J. Kazlauskas. „Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika (kirčiavimas, daiktavardis, veiksmažodis)“

BALTIC LANGUAGE ACTION METHOD STUDIES LTB T UV O58E*T" SC R" MO'K"S LU AK. ADEM 1/F A REVIEWS J. Kazlauskas, Historical grammar of Lithuanian language (pronunciation, noun, verb), Vilnius, 1968, 414 p. Each language has a longer or ar shorter history, in which the history of the whole nation is largely ir reflected. The path taken by the language is revealed by the knowledge ir of the origin and development of the grammatical forms of words. For the to purpose of having an etymological dictionary of the native ir language historical — grammar is iš one of the most important tasks of every nation linguists. However, these capital works are not possible be without the abundance of actual material of ancient ir written sources of current be dialects, numerous details jų preparedresbe earch, high qualification, wide linguistic erudition scientists. For tų ir for other reasons written etymological dictionaries ir historical grammar today have comparatively few languages. Lithuanian language due to its richness of archaism ir already from In the 19th a. century, it attracted ir the attention of many linguists worldwide. Over time, tą numerous studies have been written on individual issues of the history of the Lithuanian language, and a number of summarizing works have been published, of which the most noteworthy iš have appeared in recent decades: Jano Otrembski- 's three volumes „Grammar of Lithuanian Language“?, by Professor Kristiano from Oslo University S. Stango Comparative Grammar of Baltic ir Languages. Lithuanian linguists have į made a significant contribution to the study of their native language in recent years. One of the most ir important works is the former iš jų Vilniaus State V. Kapsuko University Professor Jono Kazlausko ..Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika“ the first — such grammar written in Lithuanian. It is a great gift for all those interested in Lithuanian studies, especially o for philologists students of jų the republic’s higher schools. J. Kazlauskas- 's book is not a repetition of other similar grammars. ar It is a mature, ir very original work, in which several years of painstaking, tense work have been devoted to ir the study of the problems raised by the collection of linguistic data. bo For this store foundations J. Kazlauskas helped by publishing several dozen articles on various issues of historical phonetics, phonology, morphology of the Lithuanian language. VE. Fraenkel, Lithuanian etymological dictionary, Heidelberg — Géttingen, 1955— 1965. * J. Otrebski, Lithuanian Grammar, III t. (Science of o forms), Warsaw, 1956; t. I (News in English. Nauka o gloskach), Warsaw, 1958; t. II (Science o of construction WYrazow), Warsaw, Poland 1963, * Chr. S. Stang, comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages, Oslo — Bergen — TromsO, articles that 1966. 239 are used today by many linguists interested in Baltic studies. In a short period of time, his “Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” also received positive evaluation and interest, and in 1971 the author was posthumously awarded the Republic Prize for it. The grammar consists of three main sections. In the first chapter (pp. 5—122) the character of Lithuanian accent and pronoun, accent deflection in dialects and the reasons for this deflection, the most important laws that formed the current pronunciation of Lithuanian language are discussed more extensively. A considerable space is devoted here to the formation of Lithuanian noun pronunciation paradigms and their relationship with the pronunciation paradigms of other Indo-European languages. A lot of new information for Lithuanian accentology is also provided by the determination of the old pronunciation of prepositional verbs, the reconstruction of the paradigms of the verb’s movable pronunciation, the elucidation of the development of the participle, conjugative and other verb forms. The chapter concludes with an examination of acute endings and the fate of Indo-European d in Lithuanian. J. Kazlauskas’s original concept of the development of Lithuanian pronunciation is based on a phonetic analysis of the pronunciation systems of various current dialects. The removal of the accent from the ending in certain cases, the shortening of the long vowels at the end of the word, the reflection of the aforementioned 6 in Lithuanian and many other phonetic phenomena, which until now have usually been studied in isolation from each other, are for the author of the grammar only separate links of the change of the morphological system of the whole Lithuanian language. He associates all these phenomena with the development of the type of pronunciation itself, the transition of melodic accent to dynamic and the strengthening of the elements of quantitative accent: “the shortening of acute endings or their transformation into circumflex can be explained by the emergence of dynamic word accent, which in the subsequent development of the Lithuanian language (in dialects) becomes more and more dominant or becomes quantitative” (p. 108). Obviously, comprehensive and reliable experimental studies of dialect and pronoun in various dialects, which are unfortunately still very lacking in Lithuanian dialectology, should be extremely important for the greater justification of these statements. The second section of grammar (p. 123—286) is devoted to the history of noun conjugation. It gives an overview of the categories of gender, number, and verb, and details the historical development of all noun stems, the demise of individual stems or their transition to other stems. The development of the singular noun, pronoun, plural noun and noun forms is treated in a particularly broad and interesting way. J. Kazlauskas has devoted most of his time and energy to the investigation of all the issues mentioned here. Therefore, the section on noun morphology is perhaps the most comprehensive, it contains the most abundant factual material of old Lithuanian scripts and current dialects, the conclusions or statements made in most cases do not raise any doubts. It is true that the interpretations of some phenomena of noun morphology are still hypothetical and, it must be assumed, will be debated by linguists. An example here may be the forms of the namié, ori type, which are still considered relics of the old local dialect, and which, in the opinion of the author of the grammar, “are adverbs, not some kind of extinct remnants of the verb form” (p. 136; they are treated less categorically in this sense at p. 160: “probably those forms were never verb forms, but formerly certain adverb forms, which were later used with postpositions. And only non-postpositional forms of some stems could perform vowel functions in dialects." It is also possible to doubt the author's statement, which absolutes the expression of local in the Prussian language 240 ‘prefix en (an) ir uudininko ar finininko vokaalu” (p. 136). After all, the written monuments of the Prussian language (whose data are used) may have been heavily influenced by the German language of the time for known reasons. The influence of this language (only much newer), doubtless, it is necessary to be interpret the use of the construction ir galininkas in į + the sense of inesy In Nida, which the author mentions among other places, in search of analogy in Lithuanian dialects, supporting the jo assumption that “in the Prussian language en su caud. ir en su gal. previously could be differentiated by the following values: en +naud. meant a location, o en +gal. — direction’ (p. 136). More cases can be mentioned ir where statements are supported by data that could be interpreted differently than in grammar. ir For example, singular locality of Bagaslaviškis, Gelvonai, Pabaisko districts (insyvo) forms kdilij, mélij (beside ak, sauna) limb -ij can only be ne iš -ij(e) (p. 156), but ir iš in the non-slashed position there abbreviated -yj(e). Be of the vns provided su with the examples mentioned above. we could transpose the local form kdrtij into kartėj, since ir į the i-stems of the feminine gender of the root pronunciation in the neighbourhood dialect have tų passed the ė-stems conjugation i (but plg. vns. ward. žemė ~ žemė, vns. viet. "Zémij~- zeme". Some dialectal facts of noun morphology, which in recent decades have generated a number of controversial opinions among linguists about their origin, are not only not examined, but not mentioned by Kazlauskas. jų J. ne ir This is the o-stem singular beneficiary galiné -ai*, ga-stem singular noun form type hand “(with) hand” etc. Chapter 3 (p. 287—404) name “From the history of the verb” shows that grammar does not pretend to fully illuminate the development of forms of this very complex part of language. However, the selected questions of — the development of the personal endings, the present, past, future tense, the formation ir of the imperative pronoun and the history essentially reveal the — iš Lithuanian verb conjugation system. Your view on the Lithuanian į verb in general J. Kazlauskas expresses at the beginning of the chapter, reviewing the general features of the Indo-European verb development. Jo in the opinion of all present Indo-European languages (i.e. ir Lithuanian) “the verb structure has a considerable number of innovations, formed from the old Indo-European verb model, which does not reflect the ir laws of individual language development” (p. 288). Together, he supports linguists (V. Toporov et al.), ir criticizing the concept of neogrammaticists, which prevailed for quite a long time, according to which the model of the Do-European proto-verb was reconstructed, in based on the Indian s. ir s. Greek verb. The author concludes that the system of verb endings in the Baltic languages is much simpler than in other Indo-European languages. languages. ji “That simplicity is iš partly due to the preservation of particularly archaic features, on the one hand, iš the peculiar development ir of the verb in Baltic languages, on the other” iš (p. 304). Iš Of the interpretations concerning the individual endings, it is particularly worth mentioning the well-argumented view that the one-person singular plural form of the verb in the ir Baltic 3 languages is an archaism, a modern form, and that the 3-person o ne functions here can be performed by a prehistoric pure stem. At the same time, the relative cases of use of the personal form are 3 ir ry * Apparently, J. Kazlauskas, like some ir other linguists in his recent work, considers this ending as new, arising according to the laws of dialect phonetics. tų iš -ui (plg. Debeikių šnektos vns naud. children “Child” ir unit viet. markets ‘turguj(e)’). in Thai dialects, such as: nėra kada važiuoja, nebuvo kada daro, nebus kada eina and so on. It is only a pity that so far this assumption cannot be supported by even relatively small data from our written monuments dating back to antiquity. In the present tense, the grammatical forms of the present tense are discussed. A complete picture of verbs that have preserved the athematic present tense inflection, its remains or traces, the frequency of these forms and their relationship with the corresponding thematic forms in individual monuments of ancient Lithuanian writing (M. Daukšos „Postila“, M. Petkevičiaus, „,Katechizmas“ and others) and dialects is given. Interestingly explains the development of the personal endings of athematic verbs, the interaction of singular and plural forms. Based on the data of ancient writings and dialects, the author very convincingly proved that the forms of the desirable (or permissive) verb, such as tedūrai, teeiniė, tetylič (or ir tetyly), as well as the forms of the imperative verb in the 2nd person singular of some eastern Altay dialects (e.g., darai „do“, tyly „hold your peace“), are identical with the present tense forms of the 2nd person singular. At the same time, the opinion prevailing on this issue for a long time has been refuted and the undoubtedly correct conclusion has been drawn that “there are apparently no traces of the existence of an optative of thematic verbs in the Lithuanian language, which is completely identical to the optative of s. Indian, Greek or other Indo-European languages” (p. 382). Of course, it is not possible to claim that in the verb section, as in other sections, the author has already said the “last word” on all issues. There will probably be further discussions about the origin of the short forms of the past tense in the third person, such as dä, sto, which occur in dialects and which J. Kazlauskas tends to consider older than the longer forms dėjo, stojo. In spite of some new arguments, the assertion that the formant -k(i) of the imperative is derived from the particle gi remains unconvincing. This origin of the formant -k(i), by the way, is difficult to understand from a phonetic point of view. One more general criticism can be made, which concerns all sections of grammar. For example, without explaining the motives, the author presents examples of Lithuanian dialects in a different way: somewhere using phonetic transcription, somewhere else transposing into literary language. The localization of dialect data is not always consistent and sometimes not very accurate. Some terms are not chosen and used quite correctly. This applies especially to the names of individual dialects of the Lithuanian language®, the various duplicates of which often cause confusion or even mislead the reader, cf. the names used to name the same dialect: „vakarų aukštaičiai“ and „aukštaitiški vakariečiai“, „pietų vakarų aukštaičiai“ and „pietų vakarų aukštaičių tarmė“, „rytų aukštaičiai“ and,,rytiniai aukštaičiai“, „dzūkai“ ir "Eastern Highlanderir s" etc. It can also be regretted that the reviewed book almost does not touch on the issues of the development of adjectives, completely ignores the history of numerals, pronouns, adverbs and other smaller parts of speech. J. Kazlauskas had planned a separate book for those parts of the speech. Evaluating the already available, although incomplete, “Historical Grammar of Lithuanian Language- ”, we can state that it was written after successfully using modern methodology of synchronous and diachronic analysis of language facts. Gau5 In his Grammar, J. Kazlauskas uses the traditional (K. Jaunius—K. Biiga—A. Salis) classification of Lithuanian dialects, while strongly opposing the new variant of A. Baranausko’s classification proposed by A. Girdenis and Z. Zinkevičius (see p. 410). 242 The use of material from Lithuanian dialects, ancient scripts, Latvian, Prussian, as well as other Indo-European, especially Slavic, languages, the reliance on statistical data allowed the author to say a new, highly argumented word about the formation of the current Lithuanian pronunciation system, the development of the origin of many grammatical forms. ir J. The ko Kazlausknyga is important ne not only for Lithuanian linguistics, but also for Baltic studies, Indo-European ir studies in general and general linguistics. K. Carrot R. Eckert, Baltic states Studies, Berlin, Germany 1971, 102 p. Professor Rainer Eckert of the University of Leipzig is for the linguists of our republic “own man”: we often meet him at various su conferences, meetings, often read interesting articles published both in jo German Democratic Republic, both In the publications of the Soviet Union (first of all, of course, our republic), ir as well as other countries, jo we find the name from time to time in information about The activities of GDR Baltists, translations of Lithuanian į fiction into German, ir etc. Recent Leipzig Saxon The Academy of Sciences has published a collection of articles by this linguist, ga entitled,,Baltische Studien“, as a separate book in its report series. The publication of such a book is a joyous — event, if only because it is the first A book published by the GDR devoted to purely Baltic problems. Ji is like a distant echo of the beautiful tų traditions of Leipzig University in ir general German Baltic studies, which were established by famous German scholars in the last century. The pioneer of these traditions, August Schleicher, is honoured in a specially written In the preface of the GDR Slavist Rudolf Fischer, which, among other things, reminds be us that interest in Baltic languages has recently increased again. ; RememberiA. ng Schleicher, one can note the pleasant fact that in the last few years about the German linguist šį — “the hero of the conversatijį on”, as some da called Fridrich Kuršaitis, published a lot of interesting works (J. Dycės (Dietze), R. Fischer ir kt. )?. R. Ekert's book also begins with an article about Schleicher A. ‘Zu August Schleichers ‘Lithuanian Grammatik'" (p. 9—20). The author of the article accurately characterizes Schleicher’s famous grammar, presents the interesting history of the book’s creation, reminds of its importance for the history of Lithuanian language research and the development of our literary language. ir t. t. Of course, the weak ir points of A. Schleicher’s work are mentioned, for which the author was mainly to blame, but the level of ne linguistics of that time. Maybe just one R. Ekert's reproach A. to Schleicher a little too much ‘strict’. The author of the article reminds many Baltists, who have already become,,,winir ged®, of Schleicher's A. saying that the Latvian language ,.eine in Loud and Grammar jūngere language (is), which Lithuanian about verhilt like that Italian to Latin" (plg. p. 13). Teisus R. Ekert, stating that at the time latviy language was not yet sufficiently studied, that only J. Endzelyno works have filled this gap. However, even ir po J. Endze- * The Americans have reprinted, perhaps a bit, one of the most interesting A. articles about Schleicher as ir a human scientist, written more than a century ago by his famous jo pupil Johann Schmidt, cf. Portraits of Linguists, A Biographical Source Book for the History of Western Linguistics, edited 1746—1963, by Thomas A. Sebeok, I, Bloomington and London, 1967, p. 374-395. 16* 243