Nauja lietuvių kalbos gramatika

In the preface of the grammar, the modest words of the founder of Lithuanian writing, M. Mažvydas, are addressed to the reader:,,- mana darba usz gier prymkiet- “. There is no doubt that this wish of the famous Norwegian scholar and Baltist will come true. From every page of the book the reader feels with great gratitude to the author that,,Comparative Grammar of Baltic Languages“ is a significant and capital contribution to contemporary Baltic and Indo-European studies. ; K. Morkūnas NAUJA LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATIKA A. Senn, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, Bd. I: Grammatik, Heidelberg, 1966. For a long time, generations of foreign linguists studied Lithuanian from the textbook prepared by A. Leskynas, consisting of chrestomaty, short grammar and Zodyn. Almost fifty years have passed since its appearance (1919). During this time not only the spelling of the Lithuanian language changed considerably, but also the use of some forms, fictional and scientific literature grew incomparably, and many phonetic, morphological and syntactic issues were thoroughly studied. The preparation of a new, comprehensive Lithuanian language manual became necessary. This work was undertaken by the Swiss linguist A. Zen (Senn). In 1957 he published the second part of the “Lietuviy kalbos vadovėlis- ”, which consists of texts selected and translated from the works of various Lithuanian writers with commentaries and a Lithuanian-German-English dictionary. In 1966, the first and most important part of this textbook appeared – the Lithuanian language grammar. This is a huge A 495-page work that describes in detail the phonetics, morphology and use of many grammatical forms of the contemporary Lithuanian language. The author of this grammar, Professor A. Zenas of the University of Pennsylvania, is well known to Lithuanian linguists. It is one of the five volumes of the recently completed “Dictionary of Lithuanian Written Language” in Heidelberg? and the only one who has been working on this dictionary since the beginning of its publication. He has been interested in Lithuanian for a long time, has lived in Lithuania, taught phonetics and other subjects of linguistics at Kaunas University. In 1929, he wrote,,Trumpa lietuvių kalbos va dovelį“* for foreigners wishing to learn Lithuanian. The relations with Lithuania were not broken by Zenas afterwards. He has written many articles and other works on Lithuanian studies, Baltic studies and comparative linguistics in general, and recently he has been actively involved in solving the problem of the oldest relations between the Balts, Slavs and Germans. His new work summarizes the results of many years of Lithuanian studies. y | Grammar consists of ten parts. The very first — introductory — part is extensive and rich in content, in which, after a brief overview of the history of the Lithuanian nation, the place of the Lithuanian language among the Baltic languages and its relations with other related languages are discussed. Here the author briefly presents his concept on the question of the oldest relations of the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages. It is believed that at the end of the Indo-European period, the Balts. Slavic and Germanic ancestors in close contact with each other, appeared'- A. Senn, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, II, Heidelberg, 1957. * M. Niedermann, A. Senn, F. Brender, A. Salys, Dictionary of Lithuanian Written Language, Lithuanian-German, I—V, Heidelberg, 1934—1967. * A. Senn, Little Lithuanian Linguistics, Heidelberg, 1929. 194 common characteristics that are unique to these dialects (e.g., number thousand, name of rye, plural dative forms su -m ir kt ). Strictly ir arguing against the hypothesis of a Baltic-Slavic protolanguage, the author explains the closeness of these languages with a very long, already from the III m. e. a century-long process of close communication (symbiosis). Be In addition, the Baltic Slavic ir languages are united by the fact that they retained their ancient Indo-European features for a long time, the Germanic languages quickly modernized, changed away o from their original state. ir Especially the archaic remaining Baltic languages. Next, the introduction briefly discusses Lithuanian dialects, their relationship jų with literary su language, and reviews the ancient monuments of Lithuanian language. The last chapters of the introductory part describe Lithuanian language sounds, writing, development jų and relations with sounds of ir other Indo-European su languages. In the second part of the grammar, the conjugation of nouns, pronouns, numerals and participants is discussed, in the third, the formation of verb forms is discussed. ir — ir — In the sixth part, the basic principles of word formation are briefly outlined. Three subsequent parts are dedicated to the use of forms: the use of nouns is described separately, the functions of verb forms with a verbal imeaning. In the last, tenth part, some of the peculiarities of Lithuanian sentence structure are briefly reviewed. With the exception of the introductory part, which deals with the issues of comparative linguistics of the Baltic languages, the grammar is based mainly on contemporary Lithuanian language. The author does not aim to show the prehistory of the forms discussed, does not compare with jų su forms of other languages, does not reconstruct older, unattested prolytes. In this this work differs from the Authorised in Poland J. Otrembski's grammar has a more historical profile. Instead, the facts of the present Lithuanian language are covered in great detail. Pratarmé even lists the authors ir whose writings collected the material of the 74 current iš language; to, grammar used many sources of folklore be (among them a prominent place occupies Lithuanian language: ir collections published by the Institute of Literature), descriptions of dialects, all previous grammar, extensive ir linguistic literature. The author is well acquainted with the su works of linguistics published in Lithuania during the Soviet period and refers to them in many places in the literature ir lists, which are presented at the end of each chapter; especially widely used in Lithuanian dictionaries published in recent decades ti ir Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics: The grammar describes only the facts of the current ne Lithuanian literary language, but on each more important question, it tries to provide data on dialects, older writings ir iš ir XVI-XVII a. language monuments. Applicable to "Lithuanian language. vadovo’ Il-je part of the published texts, often discussed ir each other by a more prominent author (e.g., M. Daukšai, J. Bretkūnui, iš newer — M. Valančiui, S. Daukantui, Krėvei, Sruogai, B. etc.) ir characteristic feature of form ar making, changing usage. The grammar therefore iš partly reflects the ir development of the forms used in the present language during the period of written tradition. ir The data of the old writings of the dialects are differentiated from the facts of the present literary language, usually presented in different fonts and do not break the unity of the work. The method of presentation and arrangement of language data here will be largely determined by the purpose of the work itself. Since the grammar is primarily intended for non-Lithuanians studying Lithuanian language reading texts, the material is ir presented in such a way that the reader can find as much comprehensive information as possible about each ar group of forms of the language. Therefore, in addition to the individual types of inflection or 13* 195 personification, the pronunciation and even the construction issues are discussed together, and as many inflection paradigms as possible are tried to be presented. For example, where we talk about root nouns, we find even the noun daughter conjugation paradigms according to p. 140, 76 The article also describes the structure of the r» root nouns (the most important suffixes), their pronunciation, and the history of their forms during the period of the written tradition. This way of teaching makes it easier for the reader to find all the necessary data about a group of forms in one place, but in many places it undermines the methodological coherence and compactness of the description. In general, in the methodological and theoretical terms, this work does not offer much new in comparison with previous grammar works. The new methods of descriptive grammar are not applied here, even the phonetic sound of Lithuanian language has been abandoned Interpretations This is compensated by the abundance and variety of language facts presented. Without entering into a more detailed analysis of this large and significant work, we will mention one another inaccuracy or controversial statement observed while turning it. In contrast to previous grammars, the author considers the illative to be the same verb as the others (ein regelrechter Beugungsfall, p. 92) and includes it in the paradigms of verb conjugation of nouns and adjectives in literary language. Although the singular forms of the illative are used fairly often in modern language, they are already prone to adverbation and are isolated from other adverbs, and their scope of use is limited to colloquial language and fiction. Plural forms occur only in special, stylistically motivated cases; this is acknowledged on p. 437 by the author himself. In such circumstances, the inclusion of the illative in the paradigms of literary language alongside other verbs is difficult to justify; by the way, it is not included in the pronouns and participle conjugation paradigms. Another thing is the eastern Highland dialects, where the iliative is an equal member of the vowel system. While correctly stating that the consonants at the end of the word are usually pronounced hard, the author of p. 65 considers as exceptions the shortened prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions from longer forms, such as dé/, kol, tél, where the end of the word /esąs is pronounced softly. In fact, the present literary language is characterized by a hard pronunciation of the /. The plural noble form žvėrį, which is the first in the conjugation paradigm next to žvėriū (p. 129), is dialectal and is no longer used in literary language. Also, the noun bendryba, which is not considered a fact of literary language, is presented on p. 121 alongside the usual suffixes yba: tvorbyba, písyba, hospodárstvo, etc. The author’s assertion that in A. Schleicher’s chrestomaty there are new forms in prigdvuse and išgėruse of the active forms of the past cartical time instead of the plural nominative prigava and išgėrę (p. 178) is disputed. A. Becenbergeris BGLS 161 has already mentioned such binary nouns in B. Vilentos writings, e.g.: ateiusse VEE 202, cf. giwenuse, kalbėjuse, atėjuse K1C 40*; In addition to these, the corresponding forms of present tense active participants were also used in the East Prussian Lithuanian dialects, e.g.: nie mogące Sch 11 215, nie posiadające Jrk 73, cf. another half-participle ne found in BsMt II 198. The antiquity of these forms was convincingly shown by J. Endzelynas IF 33, 123—124; they can be compared with the consonant root binominal-final, cf. 4 Here the same sources are used as in the great Lithuanian language dictionary. 196 Zmine DP 31314, 31415, Sound Mit II 40 (the first of these forms mentionir ed by the author's I 139, II 171). Be own foundation p. 295 criticized academic "Dictionary of Lithuanian language" in už that M. A person convicted of a crime DP 592 is considered a participant; the author ji believes to be incorrectly ir spelled, breaks ją į the ir participle of the pronoun (nuefit iemus). Here we probably have the same absolute participle of the pronoun as in be kabarbancžėm reginiėmus DP 159,,, DP 2285,, taritiemus BB Apd 27, 13 ir 100 mg/ day, see paragraph 100.1. LKK V 106—107. The positive features of the book include careful selection of examples, excellent technical preparation and editing of the entire text, allowing the reader to quickly and easily find the necessary ir data. In conclusion, I would like to wish that A. Zeno’s “Lithuanian Language Guide” will open the door to Lithuanian language to as many of its friends and researchers as possible all over the world. M. Rudzite, Latviešu dialektoloģija, Riga, 1964, 432 p. Recent years have indeed been very fruitful for the dialectology of the Baltic languages. Against the background of a multitude of articles and monographs on individual dialects, the long-awaited works of dialectology of a general nature finally appeared: Lithuanianists can enjoy Z. Zinkevičius’s “Dialectology of the Lithuanian language” (Vilnius, 1966), and Latvians — M. "Latvian dialectology". These two books, written by different methods and for partly different purposes, are a kind of encyclopedia of the dialectology of the Baltic languages, without which no researcher of these languages can do without. Marta Rudzytė has been working successfully in the Latvian dialectology bars for several years: in 1958 her extensive description of several neighboring dialects of northern Latvia was published." (this work was defended as a candidate dissertation* in 1954), in 1963 she published a chrestomaty® of Latvian dialect texts for educational purposes. Furthermore, M. Rudzytė’s great contribution to Latvian dialectology is that her students at the University of Riga have prepared a number of good descriptions of native dialects, which in their value for linguistics are no less than many published Latvian dialectological studies. However, M. Rudzytė’s greatest contribution to Latvian linguistics and Baltic studies in general is her book “Latviešu dialektoloģija”. The 432-page volume of this work alone shows that the author has done a really great job. According to a fairly strict plan, it describes the main dialects of the Latvian language — the middle (vidus dialekts, 59—146 pp.), the Livonian (libiskais dialekts, 147—255 pp.), and the highland (augšzemnieku dialekts, 257—405 pp.). In fact; Only the phonetics and morphology of dialects are described in more detail, while syntax issues are almost untouched here (it is characteristic that this “trouble” has not escaped Z. Zinkevičius’s “Lithuanian dialectology” — apparently, the syntax of Baltic languages has not yet seen a brighter day!). 1 M. Rudzite, Zieme]vidzemes izloksnes Braslava, Vecatē, Baunos un Vilzēnos,,,Studies of the Language and Literature Institute“, VI, Riga, 1958, p. 101—256. * Mr. Pyasur, T'oBopki ceBepHoO¥i uacrn Buzeme Bpamissecal; Beuarckuit, bBayubckuii, Bua. 3eHckHii), Aspededepar, Pura, 3 M. Rudzite, Latvian translation texts, Riga, 1963, 108 p. (released in rotoprint). 1954. 197