Reikšmingas žemaitiškas rankraštinis tekstas

ZOO D.Z. L 4 FORMS LR. JY VA R. TO SE NA LA ET U V. OS T3SRAEMOKS LY ACADEMY Z. ZINKEVICIUS REIKSMINGAS ZEMAITISKAS HANDLEBAR TEXT 1971 m. In the spring of 2012, in the rare publications department of Vilnius University Library, I discovered an old Lithuanian manuscript text written in the Žemaičių dialect. The text is in an envelope with the signature The envelope consists of: Lp 881 —882. Tą 1) Ritvale Sacramentorum Ac Aliarum Ecclesiz ceremoniarum... Vilnius Typis Academicis Societatis Jesus Year Domain 1701; 2) Polish Lithuanian y Gospels... W Vilnius W Printers Academickiey Soc: Jesus, Roku Parifkij's 1705; 3) large collection of manuscripts, composed iš 30 (including ir appended index page) unnumbered 9 x 14 cm format sheets. The Lithuanian text is in the third part of the convolute — on the manuscript 22—25, 27—28 fiber sheets (p. 44—49, 53—55). The text consists of: the Gospel for the véliniy day, the poterie and other elements of the Pope's ir catechism Urbano Bull VIII ‘In Coena "Dominic's Remembrance". The entire Lithuanian text is written by one hand. It was written before the binding of the convolute, because the edges of the pages have cut letters or they are deep in the stitch, where writing the binding would not have been po immanomal. The Lithuanian po text does not have any date check name that could be used to determine the time of recording. ar iš However, the content of the text, in particular the bull ‘In Coena Domini", This Pope Urbano VIII bull, (1623—1644) originating on the iš customary Great Thursday (in Coena Domini) to curse certain persons?, in the Diocese of Žemaitija was ordered to announce 1630 from m®. However, iš little was ji known at first. Apparently, the priests did not even have the full Latin text, which was officially published only 1636 m. in the synodal resolutions*. Because of the relevance of the bull su in the fight against the Reformation, the bishop of 1636 m. Žemaitija ją Jurgis ne Tiškevičius ordered to proclaim it only on Great Thursday (as it was done until then), but during other holidays and ir otherwise larger gatherings of people. In the aforementioned synodal resolutions in the chapter ,,De publicatione Coena2 * Most likely all (or almost all) of the fiber was already attached when binding. Ir Other leaves (non-Lithuanian text) margin letters cut off in places or under the seam, but the whole paper is folded with unequal arcs (each folded 1-+1+4+4+4+1+1 page; third fold incomplete, last three pages cut) according to the written text. A clean piece of paper would probably have been distributed in equal arcs. * The Encyclopedia of Religion, B— C, empty V— VI, Warsaw, Poland 1905, p. 215. * M. Valančius, Raštai, II, Vilnius, Lithuania 1972, p. 354. * Vilnius University Library (signature III lacks a 10701) title page. The following heading is written by hand: ,, Minutes Synodus Primae (in fact it was a synod. II — Z.Z.) Samogitian sub Georgia Tyszkiewicz Year Domain 1636“. 171 Domini" requires that the most relevant ideas of the bull (points) preachers preach in the local people's language (vernacular language)®. This requirement was fulfilled, but the priests, not having the Lithuanian text, distorted the intentions of the bull considerably. This was stated in the 1647 m. synod, whose resolutions“ read that ..some priests preachers ir (concionatores) the points of this bull have been inappropriately proclaimed by the people in the local language, either by adding things that do not belong to it, or by proclaiming the meaning of the words inconsistent with the requirement of the law of the thing." su ir It goes on to say: “Predicting that they would not make such į mistakes, we decided that this bull, accurately translated into the Samogitian language, į (language "Additional ir information will be added later". A Lithuanian translation of the bull with explanations is attached, printed in su Gothic (explanations in Latin) characters in the so-called "Middle Eastern" script used in the Diocese of Samogitia at that time, which, as we see, was then called Samogitian language®. The entire text was reprinted for the second time in the collection of synodal resolutions of 1690 m. the Diocese of Žemaitija,,CollectaneaTM. But, apparently, by the end of the a. 17th century the bull had already lost its original relevance, because, when published for the second time, the insertion at the end of the collection was reprinted carelessly, ir with text omissions su (see section 4.4). 2, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19 paragraphs), even without adjusting the sentences accordingly. It seems that the bull was never reprinted again. We are concerned Lithuanian manuscript text of the bull lines) (108—162 differs from discussrty printed only language ne (written in the real Žemaičių dialect,,,mene dieval“ written language), but in content. ir It is a ne translation of the whole bull, but only a retelling of its ideas, which are tų relevant to the struggle of the Reformation. The recorder attacks the su Reformers much more vehemently than in the authentic printed text of the bull. For this purpose, he chooses stronger than the original, but better understood by the people, images, for example, instead of the printed text saying (heretics) a curse, he simply curses them, giving ,,po macys Wellina damned." In the same way, he acts in defence of the interests of ir the clergy of his diocese against the Reformers, for example, exchanging persons who take away from the clergy meadows, land, cattle, grain, money, although such a specific exchange was not in the bull itself. All this shows that the present account of the bull must have occurred in the heat of the struggles of the Reformation. Because of the distortion of the original thought, we could jį even assume 1647 that it appeared before the year, i.e. when there was no official Lithuanian translation of the bull. However, on the manuscri17 pt page of the convolute there is a Latin ta inscription, apparently by hand, mentioning 1669 m. the synod. Be M. Valančius writes in the second book of the convolute, 5, that the priests were ordered to “deposit the bull in the Zemgaly way” (min. p. 354). 6 Synodus quarta dioecesis Samogitia... Vilnius Academic Society of Jesus A.D. M. DC. XLVII, p. 31. 7 The translator is unknown, but he could not have been Jonas Jaknavičius, as V. Biržiška suspected (see „Tauta ir žodis“, IV, 310). This is demonstrated by the simplest language comparison. Later, apparently, V. Biržiška also gave up this opinion, because among the works of J. Jaknavičius he did not mention the translation of this bull, suspecting that it could have been translated by the Jesuit John Gruževskis (Aleksandrynas, I, 242). 8 The translator of the Catechism in 1605 also called it this way, claiming that M. Daukša’s Catechism was written,,3emaytiBkai“. These facts clearly show the historical evolution of the meaning of the term Žemaičiai. ? Collectanea Conftitutionum Synodalium Dicacefis Samogitiensis [Vilnius, Academic Press, 1690]. —In the bibliography of the Lithuanian SSR (series A, volume I, Vilnius, 1969, p. 479, entry 99) it is inadvertently stated that the text of the synod of 1547 was copied from this text (an earlier text of a later one!). iš 172 (Ewanielie polskie y litewskie... 1705 m.) on the last page, at the end of the printed text, handwritten Garbie Dywu etc. The latter can also be the same person (?), because the writing is similar, and the dialect is the same. Therefore, the text was probably recorded later, in the late 17th century (if Garbie Dywu etc. attributed it to another person) or even in the early 18th century", though following or simply copying an earlier manuscript text that appeared in the heat of the struggles against the Reformation. The Polish translation of the above mentioned bull (p. 49—532), also shortened but wider than the Lithuanian one, is also included in the manuscripts of the convolute. And this one was written, it seems, by the same person. The comparison of the two texts shows that the unknown person, writing the Lithuanian text, initially followed the Polish one: the beginning and the first point are very similar. But even then, after translating the first point for the second time in a somewhat different way (cf. verses 119—123 and 124—128), he abandoned this idea and continued to follow some other text of the bull unknown to us (perhaps a Žemaitic text, cf. the distortion of the Žemaitic form of the word "galvijas" discussed in footnote 68), written, apparently, even before 1647*, without distinguishing the individual points of the bull. This shows that there were more manuscript Lithuanian (and perhaps Polish) versions of this bull, adapted to the needs of the Žemaitija bishopric fighting the Reformation. In them, as well as in the surviving Lithuanian and Polish manuscripts, everything that was not directly related to that struggle was omitted, e.g. the prohibition of attacking ships at sea, appropriating the property of shipwrecked ships, etc. Some of the images of the supposed manuscript variants may also have been included in the printed text. Therefore, the last sentence of the 1690 “Collectanea” collection (O takie wifi tegul zagęfa on duofios and on Kuno amjinay kaypo ta 3wake zagefa), which is very reminiscent of the end of the manuscript of our interest (Yr kap ta Zwakie ozgiefa tap tegol ty wysoy ont kuna Yr on dusies ozgięs), should not necessarily indicate that the latter was recorded after 1690, although such a possibility exists. From all that has been said, it is clear that the earliest possible date of the text or its origins is 1636. It could have been recorded at the latest shortly after 1705*., Thus, the dating ranges approximately between 70 years. The manuscript published in this way is at least 150 years old. A few words about the other parts of the recording and their circumstances. A printed Lithuanian translation of the Gospel for Easter (November 2) was not available at the time when the Lithuanian text was recorded- .” The priests of the bishopric of Zemgalė must have missed it'*, in order to convert the pagans10. The fact that the bull was no longer relevant at that time could be shown by its presentation at the end of the entire Lithuanian text. 11 This is suggested by verses 136-139, where the exchanged new duties (taxes) are imposed or increased by persons. In the explanations of the translation of 1647 it is unequivocally stated that this curse concerns only Italy (Wallacia), and in other countries kings and seimas could, when necessary, impose “duties” without any redemption. The recorder initially acted as if he did not know this explanation (he scolded the persons mentioned), but then he took advantage of it and wrote a reservation (who do it), „nepryguliedamy yr netoriedamy tykros macys“. 12 The convolute was probably bound shortly after the books were published, because the new editions of both books (Evangelii 1711, Ritvale Sacramentorum 1715) were soon published, so the old ones must have become obsolete and lost their relevance. 13 The collection of J. Jaknavičius contains only those Gospels that are read on Sundays and public holidays. Easter and then, apparently, was a working day. '4 The relevance of the article is shown by the inclusion of the Lithuanian text at the very beginning. 173 the niche of afterlife customs su related to the ancestor cult, which here, more than elsewhere, must have been popular. After all, M. according to Valančius, many of the Žemaites, then formally considered Christians, were completely supagonéje's in the times of the Reformation.) Ar (1—18 value, ar copied iš from an older Lithuanian manuscript (maybe just used it?), hard to say'®. The latter hypothesis could be supported by the occurrence of archaisms, for example, d. pl. mumos 1 ‘mums’ (from us), ad. s.g. m. fawimp 9, 10—11 'pas save'. "About the Other ir Elements of the Catechism of Dél (19—107 Potter" (in Hungarian). appearance it should be noted that the aforementioned bishop of Žemaitija Jurgis Tiškevičius already 1636 m. had commanded the priests, as he writes M. "There is no doubt that in the early days of the church, the priests were called to "preach the gospel" or ir "preach the gospel of the su faith". The text of the Poteries is recorded following the text of the Polish Poteries and other catechisms in the convoluted manuscripts (p. 36—39, missing only the confession of sin and faith, which is in the Lithuanian text in verses 96—107), written probably by the same hand. The Lithuanian text is quite adequate for this, coincides almost word for word, only the,,five commandments of the church” and,,seven sacraments” differ somewhat more sharply. Who was the recorder of all the parts of the Lithuanian text discussed here has not been clarified. It is only clear that it must have been a Catholic priest, an educated man, at least well versed in Latin and Polish. On the other side of the convolute there is a hardly legible inscription in the other hand: Ex Libris Patris Benedicti Grygiewicz Parochi Gulis. It should probably be understood as: "From Kuliai!? books of priest Benediktas Grigevičius”. There are more records of this person, not only in the manuscript fiber, but also in the convolute polapy. The latter circumstance leads us to assume that this person will most likely have taken care of the compilation and binding of the envelope. He will have collected the most favorite books of the priests at that time and a plethora of manuscripts of his own and several others, acquired or inherited, which supplemented their content. The convolute was apparently used constantly. This is shown by the abundant underlined text of the Ritvale Sacramentorum and by the content of the manuscripts. It contains various ecclesiastical regulations, synod decisions, theological interpretations, descriptions of rites, prayers and other Latin, Polish and Lithuanian texts related to the daily work of a priest. The collection is arranged, it seems, according to relevance: the most necessary texts are placed at the beginning, the least necessary — at the end. It was written not at the same time and by at least several people. The style and style of writing, in general, are typical of the 17th century. Paper yellowed in places, watermarks not noticed. Later the convolute came to the library of Kretinga monastery, from where it was received by the library of Kaunas University (16 June 1941), and in 1952 transferred to the library of Vilnius University. 15 Zr. M. Valančius, min. veik., II, p. 86—87. ' 16 Anyway, my earlier knowledge (see. Paltistica, VIII (1), p. 971), that the recorder translated the Eastern text of J. Jaknavičius into the Žemaičių dialect, is correctable. 17 M. Valančius, min. veik., II, p. 325. 18 For the writing Gulis instead of Kulis, see letters Gir Kpainiojimą in the writings of the office Slavic language of that time. 174 The Lithuanian ne text is easy to read everywhere, in some places it can only be read by comparing different places, to especially the person's own ir written in Latin Polish. Ne always clearly distinguish capital letters from lowercase letters, especially d, k, s, z. Reading is hindered by faded ink in some places, scratching of letters at the edges of the page, inconsistent punctuation. The author of the text, in general, followed the fluctuating Polish writing of the time. Therefore, there are inequalities, diversity. Africana € sometimes denoted by a letter c su Gravium (non-acute) diacritics. In the deciphered texts there is a letter. ji č The letter e is written somewhere else as su a kind of loop extension į to the top. It is deciphered e by a simple letter. On the i spot (and other language versions) the period is missing or may be faded. But even the most varied letters s ir z writing. The first common transitional variants between s ir /. The deciphered / text appears only if the upper loop at least the fold to the right is sufficiently ar clear, the letter case is į ignored. į Letter z ranges between z ir 3. It is more common in 3 the Polish text. In Lithuanian there is a diagonally z su downward prolonged ending. In this case, the simple is given irrespective of the letter's z, case. It occurs į with a crosshair. When the letter z su z denotes a consonant ž, a dot is sometimes placed on it, an acute sign somewhat resembling an upside-down roof. The first case is presented in two other ar į ž, — ž, At the end of the word, some letters sometimes end with an artificially extended horizontal line (and in other language texts) to reach a further word, thus formally joining them as one. į The deciphered text ignores this combination. A photocopy of the page with the 45 least faded and easiest to read text is attached to the handwriting ir illustration. Below is the full decrypted text!? : have 1 [denos]*? praying oz souls fkayta our Church S. Ewang: a parasite nu Jona paS. [dJeimy 5. Anu metu; Calf Jesus for Mokytyns® 5 Sawa, to Yr the multitudes of Jews: quiet, quiet, fa- [k]aw jomf, iog eyn adina, now ir*?2, yr kada numyrele ifzgiers balfa fūnaws Fuck you, chickens, o come back. Nei** kaypo Tiews®® tur Zywata patf fawimp; spade diamonds 10 Yr funuy, idant*® turetu Zywata pat/ fa1* The original lines are preserved, its numbered lines throughout iš the text, namely, is on the page, 1—18 44 19—38 — 45 p., 39—60 — 46 p., 61—83 — 47 p., 84—103 — 48 p., 104—107 — 49 p., 108—128 — 53 p., 129—149 — 54 p., 150—162 — 55 p. Letters that are significantly ar truncated at the edge of the lines are shown in square brackets if the reading is jų in doubt. *0 The letters in the first line are truncated at the top, making it ją difficult to read. Compared su to the present Gospel text (Ion V, 25—29 second. ). The most controversial word is in square brackets. May contain Zen (?). # Letter e correctiš i, 22 t, y. ir ed is now * Fixed from Die 4“ Places Nes ** Letters ie merged, i can be inserted later, can be ** Jidant, because the po comma funuy resembli es the o bottom of the letter, the canopy on i — its top. 175 wimp; 14 And he said unto them, Do not be afraid, for I am with you, and I will save you, and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 15 And he said unto them, Ye shall not be afraid, for I am with you, and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 16 And he said unto them, Ye shall not be afraid, for I am with you, and I will save you. Wardon Dywa Tiewa, yr funaw/, yr 20 Dwafes Swigtos. Amen. Tiėwe mufa, kors efi, Dongofie- *, [wig Jkiesy Ward[Tawa, ateyk karalifte Tawa, buk wala Tawa, kap dong[u] 25 tap Yr ont Ziemys. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive our debtors, and do not forgive us our trespasses, but forgive us our trespasses. Amen Sweyka Virgin Marya, milestas pyina, Pons Dyw/[fo tawymi, pagierta tu®* tarp moteru, yr pagiert/ waysios Ziwata tawa JEZV'S. 35 Blessed be Mary, the Mother of God, who milkest us griefznus, nu, yr wa fondo fmertys musa. Amen. Tiekio y Dywa Tiewa Wysagalintyiy®, [s]overseas dongaw/[- yr Earth. And the JE40 ZVSA Chrystusa, funu Jo Wynatyiy, kor[prafydieie ysz Dwasys S. Gieysz my P. Mary's Purity, Numucit[ po Ponsku Pylotu, numyrie Yr paladot. Nuziggie Y hell, third dyna, 45 cups ysz numyru. Ontžiegie ont Dongu, [ied po defienies Dywa #7 The bottom of the last letter merged, corrected, * After the dot is written an S-like sign, apparently marking the end. 29 "ofie can be -u/ie, Zr. a photocopy. 0 The letter n is extended by the "end" sign. This word is also mentioned in verses 37, 53, 162. 3 Letter w merged (maybe 0?). ** The letter i after /crossed out by the extension of the word Amen "end" mark of the previous line, blurred, may also be e. 12. 520 177 Tiewa Empowering. Ysh tyn tor Ateity fuditie giwu Yr numyrusiu. Tykiu Y Dwafe S. S. Bažnicie Wyfor®® 50 afontę**, fwietuju furinkiema. The forgiveness of the Greeks. Kuna YJz numy- [r]usiu prykielyma. [O po Smerčie]**. Yr omžiena Živata. Amen. Decimals Carpet of dust. 55 1. Asz esmnio® Pons No, Tawa. Non-ferrous solids Dywu shower muni. 2. Ne ymsi Warda Pona Dywa Ta. Dowana. 3. Remember Dyna S. [wig/ty. 60 4. Sienawok Tiewa Tawa yr Motina® Tawa, je nori ylga butie ont [wieta. . Ne oimoJzk. . Don't wait fo [wetymo Moteri . Newok. . Co Don't talk to me. Tawa. 9. Negieysk® Women artyma Tawa. 10. Ne Nomu, ne dyrwas, ne flužebni dies*®, ne jawcia, Yr no Wyna dakt/[a] 70 kor/[ ir. jo Miliesi Pona Dywa tawa ysz wysos [i[r] dys tawa, ysz wysos dusies tawa, ysz wysos myslies tawa, ysz wysu Yr [ilu tawa, artyma 0 tawa kapo pat] fa 75 wi. NO a Pynkie prysakima Baznicies S. 1. Swiesk dynas Sad. nu Baznicies S. paft[a] nawitas. 2. Klawfik Mysiof S. dyna S. 80 3. UZlaykik po/nikus nu Bažni cies ožfakitus. S. 8 Letter o corrected iš w. 3 The aletter can be correctiš ed e-. 35 The words in square brackets are crossed out. The cross-hair only affects the lower part of the letters, so it can be formally supported as an underline. ir The recorder also ir strikes out in other 109, 145, 146, 153 cases, namely, in lines. 26 The beginning of the letter n is vague, it may also be m, therefore, esmmio. 287 Abbreviated Tawa "your". 38 Letter į can be corrected iš y. This means that the long vertical stroke at the po beginning of the n letter is more likely. Below this word is the custody of the further page Tawa. 20 Letter y merged, inserted. 40 Left. služebnica ‘tarnaité’ (obsolete word). 178 4. Spawiedokies greek how many years nego" fawa, Ko aba hard pafo [z]walyiymo jo. 85 [5] Pryimk Sad. "Sacramento wines once in a while". O ta ape Sweet Great. Septinie Sacrament Baznicies S. No Patys Xfa** Pona paftana witie. 90 I. Kryk/fztf S. 2. Burman. 3. Sad. Sacrament/ Queen's Yr kuna X/a P.** 4. Packaged, 5. Paflast greased. 6. Cow gift. 7. Moteriftie. hereinafter referred to as [ur]*® Afz griefznus 95 Deinde*’ Tykio jog Pons No ir Trayce Sad. No/[ Tiew/, Dyw/ funus, Dywf Two Je S. Tris*® Afabas, Wyns Pons Dyws. I mean, Chrystus® P. ir Jesus funus 100 Dywa, JZganitos musa Tycrus Dyw/, Tykrus Zmogus, Wyns Christ. I mean, Sad. Sacrament] ir Ty kras Art Yr Tykras Kraw/ Chry Jtusa. Jesus funaw/ Carpet. Tykio 105 Wys ką baznicie S. Rima Kathalyck [a] tyk, Yszmana moka. Yr Buk ta da pafzlowent[ etc Sens zwycgaius ir jog fiendyna Veriaw fe Jis Piemo Yr galwa [Yr Thief[]** Bagnicies S. ont ziemys or kieykty 110 wysus hierotykus pyktu[s] Kathaliekus, Yr prysaka tapag idant Wy Jofie The church would be kieykty, o ta divided if the carpet was broken[n] ty Yr y toki yszkieykiema neypultu, aba 115 ypules pazintu jog yszkiey ktf ir no Baznicies S. O tap cap gray- *“* The last letter is written unclear, may be w. ** May be Yes, the top of the letter is cut off. ** Letter u unclear, may be a. 44 Places Christufa. 48 Places Christufa Ma'am. ** Letter r extended, word abbreviated. Lot. here needs to be added. “7 Lot. Then. This word is underlined with a ir horizontal jo line across the entire page, Letters are crossed out, written as if ** you wanted is to correct /, į Trife (?). ** Letter Ch corrected į K, ar on the contrary, K į Ch. * Lot. ir t.t. Below is a horizontal line across the page. *1 Words in square brackets crossed out, above jų unclearly written below mas word Bagnicies S. 12% 179 no 26, adv. Siediena 26 ‘Today’, as much as 82%, conj. ifnt 10, ifnt 111, 1138*. It can be suspected and passed. no 30, 88, 116, 126 ‘nuo’ (alongside the undoubtedly Žemaitic variant nu 2, 77, 80) and in individual cases paraSymus with u instead of the expected o (i.e. 9, see footnotes 82 and 83). AukstaitiSkai morphological forms are considered n. sg. 2 (2nd ed.). pp. 2. funuy 10 ‘sinui’ (-ui!), a. sg. f. afonte 50 (because of -¢; but with Zemaičių on, t instead of an, Čč). Some of the high-quality have adjacent ZemaitiSkus equivalents, which are also more than high-quality. For example, the word dievas with a possible Upper Lithuanian (?) root is used only 1 time (g. sg. deewa 15, if ee denotes Upper Lithuanian ie), and with a Žemaitian (Dyw-) — 19 times; the word diena is written twice in Upper Lithuanian, 4 times in Lower Lithuanian (adverb šiandien 1: 2 respectively); in the stem n.s.g. ending(s) is written 1 time in Upper Livonian, 7 times in Lower Livonian. At least some of the high-quality ones are considered book ZodZi, then widely used by representatives of various dialects. For example, the conjunction idant (with the whole an) is even found in the Eastern writings of K. Sirvydas, in 1605 and in the catechisms of Belarmonius (everywhere next to adunt). The book could also be the text adverb grayčiaw/116—117 "faster" (with rai instead of rei). The recorder of the text tried to Zemaitinti high-latein words, for example, 3. praes. form (pa)dod 133, 158 '(pa)duoda' written without ending, g. sg. The form Dywa 7—8 “god” was initially written Diewa, then ie was corrected to y. The text under consideration contains a number of important data that allow to shed light on certain problems of the history of our language and the development of the Žemaičių dialect. First of all, those text data are very important, from which we can judge about the response of the common language wo, ie in the speaker- ’s speech. Most likely they were not pure monophthongs #, i, but diphthongs uw, ij or au, 7i®%. The analysis of the graphic of the text leads to this conclusion. In the first case it is written as y, in the second as —i, e.g., Dyw/ 32 “god”, Wyns 98 “one”, a. pl. pywas 150 “meadow”, g. sg. Patys 88 "paties"- ... (all 38 definite examples have y), but Trif 98 ‘three’, g. pl. Judu 5 ‘Zydy’, a. pl. knigas 129 "knygas- ", inf. darity 11 ‘daryti’, 3. praes. and 70 ‘is’, 2. sg. imper. Klaw/ik 79 "listen" (all 77 examples with i)*", Apparently, the person who wrote the text was more concerned with the narrowness-width of the vowels than with the length-breadth®. Common language ie ati- *4 Words of non-Lithuanian origin with ie, e.g., g. pl. greek 51, 82 ‘nuodémiy’, n. sg. m. grie/znus 94 "sinful", a. pl. m. grie/znus 36, g. sg. /wieta "world", a. sg. /wieta 157, g. sg. neprietelaws 142 "opponent, friend', 2. sg. imper. 63 ‘do not commit adultery- ’, Spawiedokies 82 “go to confession*, of course, not to be regarded as highland. 8% Ethnosyllabic compounds su 7 healthy kept in church terms, k. a. Amen 21, 30, 37, 53, 162, Ewang: 2 (abbreviated Gospel), Sakramentf 91, 102, a. sg. Sakrame- [n}ta 85, n. pl. Sacrament 87, but they are also not to be considered as Sacraments. The same applies to the Lithuanian-origin communicative giwe[n]ty 113-114 ‘to live’, because in it the Žemaites usually keep the en intact, just as in abbreviated word forms, cf. n. sg. m. Sens 108 ‘senas’, d. sg. m. tam 13, 1. pl. atleydam 28 ‘atlaidame’. Zodelis ben 85 "at least" can be written by bene. su e # A. According to Girdenis, diphthongs are ir pronounced now, Zr. ,,Baltistica“, VI (2), 143—145. *7 Once we find i: n. s.g. f. parasite 2 "written." The borrowed žywata "life, womb" is written in two ways: with i (g. sg. žiwata 34, a. sg. Žiwata 53) and with y (a. sg. Zywata 9, 10), although in the latter case the Polish spelling žywot is imitated. In the recorder’s speech there were the forms motyna, mokytinis ‘student’, fut. 3. immediately ‘gis’, plg. Motina 35, a. s.g. Motina 60, d. pl. for the 4, schoolyards will revive 8. 8 E.g., a strict switch ir (all 39 examples written with yr) ir 3. praes. yr < is (all e.g. 13 They are written and) distinction, but the same in the position of assimilation not widespread i ir ancient long spelling. i 186 the singular, like the schneck ¢ < i, had to be pronounced more openly than the short i and the ancient long 7, which were not widespread, and, most importantly, before the ie equivalent, like the schneck ¢ < i, many consonants? **, apparently, were still not softened (or slightly tesumink3téje)®, so it reminded more of the Polish “hard” vowel y than i. For this reason, the recorder marked it and ¢ < i with the letter y, and i and i —with the letter i. Since in older texts written on the basis of the Northern Samogitian dialect (e.g., 1787 “Živate”) it is often marked with the letter y, it cannot be ruled out the possibility that the recorder could also pronounce giar & (with a weak second démeny, as the Northern Samogitians now pronounce closer to Latvia and the former Klaipėda region), thus, it could also have come from the Northern Samogitian area®. Plg. rašymą g. sg. deewa 15 "god' (maybe ee instead of gi?). On the other hand, the equivalent of the common language wo was tended to be marked with the letter u (cf. n. sg. m. ypules 115 'falling', i. sg. m. Anu 4 'anuo'), as was the ancient long vowel #*2. Only once this corresponding Symbolization doubtful letter o, namely d. sg. Konego 82—83 "prieciu' (-o unclear, resembles -u, moreover, the entry on the last page of the 1705 "Gospels" has a clear letter u at the d. sg. ending: Garbie Dywu). Other linguistic characteristics of the text do not fundamentally contradict the search for the writer’s schneckt in the northern Žemaitija (“dounininkai”) area, and some could even support it, e.g., i. sg. f. fo fwetymo Moteri[o] 63 ‘with a strange woman', adv. kado 7 "kada", a. pl. po/nikis 80 'pasnykus'. But plg. The ex libris and convolute of the priest of Kuliai entered the library of the monastery of Kretinga (both in the northern Žemaitija region). Thus, the localization of the recorder’s snitch in the southern Žemaitijos Varniškiai area is now still considered conditional. It is to be hoped that in the future, after careful investigation and determination of the notation of the common language wo, ie “,duniniškų” equivalents in the undoubted texts of the Northern Samogitians of that time, it will be possible to solve this problem in one way or another. The text shows that the word dievas was still pronounced in Žemaičių (Dyw-) in the speaker- 's speech at that time. Now, it seems, all the Samogitians usually pronounce the root of this word in high Samogitian (with ie), the Samogitian pronunciation has remained only in such specific statements as pdndgivs Tirkšliai "Mr. God". The prepositions from, to (nu-, pri-) in the text recorder’s speech could still have a full vocalism (i. e. nuw, priį resp. nū“, pri*, or no“, préf), because it is marked with the same letters w, y, e.g. nu 2, 77, 80 ‘from’, 3. praet. numyrie 43 "numirė', Nužiegie 44 'nuZengé- ', n. sg. m. Numudit/- 42 "tortured", n. pl. numyrele 7 "numirėliai", g. pl. numyrusiu 45, 48, 51—52 'numirusiy', 3. praes. prysaka 111 ‘prisako’, 2. sg. imper. 85 "Priimk", a. sg. prykielyma 52 "resurrection"), n. pl. prysakima 76 'commandments,' nepryguliedamy 138 'not belonging', g. pl. prysakimu 54 'commandments'®. However, because of the polysemy® of the letters u, y strictly ** Probably except for K, g, š, ž, I (see footnote 80), although there are no examples with them in the text. * Even now, in a large part of the Žemaičių dialektas (especially in the west and north) before e < i consonants are not softened, except for dž, see. K, g, š, ž, I, č, Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius, 1966, p. 156—157. * This idea has been first raised by the author doc. A. Hearing. *2 All 35 examples written su u. Once at the top u has a hyphen: sg. g. /ūnaws 7 *sūnaus’. 2 A. pl. m. priegolincius 151 ‘belonging’ could be an autistic hypernormalism, © no 30, 88, 116, 126 'nuo' — highland (?). * First used ir i resp. for the unspread short u, second — ir sniffs to e mark. 187 this cannot be confirmed. Furthermore, the preposition before is written twice with y (prysz 56, a. pl. praysztarawnikus 155 ‘before the Old Ones’ —conjugated form) and once with i (pri/z 65). In the recorder- 's speech, which is now assumed, all three variants of prepositional consonants with the short expanded vowel have become common (despite the further narrowing of the syllable), e.g., no vf'ra 'from the man', nopi'le "spilled", pre vi'ra "to the man", pręepi"lę "spilled", pres vakara "before the evening", présaki's "front eyes" (but adv. pri"špri"- ša's "against the fronts")?- *. The text examined is significant for the history of the spread of short wu, i in the Zemaičių dialect. This is the oldest Samogitian manuscript monument, which clearly distinguishes 0, € from u, i. The data of this text, if the recorder was really a Southern Samogitian, would basically confirm the idea raised by K. Buga fifty years ago about the later introduction of 0, ę before the endings with the open vowel®® in part of the Samogitian dialect area. From the text we also see that the vowels 0, ė were already diphthongized (uo, ie) at that time, but this feature is poorly reflected due to the spelling imperfection. The mixed diphthongs an, am, en, em were then narrowed. The distribution of nasal and denasalized vowels was already roughly the same as now, only in the ending of the oxyton g. pl., perhaps, there was not yet (and could accidentally not enter the text) a variant with -n: everywhere it is written -u (giwu 48 ‘live’, Nomu 68 ‘namy’...). The same applies to the verbs in 3. cond. (butu 112 ‘buty’, turetu 10 "turėtų'..- .) and past participle inflections (n. pl. m. at/ydalieje 127—128 "atsiskyrę, atsiskyrę- *). In all these cases, the variants with -n (3. cond. -m) have prevailed in the now presumed recorder- 's speech, although some forms also have doublets without -n, e.g. gi‘vii'n "live" (|| gi'vū) būrtėrm "to be" (|| bū't), n. pl. m. matén "to have seen" (but n. sg. m. mates "to have seen"). The prefix-preEdélis í was then already deanalized, shortened and extended (at least in the position of assimilation), e.g., y 29, 38, 39, 44, 49, 114, 146 'í', n. sg. m. ypules 115 “ipuoles- ”, 3. cond. neypultu 114 "not attacked". See the current eT, eI of that schnekt. And the reduction of the word end was already about the same as now, cf. n. sg. Kryk/fzts 90 'baptism', Kuns 103 'body', Pons 32 'lord', Tiews 8 'father' (all 29 examples) and JZganitos 100 'Savior', Kraw/103 'blood' next to Tykras 103, Tykrus 100, 101 'true'; n.a. n. Wys 105 ‘visa’, 3. praes. eyn 6 ‘eina’, gien 132 ‘gina’, paded 143 —144 ‘padeda’ (all 21 examples); g. sg. Jonah 2 ‘Jono’, Tiewa 19 ‘tévo’ all 53 e.g.), 3. praes. /kayta 1 “read’, pay 106 "pay" (6 e.g.) next to g. sg. m. at 84°j0’; g. sg. dyrwas 68 “dirvos”, milestas 31 “mylistos, malonés’ (4 ex.) next to wysas 71 “visds’; a. sg. balfa 7 ‘voice’, dyna 44 ‘diing’ (35 e.g.) next to what 105. There has already been intensive monophthongation of bivowels ai, ei, e.g., g. sg. dakt[a] 69 "daikto", n.s.g. m. paladot/- 43 —44 ‘released’, 3. praes. kiek 123, 131, 136, 149 ‘she curses’, atet 13 ‘she comes’ (<to come), d. sg. dowana 58 ‘dovanai- ’, n.p. Sakramenta 87 ‘sacramentos’, numyrele 7 ‘numiréliai’, adv. ylga 61 ‘long’, neteyse 65 ‘wrong’, kap 24, 27, 116, 152, 155, 159 ‘how’, kapo 74 ‘how’, tap 9, 25, 116, 128, 160 ‘yes’, tapag 111, 123, 131, 133, 136, 139, 144, 148 —149 ‘how’, conj. is 61 ‘jel’, not 68 (3x), 69, not 69 ‘nei’. % Further to the northwest (in the northern Samogitian area) the narrowness is maintained, but also before a broad syllable. ** K. Būga, Ylakių apylinkės šnekta, —„,„Tauta ir žodis“, I, Kaunas, 1923, 375 (= Selected Writings, III, 606). 188 The words dalykas (2 ex.), užkastas (1 ex.), kaip (6 ex.), taip (5 ex.), taipag (8 ex.), jei (1 ex.), nei (4 ex.) have only monophthongized forms, while leisti (3 ex.), vaisius, geisti, skaityti, laikyti, naikinti, mylėti, adv. wrongly and strangeness traicė ‘trejybé’ (all 1 e.g.) written with sound diphthongs. The verb keikti and its derivatives (4 e.g. with e, 12 with ey), the forms of the verb eiti (1 with e, 3 with ey) and the adverbs kaipo (1 with a and 1 with ay) are written twice. The name of the male noun. pl. (3 ex.) and feminine d. sg. (1. e.g.) the endings have monophthongized diphthongs (with retained diphthongs there is no example). But even the adverbs are written in two ways: 3 examples with monophonic and whole diphthongs. Apparently, the recorder, choosing variants with monophonic and whole ai, ei, preferred the latter (influence of written language- ?). This is shown by three instances when he corrected the monophonic form into a diphthong (geisti, 2 times keiti). There are no other examples where a diphthong is changed into a monophthong. At that time, in the eastern part of the southern Samogitian dialect, next to the schnekta assumed by the text writer, the beginning of the word already had the consonant a-, cf. a. sg. f. in afont 50, the word 'existing' (may be corrected from e-). However, some of the current phonetic features of that schnekt probably did not exist at that time. For example, now in unaccented endings of speech, instead of the general o after a soft consonant, the e is pronounced, e.g., g. sg. "Kėl'e 'kelio', 3. praet. žadieję "promised", g. sg. sa'ujęs ‘a handful’. However, the text suggests that there was probably not a narrow but a broad vowel e (i. e. @ or even 'a) here, because it is written: g. sg. jawcia 69 "bull's", krawja 91 'blood', Wysagalinčioja 47 'almighty- ', 3. past. kalbeie 4 "talked", prafydieie 41 "began", g. sg. Dwafes 20 ‘spirit’ (but Dwasys 41; maybe é the end of the trunk?), Bažničies 76 ‘church’, Wiresniofes 135 ‘elderly’, awk /fciawfiofes 134 ‘highest’. The text shows the former platy vowel and common language nikiréiuoty endings acc. s.g. -ę, -ią, participant -ęs, -ę, n. sg. - Yeah, acc. pl. -ias in equivalents, plg. acc. s.g. Sweet 86 “holy', [s/otwertoja 39 "creator', Dwafe 49'spirit', Bažnicie 49 "church (but trety 44 "third'!), n. sg. m. ypules 115 ‘ipuoles’, n. pl. m. at/ydalieje 127 —128 “atsiskirę, atsiskyrę', n. sg. baznicie 105 "church- ", a. pl. duszes 1'soul'. Now in all these cases there is e, cf. a. sg. katę 'cat', sa'uję'sauna', n. sg. m. matęs ‘mates’, n. sg. sa'uję ‘handful- ’, a. pl. sa'ujęs ‘handful- ’. However, the -ė, -ės reflex of unpronounced endings was probably narrow, e.g. 3. past. dary 15, 17 "darė', Giemy 41-42 'gimé', dawy 11 "davė', but also dawe 9 "davė' (the spelling of other examples is ambiguous), sg. g. Winter 25, Winter 39, of Winters 109 'Zemés'. The data brought to light suggest that in all cases these schnekts have ne retained the primary narrowing (i.e., derived from e an older narrow vowel) in the unpronounced ends, but that it may have been affected by a later secondary narrowing in some places. In nouns, this may have occurred due to confusion of the j@ and ė stem forms. However, the lack of examples does not allow this process to be highlighted. In the area of consonantism, attention should be paid to the softening of consonants, which seems to have been somewhat more archaic than it is now. į už Iš spelling can be judged only on the softness of consonanar ts hardness before schnets ¢ <i (this has already been discussed) ir e, No. In the latter case (t. y. before ei) e, softening letter is systematicali ly written only po K, g, š, ž, e.g., inf. kieykty 110 ‘keikti’, 3. praes. oak 120, 128, 133, 139, 144, 157, kie[n]k 124, how much 123, 131, 136, 149 ‘keikia’, n. sg. m. 189 yszkieykts 115—116 "iškeiktas', g. sg. m. cursed 158 "cursed- ", n. b. m. kieykty 112 ‘keikti’, a. sg. yszkieykiema 114 'exhibition', 3. praes. January 143 ‘gena’, ozgies 161 ‘uZgesta’, 3. praet. ozgiefa 160 "užgeso', 2. sg. imper. gielbiek 29—30 "gelbėk', Negieysk 67 "negeisk- ', adv. gieray 15 ‘gerai’, Sienawok 60 ‘šenavok, gerbk’, g. sg. Ziemys 25, Ziemys 39, ziemys 109 ‘Zemés’. Of the 33 existing examples, only the following two are written without i: g. sg. /fužebničies 68 ‘tarnaités’, 3. fut. o/zeys 15 ‘uZeis’. The first is a Polish word, therefore it is written in Polish (without i), the second has the prefix za-, where ž could keep its pronunciation before the pause, cf. preposition za. It is also used in the Polish language, where it is pronounced as a /p/, and in the German language, where it is pronounced as a /p/ (e.g., 2. pl. praes.). atleydam 28 "atleyme", 2. sg. imper. atlef[k] 26 "sorry, a. sg. atleidima 51 ‘atleidima’, g. sg. milestas 31 ‘mylistos’ (nl. mylesta), but 3. praes. layka 141 ‘laiko’, l. sg. wafondo 36—37 ‘per hour’, 2. sg. imper. Klaw/ik 79 ‘klausyk- ’, a. sg. balfa 7 ‘balsa’. After other consonants, the subjunctive letter i in the position indicated in the text is usually not written, e.g. a. pl. pektas 44, conj. but 29, adv. neteyse 65 ‘unlawful’, n.e.c. Desimtys 54 ‘deSimtis’, Sens 108 ‘old’, n. pl. mes 27, a. sg. f. trety 44 'third', 2. sg. imper. newesk 28 —29 “nevesk’ and so on (a total of 94 examples). Sometimes, with i, only the local pl. ending -se is written, but in this case the spelling is ambiguous, because, as already stated, there may be a Žemaičių -s here. Writings nie 69 ‘no’, 2. pl. nepazin/- tatie 122 ‘no’ Zistate’ are to be considered false (cf. ne 68, 69 "nei', Nediwikiete 12 "nestebėkite*), as is the distorted word a. sg. Bodiftie 150 ‘cattle’. In most Varnish dialects, all consonants are more or less softened before e-type vowels, as they are before eg<i. Only the softening of the northern Žemaičių telšiškis in the border areas resembles the one in the text, although here we can usually only talk about different degrees of softness. In addition to the above mentioned features, there is a number of other features that make the game more interesting, such as the first-person shooter mode. 0 8, 16, 52, 74, 86, 112, 116 (said uo) instead of the current vuo ‘0’. From the morphological characteristics of the text, the forms of iliativ and adesiv, namely, ill. sg., are particularly striking. Wardon 19, ad. s.g. /zalipi 132, fawimp 9, 10-11. But it would be timid to conclude from them that these jokes were in the conversation at that time. The examples given may be archaisms of the church language. The Iliad form is clearly Žemaičių, cf. wardon wiefzpaties 1787 m. „Živatas“ 113,, adv. The text shows that the abbreviated forms of the singular pronoun were already present in the recorder's speech at that time, e.g. walondo 36—37 'in the hour', kalienie 141 'in the prison'. However, the plural, apparently, was still not abbreviated, cf. grabusy 14 "in the carst", Wy/foJfie Bazniciofie 112 "in all churches". At that time, short variants of the noun forms, e.g. d. sg., probably already existed in the conversation. m. iem 11 ‘to him’, tam 13, kietam 83 “other”, d. pl. mokytynems “students’, minioms 5, fawyms kaltyms 28 “their faulty’, jom/6 ‘you’. The only long d. pl. form of mumos 1 "mus' is considered an archaism of the church language. However, the full ending -mi of the singular noun forms used in the text probably reflects the actual situation of the schnekt, as it is still generally preserved in this region. Already then, its vowel was narrow (i.e. pronounced -mi, not * -me!), e.g., funumi 12 ‘sin’. It is noteworthy that the narrow former and # trunk a. sg. end vowel (e.g., /unu 40- “sūnų’, although now many Žemaites have a broadened (say sū'no ‘siny’). 190 The nameless family of relative pronouns (probably also adjectives) had to be still quite actively used, cf. Wys 105 "visa". There have already been a. pl. m. endings -us adapted to nouns, e.g. Tus 131 "tus' (all 8 examples are written thus). The pronominal d. pl. m. ending -iems was most likely pronounced -ems, cf. the writing fawyms kaltyms 28 "saviems kaltiems’ next to tokie 143 (after k). Now the speech has -ims, e.g. fi'ms balti'ms "to those whites". The spelling of the pronouns kuris and toks indicates that the forms n. pl. m. kuri "kurie", toki 'those' (cf. kiti, visi), possible object, could have been used in the speaker's speech as adjacent variants next to the Žemaičių pronounced kurie, tokie, cf. kuri 8, 13, 15, 16, korie?" 126, 131, 134, 136, 140, 143, 145, 147, 149, Tokie 153. The form of personal pronouns n. pl. we probably has not yet been replaced by the now spoken form mas, cf. month 27. Perhaps, instead of ir the current schnekts a. pl. forms of us ‘us’, you ‘jus’ still used the old us, you (plg. mouse 29, 30, 36), unless it is an archaism of the ecclesiastical language, because it is used only in the poetry. At that time, however, they were already used pl. g. shaped mouse "our", "your" 'your', e.g. mufa 22,25, 27, 37, 100, noun root manjau tarts mun- (mon-), e.g., sg. a. muni 56 ‘mane’ (plg. g. pl. Name 68 ‘namy’). There is one athematic form of the verb in the text, namely, praes. 3. atet 13< come "'comes', and one athematic form: 1 sg. praes. essential (written unclearly essential esmmio ar 55) ‘esu’. Both of them are low-level. The second form of this snak may be uncharacteristic. The verbs of the ir schneckt already had the prefix an-, e.g. praet 3. Ontžięgie 45 "entered." The prepositional verbs may have received the particle of return at the end of the word, e.g. pl. 2. imper. Nediwikiete[[]ie 12—13 (t. y. You don't do that, man. nedivikefiesę) "don't be surprised". But even the survival of the particle vowel (but plg. 2. s.g. imper. refl. Jwiefkiesy 22—23 "celebrate", melfkiesy 35—36 ‘prayerful’) may be the snippet of ne the recorder, but an archaism of the church language. In the past, the term was used to refer to the older, but now it is used to refer + to the new, modern, or modern-day. ar ji Piemo or [...] kiekty wysus hieretykus 109 —110=left. Paftar3[...] zwyki Cursed are the Heretics. The injunctive forms most likely had Zemaitiska formanta -kia-, only because of the spelling imperfection difficult to prove jį (-kiair -ke- <-be written the same way). ; But instead of now the old generation is 3. characterized by past. in the text is merely dúvé (dawe 9). It is difficult ar to say, this is a dialect ar fact, a result of the influence of the written language. Iš unrepeated words to be indicated before. be 129, 145, prt. tegol 160 ‘tegul’ (now pronounced ba, tage), ne-, e.g., nenor 134 ‘nenori’, 2. sg. imper. newesk 28—29... all e.g. 15 su and- (dab. na-), praep. ape 86 ‘apie’ (dab. apple, red. ape), prt. nor(is) to indefinite pronouns, e.g., jak noris daktus 149 "some objects’, such as Nor pamicie 132-133 ‘some kind of help’ (dab. kasnior, kas nilorent 'someone'"), conj. aba 83, 115, 132, 137, 141, 142, 146, 151 “orba’, adv. kaypo 8 ‘how’ (both the latter variants are used ir now), /endyna 157 "today" (now there is still a short version be -a). Iš lexically significant typical Žemaičių variants of words kunegas (82—83) ‘priest’, priesthood (93) "priesthood", beloved (31) 'beloved, grace' ir verb *7 Su root 0 < u written even pl. g. Coral form 121 —122 ir a. pl. m. Corylus 154. On the other hand, next to the choir once is ir n. pl. m. who 129. 191 (80) ‘pasnykas’, of which the first three are still used in the supposed conversation, and the last one is recorded only in the northern Žemaičių area (su-ininkas), cf. pėsninkas (pūosninks) Tirkšliai. * * The linguistic data of the text under consideration, linked with the dialectal facts of Raseiniškiai® recorded in S. M. Slavočinskio hymn, will hopefully be very useful in reconstructing the development of sounds and forms of the Žemaičių dialect over the last 3—4 centuries, and at the same time will contribute to the creation of Lithuanian historical dialectology. These data also show that many of the minor dialectal features, as well as dialects themselves, are much earlier than we often tend to think. An addiction. In order to establish whether the Latin and Polish entries mentioned on pp. 172—173 were actually written by the same person who wrote the Lithuanian text, photocopies of all these manuscripts were submitted to the Institute of Scientific Research on Judicial Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of the Lithuanian SSR for examination under the direction of J. Tornau®, Director of the Vilnius University Library. During the preparation of this press release, the certificate No. 427, written in 1973, was obtained from the institute. V. 10, in which the expert in law m. kand. Ms. Ignatjeva confirms that all the texts submitted for investigation, except for the entry,,Garbie dywu etc.“ were in fact written by one person. As regards the latter entry of two words, the certificate states that, given the very small amount of graphic material under investigation, it is not possible to decide whether those words were written by the same person or by another. In this way, the conclusion of the court expert confirms in essence the dating of the Lithuanian text presented on page 173. The certificate states that "the manuscripts under investigation are written in a high-level handwriting, with coordinated movements". This confirms the assumption that the writer of the Lithuanian text was an educated person, 1973.111.23. 3.3UHKSABHYIOC BA)KHbIN)XEMAHTCKHH PYKOIMUCHBIA TEKCT Peszwme B crarbe nmyGaHKyercsas H HCCJIeJĮyeTCSA PYKONHCHBIH TEKCT, KOTOpBIH Obl HaiJileH aBTopoM B OHOJIKOTeKe BuibHIOCCKOTO yHHBepcuTeTa (B KOHBOJIIOTe Lp 881 —882, xpansimemcs B OTJEJIe peJIKOR KHHTH). YceraKaBJiKBaeTCA, YTO TEKCT HAIIHCAH HeH3BECTHbIM AYXOBHBIM JIHIIOM KaTOJHYECKOH LepkBH B KOHIIe XVII B. nau B camoMm Hauase XVIII Beka. Moker ObiTb, oh ABJISIETCA NEPEe/IeJIKOH HJIH JlaXe KomnHeil HecoXpaHuBLerocs 6oJee JIpeBHero TeKCTa. HccrienyeMelit TeKCT HariKCcaH Ha JKeMaiTCKOM auaJexkTe. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. OcoGeHHOCTH ayKiuTaiiTcKOTO JlMaJieKTa HJIH THCbMEHHOTO $3blKAa TOTO BpeMeHH CpaBHHTeJIbHO PEJKH. 28 See. p. 137-168. ** The author of the article sincerely thanks drg. Mr. Tornau for your help. 192 Ha OCOGeHHOCTEN S3bIKA TeKCTA C YES COBpeMeHHOTO >*KeMAHTCKOTO IMaJIeKTa BBIABJIAIOTCA BAXHbIC (DaKTbI, CIIOCOGCTBYIOLIHE BbISCHEeHHIO pa3BHTHA 3BYKOB H (DMO Nocturne 3a 300 Jer. YcranoBjieHo, TO B TO BpeMsi, KOrjJa BO3HHK TeKCT, JIOJITHė TJIACHbIe O, é B >KEMAHTCKOM YV2KE ČbIJIH YOU'RE OUT OF THE WORLD, YOU'RE OUT OF THE WORLD. KOMITOHEHT TABTOCHJJIAGHUECKHX coueTaHHH an, am, en, OblJI em CYXKEHHLIM, JUDTOHTH ai, ei — B H3BECTHBIX CJIy4asiX MOHO(TOHIH30BAHHBIMH. Y CTAHOBJIEHO TaKye HaJIMYHe MHOTHX APYTHX (POHETHUECKHX H MOP(OJOTHYECKHX SIBJIEHHH, XapaKTePHBIX J/Isi COBpeMeEHHOTO I'm sorry, I'm sorry. C apyroit cTopoHsl, TeKCT cHaGKaeT HAC AAHHBIMH, KOTOODpbIė CIOCOGCTBYIOT PaCKpBITHIO ONpejieJIeHHbIX OcOGeHHocTeHK GoJiee paHHEro MepHoja JKeMaiTCKOro auanekta. Yes, H3 Tekcra. SIBCTBYeT, UTO B POJIHOM IOBOpPe MNHCIA KeMaiTCKHe 3BYKH, COOTBETCTBYIOLLHE © 0, ie JIHTEPATYPHOTO A3biKa, HOCHJIH SBHBIH JIKOTOHTHueckHH xapakTep. HeTko pa3JiHuaJIHCb a psifia (OTKPHITHI H 3aKDpbITbI) KpaTKHX TJIACHbIX U, i; MPHYEM OHH NOJĮBepraJIHCb IOCJIEJ(JOBATEJIbHONH COMMENTS C BOKaJIK3MOM YOU'RE OUT OF THE WORLD. CJIOBA. PaccMaTpHBaloTCs TaKxe MHorHe JpYrHe SBJIeHHSA, TpOJIHBAIONIHe CBET Ha HCTOPHIO JIHTOBCKHX resp. XKeMalTCKHX 3BYKOB H (dOpM. Ilocrynujio 23.111.1973 Z. ZINKEVICIUS - AN IMPORTANT SAMOGITIAN MANUSCRIPT Summary The article presents an analysis of a Samogitian MS. found by the author in the Vilnius University Library (Lz 881—882). The text the of MS. itself is given the in article well. as It has been established that the MS. was written by an unknown Roman Catholic clergyman the late in 17th or early 18th century. It may be a paraphrase or even copy a some older of text. The dialect of the text is Samogitian, probably the northern north-eastern or subdialect of Crows. Peculiarities of High Lithuanian dialects or writings are relatively few. A detailed comparison of the text features with those the corresponding modern dialect of carried out is in an attempt to determine the 300 — year —old development the of phonetic system and gramatical structure. The analysis has shown that the time the at appearence the of of MS. (1) the vowels o, ė had been diphthongized, the first component the (2) tautosyllabic clusters an, am, en, had become of close, the diphtongs ai, had been monophthongized certain cases, and many em phonetic and grammatical features peculiar the modern (3) dialect had already been existence that ei time. in (4) to in at 13. 820 193 On the other hand, the text contains linguistic data typical of an earlier stage of the dialectal development and resp. presenting valuable material for the interpretation of some problems of the history of Lithuanian and historical dialectology. Of particular interest are the following phenomena found in the MS. as being peculiar to its writer's native dialect: diphthongal character of the eguivalents of Standard Lith. uo, ie, strict differentiation of two types of u, i (open and close) and their consecutive assimilation depending on the nature of the vowel in the following syllable. Received March 23, 1973