect texts!), Gul I 46, 'guli', atio I 103,, ‘atjoa’, wiefpatau I 130,, "dominated" ir many others. 6. Used in the same way. i (i)singular pronoun forms of root nouns, e.g. daley a) II 129, ‘in part’, Paliey II 1105, "in the country", Sirdiey II 28, "širdyje', vgniey I 133,4 ‘ugnyje’, b) daržialey II 78,; 'kindergarten', kieley II 34, "close", mediey 1 64,, "media", lowiey I 38; ‘lovyje’, truputiey 1152411 ‘truputyje’, žodiey 1 145; ‘Zodyje’ (total about samples). 40 It should be noted that the hymn systematically maintains the end note, which is no longer present in the Žemaičių dialektas of today. 7. Accepted Žemaitijos plural pronouns: a) žodžią/e II 16, " in words! (t. y. words in ar words; the only example), b) Sirdiefa I 144, "hearty", rotten fa IT 115, ‘ugnyse’ (su -ie/a 4 examples). Be local, stem é endings still sometimes have in the stem paradigm singular i iliative plural conjunct: ir '* Trump's voice was there, of course, ir a. s.g. in the limb, cf. rhyming a. sg. m. large I 91, "big" voc. su s.g. funnel Son! ", sg. a. iBminti 11 10211 "wisdosu m* inf. atmintis, a. sg. Futwertoi 1 99, ‘sutveréja’ (~ sutvertoji) su 2. s.g. praes. nesioi "carrying." 141 a) širden I 814, 124.4, II 79,, "in the heart", b) sirdiemis 1 354, Sirdemis 1 53, "with the heart" (all observed examples are given). 8. The singular denominator of superior adjectives has an ending -is, e.g., didziaufis 1 89,, 'the greatest', galingiaufis I 73,, 'the most powerful', fwenciauJis II 80,, 'the strongest' (many examples). 9. ana-(f. ana-) forms of the substantive stem have the third-person pronoun meaning, e.g., Ju dnu waykščioti 11 46, ‘to walk with him’, anam dekawokiam 1 36,, ‘let us thank him’, Auk fas ano karalifte 1 35, "gold (is) his kingdom- ". 10. The Žemaičių dat is used for the masculine gender of relative pronouns and adjectives and active participants. pl. ending -ims ‘-iems’, e.g. : a) Anims II 29,, “aniems, viņiem' (m anims), ims I 798 or iims I 143,, ijms I 126; "jiems', Kurims II 44; "kuriems- ", tims I 113, "tiem", wi/ims I 8,5 "all", b) Aklims II 90, ‘bliliems’, Giwenantims I 15; ‘dzīvantiems’ (13 examples in total). 11. Žemaitijos pronouns of the masculine gender acc. pl. (anūs "anūs, juos' type) forms, e.g.: anus I 383, ius 168, ‘jus’, kurius I 148, ‘kuriuos’, tus I 144; "tus' (36 total examples). There are no equivalents (anūs, juos...) in the Lithuanian language. 12. The Žemaitian plural form of the numerals abu gen. abiiu I 143,, "abiejų" (m abijų). There is no equivalent in both languages. 13. Žemaitiška 2. du. imper. form eykiau II 117,, ‘eikiva’. There are no other two-dimensional forms. 14. Locally used Žemaičių processes of athematic verbs: 3rd Pres. refl. atliktafe 1 153, "at(si)lieka' (~ atliektase), a. p. m. Ateytančius II 97, "coming- ". 15. The present tense ikaminės forms of verbs are often replaced by (in)kaminės, e.g.: 1. s.g. Nenoru II 14, "I do not want", turu II 46,5 'I have', 1. pl. minem 198, "minime" (= miniam), regiem I 120;,'regime', turem 1 152,y; "we have", 3rd present. refl. Gaylefe II 107,; "gailisi', regiefe I 34,'regisi, matyti', tikiafe 1 143, "tikisi", g. pl. refl. meldençüfe 1 140, "begging, i. e. praying", d. pl. m. regientemus II 6,„'seeing'. 16. Sgt. Sgt. 2. refl. limb -is(e) ‘-iesi’, e.g. sg. 2. praes. randife 1 93, "randiesi" (~ randyse), wadinis 1 124, "vandiesi', wilife I 93, ‘viliesi’, 2. sg. fucked. Nebiio fis TI 46,, ‘nesibijo’ (~ nebijosys), ftofis I 144 ‘stosies, tapsi’ (in total e.g.; aukStaitiSko 7 no variant of this ending was found). 17. It is often used in the usage of phrases. 1. forms su -ma, refl, -mos, e.g., pl. 1. praes. gierbiemot I 58,; "we honor you' (~ honored t[i]), Wadinamot“ II 86; "we call you’, pl. 1. fucked. knows/has I 5413 "We'll 1. Know", pl. imper. glorinkima 1 57,5 ‘leave us 1. worship’, pl. permits. refl. terandamos I 33,, 'tegu randamés', Te ftoiamos TI 108, ‘let us be, let us become’. 18. The imperative forms of the denotation often have a formanta -kia- (-ke-), e.g. : sg. 2. Eykieg 1 29,5 'eik gi', ref. artinkias 1 6,5 ‘artinkis’, dzidukiafe 127, "rejoice", 1. pl. worshipper I 38, ‘garbinkime’, ref. dZiaukiamofe I 45, ‘d¥iaukimés’, 2. pl. atminkiet 1 122, "remember- ", Nefkiat II 11,, ‘nekite’ (total about samples). 200 19. The prefix has no prefix i root d-, e.g. su praet. 3. atdawe I 68, “atidavé3. ”, praes. Adar I 112, ‘atidaro’, n. pl. f. adarite I 155, ‘opened’. 17 J. The proof of this is the be correction of the error. ir Wadinamet (S. M. SlavoCinskis, Hymns and Chants ... Vilnius, 1958, p. 418). The same goes for cherishing I 5814 "we respect you’ (Zr. Ibid., et al. )'8, 362). 142 20. Words characteristic of the Žemaičių dialect are used, e.g., befigti "finished" (3. praes. beng 115253, refl. bengiafe 11 57, i. pl. f. ne pabenktomis I 35,, 'unfinished' and others), pabanga 'end' (all. sg. pdbdngosp II 37,;), pabengimas 'completion' (g. sg. pabengima II 70), klébys “glébys’ (a. sg. klebeli I 624 ‘glébeli’), nūmas ‘house’ (n. pl. numay II 98,,, a. pl. numus II 74,4 and others), pilé "castle, fortress, ramp' (a. pl. stacks II 21,, ir ZemaitiSkai 21. used prepositions to (where appropriate with the meaning of ‘pas’), pas (with nobleman), on (in some sense a servant), su e.g., Gaway matonę pri a) futwertoia I 14; “... at the creator', VPtark mus... Pri Jezaus 11 10951. ‘uZtark mus pas ... Jesus * (frequent vartosena); b) Pas Bernela 1 63,4 ‘at the boy', at Sunaus II 80, "at the son's", at tdwes II 46,, "at your place" (it seems, all examples only su nobleman); c) On the cross 1 145, ‘ant kryZiaus® (single example). All of these features convincingly show that the translator of the hymn was a Zemgaly. The two-vowel wo, "dūniniški" ie equivalents make the native jo schnekta to be sought in the southern Žemaičių area. In the diagram, the current boundaries of this area are shown by line 1. Over three hundred years # ‘uo’, i “ie” isophone, of course, could have changed somewhat, although we do not have any obvious data about it? ?, the southern Samogitian area, we are guided by many other features of the hymnal language, which will be discussed below. Į ir Meanwhile, the phonetic iš characteristics indicate the sporadic "secondary tų nasalization"® characteristic of Piezemaite, e.g., pl. n. igs I 26,5, ‘II you’ 963 you), Ią/gi (~ 11 2,4 "you go, Mr. i. m. tą II 12,5, 1623, 27, 8619, 10445, 109,, ‘your’ (those iš p. Jam. tit ‘your’), iq II 84, 'juo', iqg I 116,, “juo gi’, adv. ng I 32,, "now, now' or now I 7;,, Nagi I 143, ‘nu gi’ (so written even 25 times), conj. Nes I 119,; ‘nes’ e.g.) (47 or n/a I 63,,, Nęsąg I 1323, "t. p.' e.g. ). (9 Iš Morphological characteristics must indicate the typical for southern Samogitians imperative 2. pl. forms su -kiat (-ket), e.g., atminkiet I 122,; ‘remember’ (giesmyne jų 55 e.g.), the ir pronoun sg. 1. forms su -ću, e.g., I hoped 1 145;3 'I would believe' (there are no other examples). The northern part of the island is not populated; it has no 2. settlements. imper. end - what? (near pl. 1. -when) ir 1. s.g. cond. -ti or - Chu. (the latter variant is ir used in the northern part of the southern Žemaitija area). The present South Samogitian dialect is most convenientį ly divided into two parts according to the treating of em an, am, en. in the Northwest Council, which A. Girdenis named Varniškiai, as in the northern ir Žemaitijos area, type an compounds first spot narrowed (pronounced on, or un), in the south-easteo rn council, named after the name of Raseiniai, preserved intact. In the diagram, the current boundary of both subdivisions is shown by a line. 2 Slavočins- '8 A large part of the hymn Zemaitybiy at that time, apparently, were words ir used in the Altay dialect, e.g., atpén(t) 'machine' (atpen I 78;) find M. In Petkevičius' Catechism, in the Book of J. Nobažnystė, in Bretkūno Bible, disappear "think, see, show, talk" sg. (1. Praet. disappeared 11 39;) — of various periods Eastern In the Prussian Lithuanian highland ir writings, e.g. 19 J. Kazlauskas' hypothesis that ,,in the part of the dininky dialect which was immediatesu ly related to the douninskis, earlier could also have existed ei, ou, which could have been converted to if, etc., because of ¢, 0, the neighboring dialects ti that had no influence> i, ū card su ¢, 9 transformation į i, u“ (Baltistica, V(1) if 33), ji ir turns out to be right (plg. A. Girdenis' article, ibid., VI (2), 143 — 145) the iš situation is essentially unchanged, because, one, unknown to us speculatiei ve ou, į change uy, if > i, Kazlauskas be applies J. ilaikas to ja the northern part of the area, whereas the native dialect of the hymn translator, as we will see, is to be found in the south of the area. *0 For the introduction, see V. Vitkauskas. A few remarks about the forms of this, sister,,,Balt- — istica®,, II (2), Vilnius, 1966, p. 203—206; Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, p. 196—197. 143 mn No Le A, i CHYCOLS 4m4 "ZAGARĖ r) O OVERTIMES 6 * eye [IRF į o PA 9 t OMOSEDIS SEOA PILE sia sat ANTAI 1 SALA į ” \ TELŠIAI KURŠĖNAI KRETINGA : T LUOKE/ŠI1 AULIAI BULLYING ra YOU! BULLYING YOU! BULLYING YOU! BULLYING YOU! BULLYING YOU! o | m o o k „7 VARNIAI rd KLAIPEDA ORIETAVAS © 2016 4 ok OR ie + : Ą a O A KARKLĖNAI 2 o RVĖDARNA: SKELME | SAUKOTAS 9. SHILALĖ 2 I'M OUT OF THE WORLD END ot PAGRAMANTIS 9, o t ==] rn [mn | 3 [—x=]+ mmm]s [xxx]e SOURBARK VELIUONA Localization scheme of the schnekt of the translator of S. M. Slavočinski- ’s hymn (1646) 1 —Southern Samogitians (isphone of “,dūnininkų- ”), 2 —Varniškiai-- Raseiniškiai border (an, am, en, em narrowing isphone), 3 —dat. s.g. isoglossa of the endings -ū (~-uo) || -ui, 4 —the present inflection of ignoring the "Žemaitijos sound law", 5 —the beginning of the word is systematically translated a-, 6 —zd>z, 7 —approximate area in which the speech of the translator of S. M. Slavočinskis' hymn can be localized (in the southeastern and northeastern directions it could be somewhat extended) That in the middle of the 17th century the Samogitians had already narrowed down elsewhere could be shown by the occurrence of such spelling of Samogitian place names o in Rasėniai court acts as Anmaneaco aynky * (A. Salys reads Aidit Alėjas [: Alėja — river Viduklės vls.] lankū), yuma ecypiro neeace * (= meadows of aiit groves). Finally, the other features of the hymn’s language undoubtedly lead to the suggestion of Raseiniškiai. For example, in the hymn, *1 out of well over a thousand examples, four with a narrowed first démen are considered to be orientalities of the hymn language. They are discussed in the section on the high-literally elements of the hymn. #2 see H. 51. Cnporuc, Teorpadutueckuit ciosaps penBneit JKemoiitckoit seman XVI croaetusi, Busibua, 1888, p. 5. 3 In the same way p. 12. 144 as in the ir area of Raseiniai, healthy short vowels are preserved u, i **, which many Varniškis translato e, part (Kurščnai, Šaukėnai), as reasonably thought J. Kazlauskas®, earlier is value į 0, e. The long vowel in the open ė unpronounced ending is often replaced in the hymn, e.g., sg. i, n. rikPti II 98, 'sword', Sauli I 84,4 ‘saulé’, žiami II 61, "earth", 3. past. base I 77,3 "seeing", tąfi I 91; ‘tase’, vžmuši I 51,4 'killed' (even 112 samples). Most likely, there are more than twenty more here. n. f. superl. forms su - I'm a (< woman? ), e.g., gragiaufi II 87, "greatest', wenéiaufi I 32,, "The Most Holy." The short one? ** ballsį i instead of ė now unpronounced ending have all Raseiniai closer neighbors ir jų about Šaukėnai, Kurščnus, Šakiūs, Veliūonas? ". Other Žemaičiai speak -g28, all the Iš Zemgales now only in the area of Raseiniai (approx. Pagramantj, Skaudvilė, Ffžvilką, Rasčinius) only a small part of the return is recorded - if ‘-si’, commonly used in Slavočinski- ’s hymn, e.g., sg. 1. biaufe II 194, "I'm afraid, artinfiufe" II 25,, "I'll come closer," II 102; "I'd stop," 2. sg. randife 1 93, ‘randiesi’, dawey fe I 135,, ‘daveisi’, 1. pl. dziaukiamuo fe I 45, ‘dZaukimés’, 3. as. atrandafe I 131,4 “atsiranda’, bengiafe II 57,4 ‘baigiasi’, prikielfife I 133; ‘prisikels’, wargintufe 1 74a,, ‘vargintysi’, inf. abgintife II 21, ‘apsiginti’, n. sg. m. Nuwilgfe II 26,, ‘nusivyles’, n. pl. m. Djiaugdamife II 49,, ‘dZiaugdamiesi’, g. pl. gaylenciufe 1 140, 'pilinčiųsi, t. y. gailin&iyjy’ (a total of approx.) 230 A particle of return at the end of the word -si is not used at all®, is, as now in dialects, only ji a prefix, e.g., Sufimiles ir po II 56,, "in love', atfirandafe 11 48,, "occurring." Iš The above examples show that the prepositional verbs are used in the ",Žemaitiškai", t. y. ne only po prefix, but at the ir end of the word or both. The area of Raseiniai itself is now cut by several distinct isoglosses. Iš jų in particular, the different ending of the singular noun a of the root: the north-west side of the area is -ū (=height -u0), on the southeast side - Whoa. In the diagram, the boundary is 3 shown by a Ji line, rather strict, in be doublet forms of a su wider section, o which indicates the durability and permanence of the isogloss. Slavochinsky's hymn systematically uses the ending -ui (written -uy). Ją has frequent ir longer forms of adjectives and participles, e.g. amžinamuy 1 4054 ‘amZinam’, gimufiamuy 1 40,, ‘gimusiam’. There is no nė single example of nouns ar other conjugated words su -ū/ Thus, the translator's native dialect is to be ** Inf. gerdeti II 55; "hearing" ir I. s.g. mireme II 106;, *death ’, as shown by sg. g. form twins II 43, "relative", in the translator's own correction corrected į relatives (II 128,,), be doubt are proofreading errors. 28 See. J. Kazlauskas, For the whites *no ir *6 development in Lithuanian Samogitian dialects,—,,Baltistica®, Vilnius, V, 1969, p. 32—33, ** The ends of the lines, e.g., sg, indicate that there was a short vowel in the songbook n. translator's speech. rogeli I 42,, ‘roZelé’ rhymes su with voc. s.g. Barney, 3. you're right. apfiauti I 78; ‘apsiauté’ — su inf, gauti, praet. 3. filename I 76a,s ‘jsaké’ — su n. -a. you. both eyes, pan. ir *¥ The traditional classification of dialects, considering this characteristic as a distinctive feature of the dialect of the western J. Palion, who proclaimed Slavocinsky- 's hymn contains elements of Veliuoniški dialect. ** For technical reasons, the author of this article,,Lietuviy dialektologijos“ (Vilnius, 1966 m.) on the map No. 42, a gross -i ir -ę error occurred in the area limit. Iš actual Plūgės, Rietuvų, Kvėdarnos, Laūkuvos, Vafnių ir Ludka neighborhood, of course, -ę belongs to the area. Examples iš of these locations in the book are written correctly. ** The only example 3. past. Jotino fi 11 224 ‘sotinosi’ in bugfix fixed by fotinofe į djumirfau (II 128,,). 10. 520 4 145 4. Seven examples su with the prefix aZu- (now used as za-) : 1. s.g. Praet. TI 55,, 'I forgot', 3. sir. deep 11 18,5 ‘sulaiko’, 2. pl. imper. ne adjuvanted 11 50,5 ‘nesikietinkite’, n. sg. m. arrowheads II 49, ‘apsivilkes’, ne adjusted 11 571, ‘neiSmatuotas’, g. sg. ajumirsimd 11 39,5 "forgetfulness", djufiteydima 11 6,5 ‘landing’. ; 3rd person singular n. pronoun sg. m. full form anas "he" (I 813, 1718, 291, ir kt) ir 3. praes. Rosehip 11 4811, 3, ‘rodosi’ (due to the stem, ne the return particle) could be considered as It is an element of both the ir Kėdainiai region and the eastern Highlands, since these forms were used in the writings of both dialects**. Even more widely used preposition ing ‘i’ e.g. ), (59 available in both Lietuvos Major Duchy, both ir Eastern Prussia in Lithuanian script (e.g., M. Mažvydas, J. Bretkūnas). It is not clear how to treat sg. 1. Praet. Fregu. in the form of buffaloes 11 2514 ‘I was', found in that time, it seems, only Eastern In Prussian writing (mainly,,Wolfenbüttel's postille®, be to, J. Bretkūno, B. Wilento ir L. ZengStoko books), is now o available only in the southeastern edges of the Lithuanian language area (Zietela, Lazūnai, Dievė niškės, Drūskininkai, Kūšpčiamiestis, Veisiejai, Léipalingis, Liškiava). How the hymns were translated J. Lebesgue proved that Slavočinskio giesmynas does not contain previously į translated Lithuanian hymns (less is known about them) collection, but a book prepared at the same time"". The iš hymns are inspired ir by the Latin Polish ne iš hymnals of the time (psalms of the Bible, but the famous Polish 16th a. century poet J. Kochanowski- 's be reprocessing), which, translated very loosely, o ne literally, as it was customary then*?. Therefore, in most cases, they would be better described as (from the point of view of the ne time) translation, but reproduction of hymns. Literary historians highly value the work of the translator, considering him a great innovator of Lithuanian poetry*?. Without į delving into the artistic side of translation, here we should focus only į on those features of poetry that help to understand the phenomena of the translated language. First of all, it should be noted that the translator looked very strictly at the required syllable number in the line. nų For to sometimes unusually abbreviated words, such as sg. n. 2nd II 116;,, 118, ‘dūšia', waland 1 66, ‘valanda’, 3. praet. Giwen II 22,, ‘lived’, liep I 76039, 788 "lipė", tar I 17, "tarė". In some places, even the middle vowels of the word are omitted, e.g. ill. s.g. kalnen I 76b, jail'' ‘i (plg. a. pl. kalines 11 34,,), voc. s.g. Stanstoway I 118, ‘Stanislovai’ (cf. g. sg. Stanistowo I 118). There are also opposite cases —so-called “lopping” words, $iaipjau unnecessary (in the original they do not exist), obscuring the meaning of the phrase, but appeared, as abbreviations of words, only because of the ir translator- ’s efforts to keep the required number of syllables in the row®. The magnitude of these efforts is shown by the fact that in 16 Žemaičių aiis ‘jis’ lost the ending vowel even before the narrowing of an-type compounds, cf. Wife. dns. 47 See J. Lebedys, 1646 hymn. - S. M. Slavočinskis, Giesmės.- .. p. 15—18. 48 Ibid., pp. 31 to 39, 494. History of Lithuanian Literature,I. Edited by Prof. K. Korsakas. Vilnius, 1957,p. 150-151; J. Lebedys, 1646 giesmynas, p. 39—45; J. Girdzijauskas, Lithuanian poetry. Vilnius, 1966, p. 118—124. 50 For examples, see J. Lebedys, op. cit. S. M. Slavočinskis, Giesmės.- .. p. 377 (note on verse 13113). 152 among other things, it is shown by the addition of corrections at the end of the hymnal, which even include cases where one adjacent form is replaced by another (e.g., inf. fudit replaced by fuditi 11 128,, ‘judge’), if only the number of to syllables in the line requires it. The translator also paid a lot of attention to rhymes. His rhymes are characterized by a full consonant of two syllables (rarely one and a half syllables). Rhymes are also found where the original is almost entirely unrymmed or rhymed with medieval rhyme*?*. For rhymes, the translator sometimes uses even unusual, artificial forms of jokes or persons, e.g., d. pl. piemeniems 1 684 "piemenims" (rym with ganantiemus ‘ganantiems’), i. pl. f. bdy/emis II 30, “baisiomis’ (ryms with Ądudiklemis ‘Saudyklémis’), i. pl. pelenomis (!) II 55,4, "azenais" (with dfaros ‘aSaromis’), i. pl. f. jibantiemis TI 5, "Žibančiomis" (with šwayzdemis "žvaigždėmis"), 1. pl. praes. dusauijme I 63; "we breathe" (with 3. past vžgime ‘uZgimé’). An interesting example in this case is the stanza Szapelu atnefzt noia, Prakartiey iam paktoia (I 62,5_1,)%, where due to the rhyme and the number of syllables in the line the unusually contracted form of the verb nuéjo. For the purpose of poetry, the translator made good use of older forms, especially plural nouns with -mus (e.g., žmonemus I 11,,, sžwentiemus 1 13,, mumus I 105) and singular nouns with -mui (e.g., gieramuy 1 81,5, gimufiamuy 1 40,4), used alongside the corresponding usual short forms for reasons of rhyme and especially in order to make a string of the required number of syllables. Shorter and longer singular pronouns are also used for this purpose (cf. rhyme 3. past kaboia "hanged" with 1. sg. girioia "girioje* I 85s1—5„), i and u of the stem singular noun (e.g., akmenimi II 47s, Sunumi 1 77, and Wieppdtim II 15,44, funum 1 814), dual future forms (e.g., 2. pl. regiefite I 117,,'regésite' and Sto/te I 126, "stosite- "), postpositional pronouns are chosen as appropriate or prepositional constructions that separate them (e.g., ill. sg. jidmen II 40,, all. sg. Diewop II 4552 and ing žiame II 26,,, pri Diewd 11 88,4), longer or shorter variants of individual words (e.g., welinas 11 935, and welnas II 70, "devil"), etc. The analysis of the text of the hymn shows that the ZemaitiSkieji elements are derived from a single 3source — the native schnekta of the translator himself. However, the high-language elements are heterogeneous. They consist of the characteristics of the different dialects of the Highlands, some of which will have been introduced by the translator of the hymn itself, others, apparently, by the persons who prepared the hymn for the press, and some perhaps by the printers. The translator of the hymn must have been well acquainted with the dialect of the Highlands. Having come from the highland region of Žemaitija, he was able to hear some forms of words from the highland region from a young age. And this is not only from the lips of neighboring Highlanders. In his own native dialect at that time, like now about Nemakščiai, there was probably a certain number of similarities with the language of Vysočina. The translator had to get even more used to the Upper Lithuanian forms later, living for a longer time in the Upper Lithuanian dialect area and communicating with the Upper Lithuanians. The rhymes at the ends of the line clearly show that the translator was well acquainted with and familiar with the features of this dialect: 51 For examples, see J. Lebedys, ibid., p. 41. 52 "They went and brought him a robe, and laid him in the manger." 153 1. Aukštaitian diphthongs uo, ie instead of his native schnekts fi, i. This is shown by cases when the translator rhymes Aukštaitian words with those that retain uo, ie and in the Žemaičių dialect, e.g., a. sg. wieta 1 6; 'place' with a. sg. /wieta ‘world’ (even several cards!). In some places, he uses high-Khmer words to rhyme with those written with the letter e in the accentuated root, e.g., a. sg. wiena I 65, "‘one’ rhymes with g. sg. pena ‘peno’, g. sg. m. kiekwiena 1 109, ‘everybody’ —with iž/ena "from old", d. sg. wietay II 70, “vietai’ —su n. pl. metay "metai'. With Žemaičių equivalents, such rhyming would have been impossible. 2. Short vowels in the extremities in cases where the Žemaites do not maintain them. Antai, n. sg. 29,, rhymes with 3. praes. refl. artinas "approaching- ", 3. praes. duoda II 65, —su 3. praet. roda ‘shows’ (several times), 3. praes. ne gali I 1524 —su a. sg. dali ‘dalj’.. 3. "Ultimate High-End" (in Japanese). For example, 3. praet. pawi/te I 63; "suvystė" rhymes with voc. sg. Chrifte "Kristus" (several times), dawe I 84,5 ‘dave’ —with a. sg. /awe ‘save’, clause II 18, ‘klausé’ —su 1. sg. Praet. refl. sotinause ‘sotinausi’, n.e.c. Ziame I 63,, ‘Zemé&’ —su 1. sg. m. dark. 4. Auks3taitiSka Uncut ending -os. For example, Mr. Sc. mother I T4a,, II 59, rhymes with 3. past. refl. warginos ‘worked hard’ and namaginos ‘worked hard’. Other persons could not have entered these elements of the aukStaitiSky: they belong to the primary, the translator’s linguistic material used in the verse, secondary, additional, later created by the text’s enrichment. Probably the longer noun loc. sg. should be added to the usual high qualities of the translator. (cf. girioia I 85 4, "girioje' rhyming with 3. past. kaboia ‘hanged’), verbs and pl. o ne ir 1. 2. (plg. 2. pl. praes. you know I 77, ‘You know’ su rhyme voc. s.g. Pitote “Pilote’) forms, as well as the imperative variant su - who- (plg. common 2. pl. imper. let's click I 63,5 ‘klykaukime’ rhyme su 1. s.g. fueime ‘suéjime’), if only, of gu course, at that time these forms did not exist in the translator’s own native Žemaičių $nekta. Apparently, the translator chose Žemaičių aukštaičių forms ar according to the case. Let's say, at sg. g. wine [Wine] ‘vino’ to him, as a rhyme, the Žemaičių adverb form šiendina [šendina] ‘Today’ was better suited than the aukštaičių (I 71—73), *today [snack]**. Also at sg. n. m. Gallium [end of ar mouth] "galįs" was better matched with the Žemaičių nobleman's form part [part] ‘dalies’ (II than the 10354), High German equivalent *dalies [daliés]. But plg. n. s.g. m. wifdgdlis “almighty’ rhyme su g. s.g. fdlis II 44,, "countrn. y", sg. $wie/a ‘Sviesa’ — su žemaitiška 1. sg. forvgniema /a II 1153, ‘ugnyse’. However, at sg. 1. m. that was much better suited aukstaitiška sg. n. form Ziame [country] ‘Zemé’ (I 63,,), than the translator's native south Zemaičių šnektos *Ziami [žemi], just like at voc. s.g. In the chrifte "Kristus" the high-Tibetan past fits better. form pawi/te 3. tpaytatę pavistė] ar "suvystė' (I 6352), than Žemaičių *pawi/ti [sighs]. In this way, the translator, in order to achieve better rhyme consonance, often į put together words and forms with Žemaičių phonetics jų with those su typical of the Upper Livonian, e.g., sg. g. giedas II 91,4 jį ‘gédos’ (Žemaičių ie < ė ir -as ‘-0s’) is reset su % Plg. stanza: Hey wina takio wina, buwa still Ne sings (I 715.) “Hey, wine, there hasn’t been such wine today.’ In this hymn, the rhyme wina siedina is : used met times. 6 154 n.d. žiedas II 92, ‘Ziedas’ (Aukštaitijos ie and ending -as). Such examples are quite numerous and they are varied. See also the rhyming of the Žemaičių 1. pl. form fupuofe ‘lipose’ with the Vysocitaian danguofe 1 105,, ‘danguose’. In the hymnal, the words with Žemaičių phonetics are often accompanied by Upper Lithuanian endings, e.g. 3. praeit. ieme II 14;, ‘émé’, n.s.g. m. i/zkodamas 1 140,, "seeking- ", d. pl. m. ifzkantiemus I 140; “ieSkantiems’, 1. pl. lip/nofe I 133,,, 156;,, II 117; ‘liepsnose’. Sometimes the essentially Žemaitic form has high-Germanic sounds, e.g. 1. pl. imper. refl. dfiaukiamo fe 1 45, “dZiaukimés’ (with o instead of uo). There are also cases where the high-Italic form receives a Žemaitic phonetic shell, e.g. I. pl. praes. refl. wilamiefe II 31,, ‘viliamés’ (aukštaitiškas ending -ėse pronounced Žemaičių- ). Undoubtedly, the desire to please a larger number of Lithuanians and the effort to make giesmyna® as popular as possible encouraged the translator to introduce the elements of the region of Upland into the hymnal. Of course, the example of earlier High Late Greek writing in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was also of considerable importance. However, in the absence of clear norms in all cases and of a normative grammar governing them, it was difficult to achieve greater consistency in enhancing the language of Žemaičių giesmės. The use of the grapheme o, e and uo, ie caused the most confusion to the translator, and perhaps also to the praisers of the hymnal language. Both of these pairs are often mixed in the hymn, especially in the flexion of words and prepositions. This was due to the difficulty of understanding where the o of the Upper Aegean vowels, the Aegean diphthongation and where the Aegean diphthongs uo, ie are present, which the translator, applying to the Upper Aegean, tried to use. Similar confusion can be observed in today’s linguistic practice, when a less educated, especially dialect-- wise mixed family, Žemaitis tries to write in a common language. In the hymn, the grapheme o and uo are most confused in the plural locus endings (cf. senior g. -uose and mot. g. -ose > žem. -uose) and in the prepositions -uotas and -otas (> žem. —wots). This applies both to the examples in the middle of the verse and to the rhyme position, e.g. I. pl. katbo/e "kalbose' rhymes with weykdlose "darbe' (II 97,4), malduo fe "maldose' —with lip no fe 'in the flames' (I 156,,_,,), namuo fe 'at home' —with mieftofe 'in the cities' (I 6059-31), wargose 'in the poor' —with kayliniose 'in the prisoners' (I 6659_4;). In the hymn, the local pl. m. ending with the grapheme o is even used more often (35 examples)** than with wo (26 examples). Also, suffixes -uotas, -uotinis, -uoti with the grapheme o are written more often (13 examples) than with wo (8 examples). The grapheme ie and e (instead of ė) are most confused in the pronoun plural ending, cf. rhyming d. pl. m. tey/ingiemus ‘righteous’ with kaltemus ‘guilty’ (II 3719-2,), ifigietbetemus ‘iSgelbétiems’ with giminemus ‘relatives’ (IT 4253-34), taukiantemus ‘waiting’ with faukiantemus ‘calling’ (II 41,4_,,). The ending -iem(u)s is written with ie 62 times and with e 15 times. In the word roots uo, ie and 0, e the confusion of the grapheme is less common, but it happens, for example, to write 3. praes. doda II 1144 ‘dod’ (rim with roda ‘dod’), n. sg. 154, pp. 154. "About Us". It was not difficult to make a mistake here, bearing in mind the words used in the hymnal, in which both Žemaičiai and Aukštaičiai pronounce uo, ie, e.g., afiera, Aim to popularize among other things shows the correction of errors, where I 16; are 3. cond. form Jectu ‘sekty’ corrected į /out (II 1285). *$8 Loc. pl. wi/tiklose I 441,, 59, ‘viešiklēs' is not included here, because the noun diapers in the translator's conversation was not of the masculine but of the feminine gender, cf. i. pl. wi/tiklomis 1 5333, II 81s "diapers." 155 oil, Andrew, virginity, Elizabeth, Gabriel, Joseph e.g. (8 next to g. sg. Juzapa I 3,), Kazimieras, kielikas, Maižiešius Moses, peace. ‘moderation, modesty’, measure, city, nobody, never, nowhere, (dis)respect, (not)prietelius, sulphur, butter, Vaitiekus. 1S 282 observed examples of this type write 248 uo, ie, su 34 su o, e. Characteristically, most of the latter consists of the word nothing ir jo derivatives. Verb (pa)niekinti ir noun (pa)niekinimas are systematically written only su e indent. Also su e suffix -ienė, this could o indicate the translator’s efforts to give the words of his native Žemaičių dialect the phonetics of Vysočina, transposing them for the sake of fame®, in the Hymn grapheme is used rather consistently instead of Žemaičių uo, (=high. o, e ie o, ė) in words that form rhyming High German or common su dialect diphthongs wo, ie, e.g. the verbs stoti (jam. stuoti) ir given in forms (II 26-17 24-25» 1915-16» 309-105 13-105 3639 20ir kt.), sg. a. m. Zadeta 'žadéta' and 'pradeta' ‘pradéta’ ir g. s.g. /wieta 'world' (I 39bg_g, 13-15 20-22). However, this can only be the work of the translator, ne but of another person who ir praised the songwriter's language. A separate problem is the presence of orientalities in the hymn. The analysis of the poem jų shows that at least part of it will have been introduced by the translator of the hymns himself, cf. n. s.g. m. paiautis ‘pajautes’ rimavima su n. s.g. iautis "oxen" (I 4930-11, 6215-16), a. s.g. pufi ‘pus¢’ — su a. s.g. m. ifzdZiuwufi "drying out" (I 8785), a. s.g. karalunu ‘karaliing’ — su a. s.g. funu "son" (I 1183-19). J. Lebed explains the orientality of the hymn K. The effect of Sirvydo dictionary- ®. However, the hymn also contains such orientalitybys that are not in that Zodyne®, e.g., (ne)kintėti ‘(not) to suffer’, aplunkti ‘to visit’, aplunkymas ‘visiting’ (metrics given on p. 150), skaralé ‘rag’, grata ‘near’, obalys ‘apple’ (p. 151). In addition, the eastern flexion of vowels, for example, a. sg., cannot be taken from the dictionary. karalunu I 118, ‘karaliiing’, pufi I 878 "pusę'. Participants paiautis 1 49,,, 62,4 ‘pajautes’ and palikis II 21,4 "leaving" are also not in the dictionary. Therefore, besides him, there was another source from which the Eastern forms entered the hymn. The living dialect of the eastern Highlands of that time, in which the translator had to live for a long time, is considered such a source. Most likely, these were the inhabitants of Vilnius who spoke Eastern languages at the time, with whom the translator had to communicate, for example, while studying at the Vilnius Academy. It is also possible that there are other, less common, types, such as the 2. nekintiefite IT 16,4 'do not hate' (with Žemaičių vowel ė diphthongation). The translator really used the dictionary of K. Sirvydas a lot®. It was, in the words of J. Lebedis, his most important favorite book when translating hymns into Lithuanian. Most likely from this dictionary were taken the Eastern equivalents of the words mąstyti, mąstymas, mąstytis "mintis, protas', sąnarys, sąžinė, nandrė (they are indicated on pp. 149 — 150), the noun uolasu adjective v-(the translator did not understand K. Sirvydas' spelling, according to which the letters vo at the beginning of the word denotes the bivowel uo), most of the words with the Eastern prefix ažu- (p. 152) and many others, which do not have any clear dialectal features (naujadari, svetimybės, etc.), of which these should be mentioned: didėžuvis "banginis' (II 66,), miestakelis ** The prefix about is also systematically written with e (all 40 examples). However, it may have the vowel ¢é or e, one ie, cf. the present dialectal forms apé, ape. 57 Zr. J. Lebedys, 1646 hymn. - S. M. Slavoéinskis, Giesmės..., p. 24. % The author is grateful to the researcher of this dictionary K. Pakalkas, who provided the following data. 50 For this, see. J. Swans, min. ill., p. 26—30, 156 *gatvė' (II 256), pelikanas "pelican (such a bird)’ (I 14519, II 55;,), adv. malignant "maliciously, shamelessly' (II person 254), "person, person" (I 129g, 13153, II 115,4 ir etc.), rose wreath 'roses' (II 68,, 69,3), sudara "peace, harmony" (II 46,, 60,), sumania 'intention, intentionality’ (II 24,,), fractional "student" (2nd ed.) 82), ‘tikéjimas® (I 143;,), total faith 'people, crowd' (I 10359). of these ir some other words only the ne form but the spelling ir In the Sirvydo dictionary ir Slavoj Žižek is very close to him. Be therefore, they are mainly found in psalms or in more ir difficult to translate hymnal texts. Summarizing all that has been said about the first part, the linguistic material used by the translator himself in the verses, we have to conclude that its Žemaičių base was strongly influenced by the Vysočiny dialect, especially the Kėdainiai region of that time, and somewhat less by the eastern Vysočiny dialects. The translator had to communicate with representatives of these races for a long time, live in their environment for a long time. Therefore, he could hardly have been a young Man. This seems to support the doubts raised by literary historians as to whether Saliamonas Mozerka Slavočinskis, who was still studying in Vilnius in 1646, could really have been the translator of such a perfect hymnal®. However, against this doubt, the localization of the translator’s native schnekt in the same places as S. M. Slavočinskis- ’s has been carried out. Thus, the question of the authorship of the translator of the hymn remains to be investigated- *?, The language of the hymn prepared by Žemaitis’ translator, although it had many High Late elements, nevertheless differed considerably from the usual language of Lithuanian writings published in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at that time, based on the High Late dialect of the Kėdainiai region (Žemaičių diocese) or the Eastern Late (Vilnius diocese). This, apparently, did not satisfy the publishers of the hymnal, the Jesuits, who demanded to exalt the language even more, to make the hymnal accessible to an even greater number of Lithuanians. Who did this work—the translator himself or another person(s)?—is now difficult to determine. However, it is likely that other persons, perhaps an editor specially appointed for this purpose, will also contribute to the correction of the hymn text. At least this is what the rhymes are sometimes spoiled by the accentuation, and the translator took great care of their beautiful resonance, as we have seen. For example, in the hymn "about Swodba Kanoy Galileos" (I 70—73) next to the six times repeated sounding rhyme g. sg. wine [vina] "wine": adv. šiedina [Sendina] "šiandieną', which consists of the Žemaitic forms of the noun vynas and the adverb šiandieną, there are four cases where that rhyme is corrupted by replacing the Žemaitic form of the adverb šiandieną with the High Ladin equivalent Siediena (I 714, 19, 724, s,). Another example of a broken rhyme is n. s.g. ring "ring" rhymes with g. sg. giedos "shame" (instead of žem. giedas; II 112,,)9?. We would rather expect the translator to fill such places in a new way than to spoil the rhyme. 60 See. History of Lithuanian Literature. Edited by K. Korsakas and J. Lebedys. Vilnius, 1957, p. 76; History of Lithuanian Literature, I. Edited by K. Korsakas, Vilnius, 1957, p. 150; J. Lebedys, 1646 year hymn. - S. M. Slavočinskis, Giesmės..., p. 45—49. 641 The title and preface of the hymnal indicate that S. M. Slavočinskis was the translator. See D. Gargasaites article „,Pergalėje“, 1968, No. 9, p. 179—180 and Lietuvos TSR bibliography, I, Vilnius, 1969, p. However, this is contradicted by the data published by K. Jablonski in the biography of S. M. Slavočinski, which does not show that S. M. Slavočinski had anything to do with literature, see K. Jablo nskis, Solomon Slavocinsky's biography. —S, M. Slavočinskis, Giesmės..., p. 53—58. *2 Perhaps the only example with the -si particle at the end of the word (in the translator's speech there was only -se), namely, 3. past. the form /otinofi II 22, ‘satisfied’, is the result of such a ‘correction’, which the translator corrected again in the correction of errors (II 128,,), because this form rhymes with l. pl. peklo/e "inferno'. 157 The praiser of the hymn text (the praisers?) must have been The representative of the Kėdainių krašto dialect. The eastern be highlander would doubtless an have changed the type compounds. A 1 non-prefixed Western highlander would not have added 7 letters to type vowels. e Be The latter dialect was not used in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at that time. Ji was universally established only Eastern In Prussia published writings. The language corrector mainly touched on the pieces of ir unwritten text in the hymn headings. There are only iš two lowland dialects left here (apparently, unnoticed): sg. a. iwd I 64; ‘Teva’ ir 3. praes. wadin I 129,, ‘vadina’. I think everything is finished, or rather,,,sukédainietinta®. In the poetic text, the poet's efforts were hampered by the hymn metrics. How much more freedom he had in the middle of the hymn line (not in the rhyme position). Here he was more ir correct. For example, in a hymn that has a Polish title ,, Wd3ien Božego narodgenia“ (I 51 — 53), iš three verbs kill past. 3. forms two are in the middle of the line both with a ir high-late su ending (written -e), at o the end of one line that ir has retained the translator's native schnet ending -i, because it rhymes su a. s.g. m. ending i’. -i There are nine past iš participle 3. forms in this hymn. Iš jų four are lines in the middle (3 have -eir 1 -i ending) and at the end of five lines (at the rhyme position), all of which have retained the translator's schneck ending - I. In the middle of the lines, the corrector was mainly constrained by not changing the number of syllables. Therefore, he could not, say, replace the Žemaičių forms without the ending of the short vowel with the corresponding Upper Livonian forms with a healthy ending. I had to keep the form that the translator himself had used. Thus, apparently, the language was mainly corrected by introducing the Afrikaans č, dž instead of the former f, d according to the „Žemaitiškasis garsų įstatymas“, the Upper Samogitian diphthongs wo, ie instead of the Southern Samogitian monophthongs #, i, the vowels o, ė instead of the Samogitian diphthongs wo, ie, by placing the letter 7 before the e-type vowels, etc., i.e., corrections made without changing the number of syllables in the row. The corrector was not prudent, because a number of hybrid semi-Žemaitiškas, semi-Highland forms, e.g., 2. pl. imper. 11,4, duokiet I 40,, “giedokiat I 3753, giedokiet I 40,, ‘sing’, Heyskiet I 111,, ‘leiskite’, 2. sg. 63; "Salvation", n. sg. joleli I 224, “Zolelé’ (with Highland wo, ie, o, f, but Lowland -kia-, ie<ė, -i “-ė'). The corrector did not touch or rarely touched those Žemaitija forms, which were not at all foreign to the Vysočans at that time. The most commonly used is the unmodified Žemaitiška i kamieno loc. sg. ending -iey “-yje’, cf. -eie in J. Bretkūno, B. Vilento and others’ Highland writings- ®, adv. never saw Jurbarkas "as never saw'. The Samogitian preposition pri [pri] *prie' was acceptable to the corrector, because the variant with the short i [pri] was used by the Vysočany schnekts at that time (perhaps even by the corrector himself), and it is still used in some places**. Therefore, from the 113 examples of this prefix in the hymnal, only 6 times pri(g) and 1 time preg are written, and everywhere else (i.e. 106 examples) pri** is left. What else is a prefix from: its variant in the Upper Livonian nuog is used 134 times (1 time written nog), in the Lower Livonian nu [nit] only 26 times. In the middle of the lines, only those elements of the translator’s language that the proofreader, apparently, simply did not notice, remained unhighlighted. For example, from 516 examples of the word god be68 See. J. Kazlauskas, Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius, 1968, p. 152—154. 44 See Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, p. 424. ** The prefix of nouns is pri-[substantial pri-], e.g. |. s.g. priwdy3doy II 114, "priežiūroje, globoje’, used 7 times in the hymn, and prie-, e.g., n. sg. prieway da II 325, 6 times. 158 remained with the southern Samogitians i only one g. sg. Diwa II 126,, and that which is not in the text of the hymns, but in the content of the book (the line in the heading is corrected in the hymn text itself). At the end of the line, the rhymes prevented the correction. Without damaging the rhyme, it was possible to change only the two members of one pair. In the hymn they are often high-late, for example, n. sg. day: nauiena "news" (I 611314), g. sg. f. pafzlowintos "glorified": marked "marked" (I 24,,_,,), d. pl. m. pdme/tiemus 'lost' : pučiūtiejus "pučiantiems* (II 13253), 3. Praet. hard ‘taré’ : ifžware "kicked out" (I 6512-15), 1. pl. imper. dumokime "think, dream" : minekime ‘minékime’ (I 74a, _,). However, there are still ir unexalted pairs, such as sg. 2. praes. refl. randife ‘randiesi, esi’ wilife : ‘vilesi’ (I 9333), inf. turiete "have" : to harden "suffer" (I 85;514), 3. Praet. traction ‘trauké’ : rauki ‘rauké’ (I 75:34), 2. s.g. imper. refl. artinkias ‘artinkis’ : fweykinkias ‘sveikinkis’ (I 61516), 2. pl. džiaukiates 'dZiaukités' : link fminkiates ‘linksminkités’ (I 2645-14). It is not possible to change a member of a pair without damaging the rhyme, so in cases where the pair was made up of two different grammatical forms, the corrector had to leave them untouched, although one iš jų ir was Žemaitiška, e.g., adv. didey ‘didZiai’ : 2. s.g. Praet. ifgidey "you cured" (II inf. 1225.34), get : 3. Praet. caught "cloak" (I 785. 4), 2. s.g. imper. refl. dzidukiafse "rejoice" : 3. praes. refl. artinafe "approaching" (I 27,_,), 1. pl. imper. refl. dZiaukiamo fe "Let's celebrate" : 3. Praet. refl. /toiofe ‘stojosi’ (I 45,_.). Only in very rare cases such rhymes are still damaged, apparently, without looking at being very strict ignorantly) corrector. ar Monophthongs of Samogitia ( ir #, i (=height uo, ie) remained unexalted in the rhyme position only in the case when the word forming the second pair member had the ancient vowels ži, e.g., pl. 7, a. f. paskaytites "read" isflit : ‘iSlietas’ (II 27,_,). However, such cases were rare. It's overpriced everywhere anyway. Therefore, in the hymn so few examples of Žemaičių ff, (about su usually i 1794), ,,by inadvertence“ the remaining lines in the middle. ** Very often rhymes of the same pair differ in that one has wo, the other, for example, o, inf. give inf. : at/toti (I119,;_,,). Perhaps, here the translator was confused in a high-Italic form (uo) su žemaitiska (wo<0o), which the corrector elevated, replacing the Žemaičių aukštaičių wo į o. This should be interpreir ted as a frequent ie : ė (written e) in rhyme, e.g., pl. g. veto "places" : i. s.g. m. blacken ‘negirdétu’ (I 125, _,,). Because of this, and also because of the frequent replacement of the Žemaičių wo with the ie Vysotsky monophthongs 0, ė (writes in e) the middle of the lines, Žemaitijos diphthong wo, (=high. ie o, ė) songbook is so little left. The beautiful rhyme sound is determined more by vocalism than by consonantism. The latter to is less commonly used, pg. rhyming g. sg. m. Yes, jo'sul. s.g. Kanoy 'In Cana, the land of Cana' (I 704_,0). This may have contributed to the more intensive change of Žemaičių non-African forms into High Germanic African ones. Change could be both himself ** It is noticeable that such cases account for a higher percentage in certain limbs. Pronouns sg. i. m. limbs -in Žemaitija variants even n.pl.m. 70%, limbs -ie — 2594, but root i nouns sg. g. limbs -ies only — about 694. In individual cases, the corrector probably avoided touching Žemaitijos tų forms, which were not quite clear to him. It is like showing the ir verb sg. 1. praes. forms su with enclitic pronoun -1(i) ‘tau, tave® treatment. Iš of the three examples in the hymnal all (I 6513, 14481, II 12115) preserved the Žemaitic phonetics, i.e. su end -ūr < -uo-t (i) (raSoma -ut). Also sg. I. refl. limb -uos(e) even in some cases 10 Žemaitiška only times exalted. ir Adhesive end 4 -iep left -ip (= p. Jam. -Ip? ), apparently because it was so written ji was not foreignma ir for highlanders with -if first of all i ir (#)ia in the root noun paradigm. 159 translator and ir both language proofreaders (no "Zemaitic law of sounds" only preserves the example). 329, mų Iš The presented analysis shows that the language correctors ne only elevated the hymn, but increased various duplicates and otherwise ir language inequalities. Slavočinskio giesmynas is a significant source of important linguistic data, which allows to shed light on various problems of ir the history of our language and the development of dialects. Iš hymnbook we learn that In the first a. half of the 17th century, the southern Samogitians had monophthongs instead of d, 7 the Vysotsky diphthongs wo, ie. Ir in this area of Žemaitija long narrow monophthongs were already diphthongized o, ė. There has been about the same a. €, 4, į (=an, en, un, in) ir a, e, u, i distribution, as it is now in the dialect. Preposition and prefix at that time still į had, at least optional, variants in certain cases su n (ing, in-). There were "secondary nasalizations" typical of the Southern Lithuanians. Ji in the hymn occurs in ne exactly the same words as it does now, which in turn indicates that there was a considerable o fluctuation between the forms of nasalised denasalized, especially narrow, vowels in antiquity“”. At the time, there were su already signs of ir the beginning of the word transformation in the area of Raseiniai. eaHowever, the initially strong mixed diphthongs, formed in the iš u, i+ r, I, m, n, interpreter’s speech, still had a healthy first accent. Now in those neighborhoods (Žalpiai, Nemakščiai, Očikai, Sugiūtai, Vidūklė, Sujainiai in the ir same It is diphthongized, e.g. diūorti. ‘durti’, ‘kuolti’ ‘kulti’, skūonsti "skūti" (< skūnsti), dūomples ‘dumplés’, pierms ‘first’, jielks ‘ilgas’, pienti "pinti', riemc ‘serious’. That ši diphthongation is not old, shows another be ko ir transformation of secondary 3. diphthongs, e.g. praes dior ‘duria’, giiol "gulli', sg. d. muon <month ‘man’, for heavy ‘sunkimas’, pepper ‘pipiras’. In the field of consonantics, the softening of consonants before e-type vowels, which was slightly different then than it is now, is particularly noteworthy. In this case, the southern Samogitians of Raseiniai soften all consonants. In the first half of the 17th century, only the consonants were softened against the type vowels, perhaps at least some of the š, ž88, Others were still hard or only slightly softened. This is clearly shown by the analysis of the e spelling of Slavochinsky's hymn. In total, 687 examples of k, g, k, g-+e type vowels were found in the iš hymn. All of ir them are written with the softening grapheme i after k, g, except for the one example n. sg. Ewangelifta 1 128,, "'evangelist', which, being a foreign word, retains the original spelling. Dialectal compounds [ké], [gé] and having [e] in the acute diphthong compound ([kéi], [géi], [kér], [gér]...) are written with the grapheme kia, gia, e.g., n. sg. kialas I 86,, “kėlias', giaras I 508, "gėras', kialdam 11 73,4 ‘kéldamas’, inf. giarti II 17, "gėrti' and so on. Unpronounced and unpronounced in circumflex, as well as pronounced short, are systematically written with the grapheme kie, gie, e.g. 3. praes. kient I 92, "suffer", I. sg. 67 A very unusual case of nasalization is the form of the 2nd person pronoun tq II 1041, ‘you’ (nasalized short vowel?). It is hard to believe that there is a *1ū = Russian met equivalent. Maybe it's a proofreading error? % There are no clear examples with Afrikaans. There is only a foreign word in the hymnbook, večeria "dinner*, whose spelling is contradictory (two times after č is written the softening letter i, and two times it is not). 160 154; 'laukė', adv. gieray I 21, "gerai', l. pl. praes. gieydzidme I 19, ‘geidziame’, adv. Friend I 223, "friend, together" and so on. The difference between ia and ie grapheme is nicely preserved, cf. pairs a. sg. kiala I 155, "kelę" and i. sg. kielu I 11754 ‘keliū*, a. sg. giara I 142,, 'good' and g. sg. f. gieros I 100, ‘gerds’TM, In examples of combinations z-+e type vowel found in hymn su §, 233. Su The softening grapheme i is written 154 times, without it 79 times. The letter i is not systematically written in the following two cases: a) after the prefix iz-(example 7), where apparently the pronunciation before the pause is preserved, ir b) verb help in forms e.g., which could be (26 known to the translator editors only from writings ar (?). Other cases of not writing the softening letter i are not systematic, occur only in verbs to go (18 examples without i and 2 examples with i), to hurt (6 be i, 1 sui), degraded (4 be i, 7 su (i) the sixth digit (1 be i, 5sui) noun ir sign (14 without i, 6 with i) in forms and derivatives, deminutive roželė (1 e.g., but rose and deminutive darželis are written with i —6 e.g.), verb (už)mušti past tense 3. person. in the form (2 without i, 1 with i). These facts indicate inconsistent softening of consonants. §, ž The following du cases are possible: or in the translator's native $nekta at that time those consonants were not yet noticeably softened (the letter could i have been added by the praisers of the hymn language), or they were already soft in that speech, the examples will have appeared because of the fault of editors who came from o unsoftened be i dialects. The first assumption seems to be more reliable, because it is supported by Mažvydas of Žemaitija (according to Chr. Stango, in the catechism only gTM is softened) jo k, ir The High Country M. Petkevičiaus (softened ne only k, g but ir š, 27) the data of the letters. Distribution between graphs ie ir ia po š, ž ta same as ir po k, g, just inconsistencies a little more (1194). Other consonants before type e vowels are not subdued**, as well as i po ju pronounced unwritten e graphemaTia M, in the % Songbook the deminutive vaikélis is written as if it were pronounced vaikelis, cf. waykiel IT 59, voc. s.g. Waykieli I 27,, n. pl. waykielay I 3753. Also the verb (pra)kurti is treated by the translator as (pra)kurti (i. e. ir M. "Petkovic". The verb gélbéti is double-pronounced: gėlbėti gelbéti ir (this is indicated ir by rhymes). 3. fucked. Giers II 381, ‘gers’ ir refl. prikielfife 11564, "prisikels* shows the hightitic (with metaphor) future tense 3rd person circumflex. 2. Praet. refl. form Džiaugieys II 72; ‘dZiaugeisi’ also, apparently, lies in the Altay sg. 2. limb -ei(s), not the Samogitian -éi(s). *0 There are relatively few deviations. Rejected in the cases referred to in jų footnote ta 69, 40, o this makes up 99% all the hymns present in [ke], [ge] examples. Deviations were caused by letters a ir e confusion in the hymnal (e.g., adv. skaney I 718, ‘skaniai’, n. sg. f. bu/enti I 74b, 'becomingma ', jiaufe II 8, "lowest" next to sg. i. f. baymia I 80,1, "fear", n. sg. m. ateia I 56, ‘atéjes’, 2 sg. Praet. refl. kielay/e II 251, ‘kéleisi’), resulting from [a] soft po consonant ir [e] overlap in the Žemaičių dialektas. It should be noted that the Žemaitijos formant of the imperative clause in the hymn is treated as kia, not ke: although it is not pronounced, the writings with ia form 3894, 0 2. s.g. ir l.pl. formose — net 50%. "1 See, Chr. S. Rod, Die Language of Lithuanian Catechism of Mažvydas. Oslo, 1929, p. 98. 72 See. Z. "Zinkevičius, M. Petkevičiaus katechizmas (1598 m." dialect, Baltistica, VII (1), Vilnius, 1971, p. 74-77. TM Notice su i iš total only examples 6 (g. s.g. /die II 2414 "mirties", inf. tiey/t II 264 "teisti", 2. sg. praes. refl. Tieykies II 655, 1101, ‘teikiesi’, 3. praet. Prazwielgie I 181, ‘praZvelge’, adv. wieykiey 11 643, “veikiai®), but these are obvious proofreading errors, because all of them are written without i. In the correction of errors I. sg. form miedey ‘in the tree’ (m žem. mediej) is corrected to mediey (II 128,), but the error is corrected in the text itself ši ir (I 64,5). Adjective n. sg. f. Anielifka 1153, ‘angeliska’ has two vowels ie (plg. rings ‘angelas’ LKZ I? 141), o g. s.g. f. in the form of niejaktos II 1035 Instead of ‘unpolluted’ there cannot be né-> zem. no-(2). "+ The examples of [a] after a soft consonant and [e] overlap (see footnote 70) have a in both accented and unaccented positions. 11. 520 161 now observed only further east of the translator's į snicket, in the highest elevation about Raseinius (Gerviniai), Kelmę. In ancient times, it was probably used in a much larger area, because jį we find ir iš Eastern In the writings of Prussian authors*? *, Slavocinsky's hymn shows that In the a. first half of the 17th century, the Samogitians (no at-!) with consonant d verbs, e.g. inf. granted 11 3,5 ‘to give’, 3. to pass. atdawe 1 68, "given 3. up", in French. adaral 112, "open", n.p.l.f. adarite 1 155; "open". There is a great deal of information about our ir lexical history in the Hymnbook. Researchers will find in it words that are no longer used in Lithuanian, e.g. paduksė paduksis (I 9913, 14013, II 195,,, 474) ir (II 224, 2813) "Hope", a shadow (I 14331, 14814, 1505) *food, foodstuff, food (I 65;„) 'poor, poor man', 3. praes. tieg (I 76a,, 78,, 83,5, 12214, II 19, ir kt) ‘sako’. Some words have retained their older forms, e.g. velinas (I 69,5, 1003, 121.4, II 76,5, 116;5 ir kt) ‘velniasTM®. Many of them are now known only in certain dialects. For example, the noun kėltuva then (I 465, 683, II 21,5, 22,5, 32,5) was used both in the eastern (K. Sirvydas), both middle (M. Petkevičius), both ir western (J. Bretkūnas, M. Mažvydas) In Lithuania. Now the šį word we can hear only in the east In Lithuania approximately until Labanéro, Giedraičių, Daugų lines. A researcher of the lexicon of ir the hymnal will find such words, which we now use in a different, often newer, meaning, e.g., bernelis (I 3129, 3416, 3629, 5933, II 5715) "child, baby', pure (I 1425, II 100,) “poor, poor man', narrowing (II 26,) "burna". * k X The language analysis of the Slavochinsky hymn is the first attempt to investigate this significant monument of our language from the point of view of dialectology. The analysis should show that in this aspect the studies of ancient writings are promising. In the future, they will be able to provide a lot of important data for the history of language. After all, without them it will not be possible to create a historical dialectology of Lithuanian, since the mere comparison of present dialectal facts leads to endless hypotheses. Finally, this kind of research is a key to the very complex history of the formation of the Lithuanian common language, especially the written language (in the past there was more than one). | Received 1971.V.5. 3. 3UHKJABHYIOC s13blK CBOPHHUKA TECEH C. M. CJIABOYHHCKHCA (1646 T.) Peswnme [Amunsaro cgyHTATb, UTO B fI3bIKE JAHHOTO NMamMsTHHKa HabJo1aeTcsa CMelleHHe pa3HbIX JHTOBCKHX JĮHAJIEKTOB nepsoii nojosuull XVII Beka. 103 plg, Pr. Skardžio note,,Archivum philologicum®, II (Kaunas, 1931), p. 197. 104 There is also a shorter form in the Hymn, but sua (not ja!) at the stem end, e.g., n.sg. Welnas II 94.0, g. sg. welna I 564, d.sg. Welnuy II 1034, n.p. welnay 11 118,,. That the longer form is not the work of a corrector of language is shown by the verses of the hymns, cf. n. sg. welinas II 116, rimavimg with a. pl. f. amžinas ‘amZinas- ’, a. pl. welinus II 7643 —with a. pl. kalinius, 168 BXOJIAT B COCTAB fi3bIKA MCCJEJyeMOro naMsaTHHKA, JIOKAJIH3HpOBATb YKa3aHHbIe JIMaJIeK Th, BbISICHHTBb MPOLIECC NnepeBojia INeceH Ha JIHTOBCKHH A3bIK, A Take onpeJEJIHTb 3HaUueHHe JaHHbIX, H3BJIEUeHHbIX H3 YKa3aHHOTO HAMSATHHKA, AJA HCTOpHH H HCTOpHueCKOH JMAJIEKTOJIOTHH JIHTOBCKOTO A3bIKA. B 513bIKOBbIX ocobeHHOCTeH IAMATHHKA BbISICHHJIOCb, UTO 513bIKOBbIX ocobeHHOCTeH IAMATHHKA BbISICHHJIOCb, UTO B HEM HMEIOTCS 3JIEMEHTHI TOJIbKO TpeX JĮHAJIEKTOB, a HMeHHO: |) xemaiiTckoro — okpectHoctr Nemakščiai — Vidukle, 2) aykuwraiiteKoro — okpectHocreii Kėdainiai H 3) BocTounosmToBCKOrO (r. Bujiburoc). Cauajia TIeCHH riepeBOJĮH/IHCb Ha »eMaHTCKHÉ JMAJIeKT (POYHOIL ROBOP NOT PEBOJUMKA) ¢ I'm sorry, I'm sorry. HeKOTODbIX AyKINITAHTCKHX 3JIEMEHTOB, HCITOJIb3YeMbIX NepeBoIUMKOM TIMJaBHbIM OOpa3OM B IeJISX CTHXOCJIOXKeHHSA, B IepBYylO O4epe/lb npH noucke HeoGxoauMoil can't. I'm not sure. TaKHM 00pa3oM Ha JIHTOBCKHH S13bIK JyXOBHble necHH SHObiJIH He MO Aylle TeM, KTO OpraHH30BA.1 H3/casting cGopuuk. IlosroMy TekCT BIIOCJIejtcTBHH nepepabaTbiBajicst (NO-BHIHMOMY, He TOJIbKO CAMHM TNEePeBOJYHKOM, HO H JPYTHMH (SLEEP) C LeJbi0 3aMeHbi, Te 3TO GBIJIO BO3MOXKHO B VCJIOBHAX CTHXA, KEMAHTCKHX (OPM I'm sorry, I'm sorry. ObI/IH CBOMCTBEHHBI MPHHATOMY B TO Bpemsi B JIHTBe, mpexe BCero B JKeMAaHTCKON enapXuH, NMHCbMEHHOMY fI3BIKY, BO3HHKIIEMY, MHEHHIO aBTOpa 10 Hacrosieil CtaTbH, Gaze Ha auasekTa okpectHocteit Kėdainiai. HemHorouncjieHHbie BOCTOUHOJHTOBCKHE 3JIEMeHTbI, OOHAp yKeHHbIe B NECHAX, NOSIBHJIHCb TO JIBYM NpHuHHAM: 1) MepeBOYHK LIHPOKO IMOJIb30BAJICA BOCTOYHOJIKTOBCKHM cjosapem K. Cupsupaca (IIupsuzaa), 2) uacTb yKasaHHBIX 3JIEMEHTOB NepeBOJUHK 3aHMCTBOBAJ NPSIMO H3 BOCTOYHOJIHTOBCKOH Dogs are lizards. BujibHIOCA, Tle OH MPOXKHBAJ BO BpeMsi yueObl B BusbHiocckoil He's gone. B 2012-2013 OOHAp y2KEHO MHOTO L@HHBIX JAHHBIX YOU ARE HCTOPHH H JJ HCTOPHYECKO AHAJEKTOJOTHH South Beach si3blka. OHH CBHJETE/NbCTBYJOT, HAINpHMeDp, O TOM, YTO nepBoii B NnoJIOBHHe XVII Beka 10:KHOMKEeMaNTCKHH JinaJIEKT y2Ke MMeJ JoJrHe MOHO(TOHTH ff, (BMECTO i wo, COBp. ie JIHTEPATYpPHOTO 13bIKa), HEIGHT uo, (U3 ie O, €), ye HaMeuaJICA rnepexoj HayaJbHOro eB a-, OZIHAKO aKyTOBbIe 3BYKOCOUeTaHusi u, i+r, I, m, n B okpectHocTsix Nemakščiai — Midwife eme noaseprajuch He AudroHrHsamuu. M3 o6jacTH KOHCOHAHTH3MA cJelyeT Mpexjie ECB and KasaTh Ha HMeBINHH MeCTO Mepexoj DAILYbIX zd B z. [MasaTaau3auus KOHCOHAHTH3MA TMepejį TJIACHbIMH THIA e B TO BpeMs Gbljia HHO, YeM B COBPEMEHHOM JHaJIeKTe, a HMEHHO: 3HAYHTeJbHOMY CMsiTYeHHIO nojsepraJIHCh TOJIbKO k, g, oruacTH §, ž (c, d), ocTajbHble Xe COrJIacHbIX B GoJblleH HJIH MeHbIUeH CTeNeHH COXDpaHSAJIH HCKOHHYIO TBepAOCTb. Yka3aHHbil OBJECT B TO BpeMsi COXpaHsJ MHOTHe JpeBHHe MOpOoOJIOTHUeCKHe (opMbl, MOJHOCTHIO HJIH TIOYTH MMOJIHOCTHIO HCYE3HYBIIHE B HACTOsIlee BpeMsi, Hamp., JABOHCTBEHHO® UKHCJIO, HJIJIATHB, aJeCCHB, AJIJIATHB, (OpMbI JIOKATHBA MH. 4. Ha -sa, DOpMbI Yeah. TEJILHOTO €]1. U. Ha - Yeah. y COLLECTIVE C OCHOBOH Ha -i, SHKJHTHYECKHE MeCTOuMeHHble (DOpMBI me, you, aTeMaTHUECKHE TVIATOJIbHbIC (DOpMBI, IHPOKO ynoTpelisiJach 3BpaTHasi vactHua - See. Hapsiny c I'm sorry. I'm B sorry. HMEIOTCS HEKOTOpbIE HOBbIE 3JIEMEHThI, XapaKTepHbIe JI COBPEMEHHOTO I02KHOXKEMAHTCKOTO AnaJiekTa. 169