Senieji latvių kalbos žodynai

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, VI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA REVIEWS AND BOOK REVIEWS OLD LATVIAN-LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES Daina Zemzare, Latviešu vārdnīcas (līdz 1900. gadam), Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akademijos? This substantial and important work by the well-known Latvian linguist D. Zemzare surveys all the old printed and manuscript dictionaries of the Latvian language known to date, from the appearance of the first dictionary in 1638 through 1900. In Soviet Lithuania, interest in the history of Lithuanian lexicography is steadily growing, and although until now research has focused more broadly mainly on individual dictionaries (those of K. Būga, A. Juška, K. Širvydas, and several others), we must hope that in the future we too will see a book illuminating the entire history of our lexicography. It will be easier to decide what form that future book should take and which approach would be best for studying the history of lexicography once we have become more closely acquainted with similar works by our neighbours. A closer acquaintance with D. Zemzare’s work is also important for Lithuanian scholars because the development of Latvian lexicography and of the lexicon itself is, in some respects, closely connected with Lithuanian lexicography and the Lithuanian lexicon. At the beginning of the book (pp. 3–6), earlier literature on Latvian dictionaries is briefly surveyed, and inaccuracies found in it are also pointed out. The descriptions of individual dictionaries occasionally draw on other works on the history of lexicography that were not mentioned in the introductory review of the literature. In general, there is not much literature on the history of Latvian lexicography, and the author is the first to describe most of the dictionaries in such detail. Nevertheless, while reading this book, one is struck by the rather inadequate use of earlier scholarship on the subject and by gaps in its citation. A few such omissions may be mentioned here. On pp. 4 and 84 it is stated that E. Blese published J. Langius’s 1685 manuscript dictionary in 1936, but nowhere is it mentioned that in this edition1 he included not only a general survey of J. Langius’s life and works (pp. 466–486), but also a characterization of the language (pp. 487–568). 1 E. Blese, Nīcas un Bārtas mācītāja Jāņa Langija 1685. gada latviski—vāciskā vārdnīca ar īsu latviešu gramatiku, Rīgā, 1936. 287 When discussing the dictionaries of K. Elvers and J. Lange, it should be recalled that P. Šmits published lists of more characteristic and historically significant words selected from these dictionaries, as well as expressions (proverbs and sayings)2, and also made some observations on J. Lange’s dictionary (for example, on derivatives with the suffix -ums). In addressing questions concerning the manuscript genesis of Ch. Fürecker’s dictionary (p. 73), it would also have been possible to mention several authors who had written about this subject in greater detail earlier, especially L. Bērziņš3. J. Endzelīns wrote about G. F. Stender’s grammar and dictionary4, but that occasional article is worth mentioning not so much for its couple of remarks concerning the dictionary itself as for its general characterization of G. F. Stender’s command of Latvian and his linguistic views. It is a great pity that the author did not have time to consult B. Jēger’s article on the 1688 dictionary5, in which it is described on the basis of a microfilm of a complete copy located in the University of Oslo Library: what D. Zemzare says about this dictionary in her book, having had at hand only a couple of surviving fragments (and, we may add, J. Ževeris’s description of those fragments6, on which she undoubtedly relies on p. 91), now requires substantial modification and supplementation. After a brief review of the literature, the discussion turns to descriptions of the dictionaries. Each dictionary is examined separately. The descriptions are arranged chronologically, according to when each dictionary was printed or written. The history of lexicography as a whole is divided into two parts: the first (pp. 7–212) covers dictionaries from the feudal era (up to the mid-nineteenth century), and the second (pp. 213–407) those from the capitalist era. We shall briefly list these dictionaries, though not all of them, so that readers who have not read D. Zemzare’s book may gain a general impression of the subject of her research and, at the same time, of the history of Latvian lexicography itself. The first Latvian dictionary appeared nine years later than the Lithuanian one (K. Sirvydas’s Dictionarium), namely, in 1638. This was Georg Mancelis’s Lettus, Das ist Wortbuch/Sampt angehengtem täglichem Gebrauch der Lettischen Sprache... Riga... M. DC. XXXVIII. The alphabetical German-Latvian dictionary itself occupies 208 pages (excluding the title page, dedication, preface, and laudatory address to Mancelis)—not 207, as D. Zemzare mistakenly states—and contains about 6,000 words. It is followed by a second part, Phraseologia Lettica, which occupies 190 pages (excluding the title page); in this part, words and expressions are grouped by topic into 51 sections (for example, there are sections “About Fish,” “About Milling,” “About Clothing,” “About Colours,” “About Money,” “Kinship Terms,” and so on). 2 P. Smidts, Vārdu izvilkums no Elversa vārdnīcas „Liber memorialis letticus“, „Rakstu krājums, Rīgas Latviešu Biedrības Zinību Komisijas izdots“, XVI., Rīgā, 1912, p. 10—20; P. Smidts, Langes latviešu vārdnīca, ten pat, p. 21—58. 3 L. Bērziņš, Kristofors Fūrekers un viņa nozīme latviešu literatūrā, „Filologu biedrības raksti“, VIII, Rīgā, 1928, p. 145—224 (apie žodyną p. 160—168). 4 J. Endzelīns, Vecā Stendera latviešu gramatika un vārdnīca, „Druwa“, 1914, Nr. 9—12, p. 907—911. 5 B. Jēgers, Das deutsch-lateinisch-polnisch-lettische Vocabularium vom Jahre 1688, „Språkliga Bidrag (SprB). Meddelanden från seminarierna för slaviska språk... vid Lunds Universitet“, Nr. 8, Lund, 1957, p. 22—41. 6 Izglītības Ministrijas Mēnešraksts, 1935, p. 492—493. 288 The second Latvian dictionary was compiled by Georg Elger and published in Vilnius in 1683: Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lottauicum. Opus posthumum R. P. Georgii Elger... Vilnae, 1683; it has 674 pages and about 14,000 dictionary entries. The third printed dictionary, an anonymous work (D. Zemzare traditionally calls it G. Dresel’s dictionary), was published in 1688: Vocabularium Wie Etzliche gebräuchliche Sachen Auff Teutsch/Lateinisch/Polnisch Uund Lettisch/Auszusprechen seynd. Riga... 1688; it has 120 pages and gives about a thousand words each in German, Latin, Polish, and Latvian (almost exclusively nouns), divided into 24 thematic groups. The little dictionary contains many errors; its spelling is inconsistent and archaic. B. Jēgeris is inclined to think that the manuscript of this dictionary was compiled before 1621, when the region was still under Polish rule7. Thus, three Latvian dictionaries were printed in the 17th century and have survived to this day. Older literature also mentions a Swedish-Polish-German-Latvian dictionary by G. Dresel dating from 1677—J. Endzelīns also lists it among printed Latvian dictionaries8—but nobody has seen this dictionary in later times, and it is now thought never to have existed at all9. Three unpublished dictionary manuscripts from the same 17th century have also survived. First, there are copies of two versions of Ch. Fürecker’s (died around 1684) Latvian-German dictionary, dating from the second half of the century; the older copy has 319 pages, while the newer one (in two volumes) has 555 pages; the dictionary contains about 3,500 words. J. Langius’s manuscript from 1685 (only the Latin form of his surname is known Langius), Lettisch-Deutsches Lexicon, contains about 7,000 words arranged in nests. About the same number of words are given in the manuscript by an unknown author, Manuale Lettico Germanicum (which draws particularly extensively, among other sources, on the dictionaries of Fürecker and Langius). In addition, a small German-Latvian dictionary of about 900 words (from Courland dialects) has survived; apparently, some German pastor had made it for his own use10. Seven dictionaries were printed in the 18th century: in 1705, the so-called L. Depkin German-Swedish-Polish-Latvian dictionary (a revised and substantially improved edition of the 1688 dictionary); in 1748, K. Elvers’s Liber memorialis Letticus (a German-Latvian dictionary of about 8,000 words); in 1761, G. F. Stender’s Entwurf eines Lettischen Lexici (in the same volume as his grammar; a Latvian-German dictionary of about 4,000 words; a somewhat expanded edition appeared in 1763); in 1772–1777, J. Lange’s Vollständiges deutsch-lettisches und lettischdeutsches Lexicon (the German-Latvian dictionary, published as early as 1772, gives about 15,000 words in 607 columns; the Latvian-German dictionary contains 7 Språkliga Bidrag, No. 8, Lund, 1957, p. 37 (the title of the dictionary and its brief description were also taken from Jēgeris’s article). 8 J. Endzelīns, Ievads baltu filoloģijā, Rīgā, 1945, p. 68. 9 Språkliga Bidrag, No. 8, Lund, 1957, p. 34. 10 B. Jēgeris recently examined this dictionary in greater detail; among other things, he believes it was written between 1631 and 1685. See his article “The Vocabularium Germanico-Curlandicum in the British Museum,” “Årsbok 1955/56,” Lund, 1960, pp. 27–57. 19. Kalbotyros klausimai VI. 289 406 columns and about 10,000 words; the author recorded most of the words from spoken language); in 1789, G. Stender’s Lettisches Lexicon (in two parts: the Latvian-German section has a total of 404 pages and about 7,000 words, while the German-Latvian section has 773 pages and about 14,000 words). Among the manuscript dictionaries of the eighteenth century, the largest is L. Depkin’s Lettisches Wörterbuch; this is a Latvian-German dictionary, written in 1703 and 1704, containing about 16,000 words, collected mainly from written sources (a prospectus for this dictionary had already been printed in 1704). In addition, there survive manuscript dictionaries by F. Weigel from 1748, in German-Latvian and Latvian-German, by Ch. F. Temler from 1772, a “comparative” Latvian dictionary (partly also including Lithuanian equivalents11), and a German-Latvian dictionary from 1782 (J. Baumbach?). Besides these five dictionaries, several other manuscripts with more or less processed material for dictionaries have also survived. Even without counting published lists of technical vocabulary, glossaries included in chrestomathies, and similar minor lexicographic works (which D. Zemzare’s book also touches on, albeit briefly), the number of printed Latvian dictionaries in the nineteenth century grew by more than ten new works. Perhaps the most notable of these is the so-called Russian-Latvian-German dictionary by Kr. Valdemars (Русско-латышско-немецкій словарь), prepared by activists of the Young Latvian movement and published in Moscow in 1872 by the Russian Ministry of Education (it contains about 37,000 words); the Russian-Latvian dictionary published in Jelgava in 1890 is also based on this dictionary. Smaller in size is Латышско-русско-немецкій словарь, edited by the same Kr. Valdemars and likewise published in Moscow in 1879. Among the other dictionaries, mention may be made of J. Kurmin’s Słownik polsko łacinsko łotewski, printed in Vilnius in 1858 (nearly 13,000 dictionary entries); K. Ulmanis’s Lettisch-deutsches Wörterbuch of 1872 (about 20,000 words); G. Brasche’s Deutschlettisches Wörterbuch of 1880 (35,000 words; Ulmanis’s and Brasche’s dictionaries were published as two separate parts of the same Lettisches Wörterbuch); and M. Miežinis’s Lietuviszkai-latviszkai-lenkiszkai-rusiszką dictionary, printed in Tilsit in 1894 (about 15,000 words). The first specialized glossaries (covering the terminology of particular fields) and glossaries of international words appeared at the end of the nineteenth century: in 1881, a sailors’ glossary prepared by Kr. Valdemars was printed in Moscow, Карманный русско-английско-французско-немецко-итальянско-датско и норвежско-шведско-латышский морской словарь съ прибавленіемъ голландскаго и испанскаго языковъ; in 1878, F. Mekons’s glossary of international words Šweschwahardu grahmata appeared (about 2,200 words), and in 1886 the first edition of J. Dravnieks’s considerably more extensive dictionary, Šweschu wahardu grahmata, was published (more than 5,000 international words). Relatively few substantial and significant manuscript dictionaries from the nineteenth century are known. These are G. Bergmanis’s Lättisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch and Deutsch-lettisches Wörterbuch from 1806 (about 5,000 words in the first and 9,000 in the second), and a Russian-Latvian dictionary by an unknown author (without 11 For more, see J. Kruopas, Seniausias lyginamasis latvių ir lietuvių kalbų žodynas, „Literatūra ir kalba“, II, Vilnius, 1957, pp. 467—470. 290 the middle section, from застила́ю to Павлинъ), written, in D. Zemzare’s opinion, between 1862 and 1869 (about 10,000 headwords); A. Juška’s Latvian-Lithuanian-Polish dictionary of 1875 (7,818 words—the number given by A. Juška himself at the end of the dictionary; Latvian words are also included in the second version of A. Juška’s great dictionary, but the plan to translate it into Latvian was later abandoned)12; and A. Dyrikis’s Lithuanian-Latvian dictionary of 1872 (about 10,000 words), now lost but better known from its 1935 description. Thus, there are quite a number of old Latvian dictionaries. According to D. Zemzare’s own count, from the beginning of the seventeenth century to the end of the nineteenth, twenty-two bilingual and multilingual dictionaries were printed in all, while manuscripts of twelve completed dictionaries have survived. By way of comparison, it may be recalled that only one printed Lithuanian dictionary dates from the seventeenth century—K. Širvydas’s (although the difference between the first [and perhaps second?] edition and the subsequent editions almost warrants speaking of two separate dictionaries); there are three from the eighteenth century (all in two parts—Lithuanian-German and German-Lithuanian): those by V. Hake, P. Ruigys, and K. G. Milkus; and five from the nineteenth century: those by G. H. F. Nesselmann, two by F. Kurschat, M. Miežinis, and A. Juška (the beginning of the dictionary). Thus, only nine dictionaries appeared over the course of three centuries (compared with twenty-two Latvian ones). Few manuscript dictionaries from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have survived as well—perhaps three from each century (the dates of composition of some dictionaries are not clearly known); only from the nineteenth century do we have more of them than the Latvians. Of course, it would be wrong to conclude from this comparison of the number of Lithuanian and Latvian dictionaries that old Lithuanian lexicography was, in general, inferior to Latvian lexicography: in quality (especially in the accuracy of their representation of the language), Lithuanian dictionaries often surpass Latvian dictionaries of the same period, which until the second half of the nineteenth century were written almost exclusively by non-Latvians (mostly Germans) whose command of Latvian was not sufficiently proficient. A closer examination of so many dictionaries and an adequate characterization of them is no easy task; it requires much energy, painstaking effort, and time. The book does not discuss all the dictionaries in equal detail. This depends, first of all, on the dictionaries themselves—not all are equally important or of equal size; there are, of course, other, more subjective reasons as well: many dictionaries have not yet been studied in any particular depth, so it is difficult to examine them all thoroughly at once. The greatest amount of space in the book is devoted to the 1872 Russian-Latvian-German dictionary (by Kr. Valdemars), because of its special role in the formation of the modern Latvian literary language—about 117 pages (pp. 218—311 and 503—526), or more than a fifth of the entire book. The first dictionary (G. Mancelis’s, from 1638) is examined almost as extensively, with about 100 pages devoted to it 12 The chapter in D. Zemzare’s book entitled “Antanas Juška’s Latvian-Lithuanian-Polish Dictionary” (352—362) supplements B. Tolutienė’s extensive and meticulously written study “Antanas Juška leksikografas” (“Literatūra ir kalba”, V, Vilnius, 1961, pp. 87—377); it presents some new facts and observations concerning A. Juška’s relations with A. Dyrikis and the scholarly commission of the Riga Latvian Society, and, above all, characterizes the dictionary itself (naturally, its Latvian words and phrases are of greatest interest). 291 (pp. 11–63 and 423–470). Descriptions of other dictionaries usually take up only a few pages each. Old dictionaries can be studied from various perspectives. The nature of the study may, at the very least, be twofold: 1) lexicographic, when the researcher seeks to determine which principles and methods of lexicography the author relied on in selecting words for the dictionary, grouping them, explaining their meanings and giving equivalents in other languages, indicating grammatical, stylistic, etymological, and similar features, illustrating the use of words with phrases, and so on; and 2) lexicological, when the researcher is interested not in the “art” of compiling the dictionary but in the words it contains, classifying them from the perspective of a linguist today as archaisms, formations of various types, loanwords, and so forth. A lexicographic survey of dictionaries is sufficient to illuminate the development of lexicography; in practice, however, studies of old dictionaries very often also include elements of historical lexicology. This is entirely natural, since old dictionaries are also monuments of language, and their characterization would not be complete without saying what they contribute to the history of the language, and above all of its vocabulary. The book’s author nowhere mentions the nature or purpose of her work, but a reading of its contents shows that her concern was less with strictly lexicographic matters than with lexicological ones—that is, less with methods of compiling dictionaries and their development than with dictionary vocabulary and its growth. The sections devoted specifically to characterizing various kinds of words in individual dictionaries—or, more often, simply listing those words, as indicated by their headings alone—already occupy more than 300 pages, considerably more than half of the book’s entire text (it should be recalled here that at least 75 pages are taken up by illustrations: facsimiles of individual pages of dictionaries, usually the first pages, title pages, or other documents related to the dictionaries). A large part of the remaining text is in fact also devoted to surveying vocabulary and listing words (sometimes at considerable length; cf. the Germanisms in the 1782 manuscript dictionary, pp. 161–163; the neologisms in the 1879 dictionary, pp. 316–319; and words of various types in the anonymous nineteenth-century manuscript dictionary, pp. 325–332), although this is not indicated in special headings. Since D. Zemzare’s book is by nature primarily a work of historical lexicology (whose subject here is the vocabulary of old Latvian dictionaries), and only secondarily a work on the history of lexicography, it is fitting, as we turn to a few observations, to begin with matters of vocabulary and linger over them a little longer. The book addresses the following groups of dictionary vocabulary: loanwords—Germanisms, Slavisms, Lithuanianisms, and words originating in Finno-Ugric languages, treated separately; neologisms and formations of other types; semantic archaisms (in G. Mancelis’s dictionary) and semantic neologisms (in Kr. Valdemars’s dictionary); dialect words (discussed separately only in the dictionaries of G. Mancelis, J. Langis, and Kr. Valdemars); proper names; international words (in the dictionaries of G. Elgeris, K. Elvers, J. Langis, G. Stenderis, and Kr. Valdemars); terms (in the dictionaries of G. Mancelis, G. Elgeris, J. Langis, G. Stenderis, and Kr. Valdemars); and archaisms (in G. Mancelis’s dictionary). The author often does not limit herself to a general overview of a particular class of words and illustrating her claims with only the most character- 292 istic examples, but, as already noted, provides entire alphabetical lists of words extracted from dictionaries—specialized glossaries of words of one kind or another found in individual dictionaries. These glossaries provide substantial material for historical lexicology and a historical dictionary of Latvian, but, on the other hand, they are not of great practical use. Their value is diminished by two things: the inconvenience of using them and their lack of completeness. Compiled for individual dictionaries, they are given either alongside the description of the dictionary itself or at the end of the book (without always being mentioned in the dictionary description), in the so-called appendices (pp. 421–537). Moreover, after a word is listed, the text often notes which later (and sometimes earlier) dictionaries also attest it, without listing it again in the descriptions of those other dictionaries. Because of this arrangement, it is sometimes difficult to use the glossaries provided even when the reader is interested in a word from just one particular dictionary. A reader wishing, for example, to find out when and in which dictionaries a Slavism of interest was used would be in a very difficult position, as nearly the whole book would have to be examined. When words extracted from dictionaries are presented in the way D. Zemzare has done, there is only one solution: to add an alphabetical index of all the words at the end of the book. The second shortcoming of the glossaries is more serious: they are usually incomplete and do not cover all the words of a given type found in the dictionary. Because of this shortcoming, the glossaries provided cannot serve as a substitute for the dictionary itself for readers interested in words of a particular type. If a reader does not find a sought-after Slavism among those listed from a particular dictionary, they cannot be certain that it is in fact absent from that dictionary. It would have been better to provide fewer glossaries and pay greater attention to their completeness. Of all the vocabulary groups, loanwords are addressed most often and at greatest length in the book. Slavisms receive particularly extensive treatment, and Germanisms somewhat less. Fairly extensive lists of loanwords are given from G. Mancelis’s dictionary, but omissions occur here too. For example, neither pp. 46–48 nor pp. 438–441 list the Slavisms found in this dictionary baggatz (s. v. Reich) 14113 (the word is not wholly unknown to the author; cf. p. 50 of her work), Birkaws (ein Schippfund) 375, Blehdis, Blehds (Ein alter Schalck) 19 and Blähds (Schalck) 151, Buhda (Bawrenhäußlein) 28, domant (dencken) 46, ghattaws (bereit) 31 (cf. also Semme ghattawa 17), Kaschohx (Beltz) 30, klanniteeß (bücken) 43, mehroht (messen) 122 (cf. also the derivatives ißmehrot, Mehrotais 25), Nabbags (Arm) 22, ißpostiet (arm machen) 22 and ißpohstiet (verwüste) 215 (cf. also Pohstitais 193, pohstitais, pohstischana 215), Pullx (hauffen Volcks) 86, rohbesis (Ziel) 220, schäloht, apschäloht (Sich erbarmen) 27 (cf. also abschäloteeß, schchllex 54, 27), śohliet (verheissen) 91, Swanniet (Slöcken ziehen, leuten) 77 (cf. also swanītai 77; likewise on p. 401), among others. Among the omitted Germanisms (pp. 48–55 and 441–468), the following may be cited, for example: Balle (Ball) 27, Bickeris (Becher) 28, Bulldrians (Baldrian) 27, Cantzels 13 The numbers here refer to pages in G. Mancelis’s dictionary according to its facsimile edition (the pages of the 1638 edition are unnumbered): A. Günther, Altlettische Sprachdenkmäler in Faksimiledrucken, II, Heidelberg, 1929. 293 (Cantzel) 44, Cāntzleris (Cantzler) 44, 402, Dantzis (Tantz) 181, Elle (Hell) 87, Junckars (ein Schreiber auffm Ampte) 402, Keisers (Keyser) 401 (Keysers 101), Kesteris (Küster) 401, klingkis (Handhabe) 84, Kumeles (Camillen) 44; Kungs (Herr) 88, Marskalkis (Marschalk) 122 (Marskalkis 402), Muhhs (Mönch) 126 and Muhx (ein Münch) 401, Pawests (Bapst) 401, Pieskohps (Bischoff) 35 (Pieskhops 401), preddigkis (Predigt) 138 (cf. also preddigrehht 138), Rahtusis (Rathhauß) 139, Rentmeisters and Renckmeisters (Reintmeister) 142, 402, Siepohls (Zwiebel) 222, Skriewers (Schreiber) 161, 402, Strenghes (Strengen) 362, Suckurs (Zucker) 221, Salhves (Salb) 148 (400), Wacktmeisters (Wachtmeister) 404, Wackts (Wacht) 198, Wieges (Feigen) 58, Wieweles (die Fiebel) 273, etc. The lists of loans presented from some other dictionaries contain even more gaps. For example, the glossary of Slavic words selected from J. Kurmin’s dictionary (pp. 490–503) seems to cover only a smaller portion of all the Slavic words in this dictionary. Only five words beginning with the letter k- are given here (two others are listed on pp. 209–212), but this number can quickly be multiplied several times, even without going through the entire dictionary, by adding such items as Kalada (Kolęda) 51 (cf. also kaladawojų — Kolęduję 51), kaleka (Niedołężny) 93, karawojis (Kołacz) 51, Kasztanawots (Kasztanowaty) 47, kasztawoj (Kosztuje) 56, Kiarzinia (Koszyk) 56, kierawojų (Kieruję) 48, Kiła (Kiła) 48, Kyłbasa (Kiełbasa) 48, Kłaniejus (Kłaniam się) 49, Kłapatejus (Kłopocę się) 50, klęczeju (Klęczę) 49, Kmins, kminy (Kmin) 50, Knatensz (Knot) 50, Kocz (Aby raz) 1, Kiata (Klatka na zwierza) 49, kryuda (Krywda) 61 (cf. also kryudeju, Kryudejtojs 61), Kudłas (Kosm) 56, Kudłots (Kudłaty) 62, kums and Kyums, kyuma (Kum) 63, Kurtka (Kurta) 64, kurwa (Nałożnica) 87, Kutasys (Kutas) 64, kuźnie (Kowalnia, kuźnia) 56, 64, Kwarba (Farba) 29, etc. Most such Slavicisms are rare in Latvian (usually only in the southeastern Latgalian dialects), or are entirely unattested in other sources (this could be indicated in the glossary); nevertheless, they are highly characteristic of J. Kurmin’s dictionary, and a glossary of Slavicisms that omits them cannot give a true picture of the Slavic elements in J. Kurmin’s dictionary or, more generally, of its vocabulary. One of the matters touched on in this book that is of greatest interest and closest relevance to Lithuanian studies is Lithuanianisms in Latvian. The author discusses at greater length only the Lithuanianisms in two old dictionaries—those of G. Mancelis and J. Langijs—and provides lists of them. There are not many Lithuanianisms in old Latvian dictionaries, just as there are not many in present-day Latvian written language. This can be seen from the two lists of Lithuanianisms mentioned above. Admittedly, they do not yet give a fully accurate picture, since, like other loanword glossaries, they need to be supplemented. The account of Lithuanianisms in J. Langijs’s dictionary is particularly inadequate. Here the author does not draw on the work already done in this field by the dictionary’s editor, E. Blese. Thus, in addition to the eight Lithuanianisms of J. Langijs that she lists (p. 88), eleven more loans should first be added from E. Blese’s list of Lithuanianisms14, as well as, in part, 14 E. Blese, Nīcas un Bārtas mācītāja Jāņa Langija 1685. gada latviski-vāciskā vārdnīca ar īsu latviešu gramatiku, Rīgā, 1936, p. 553. 294 the word Anckschis (ein nötig Ding), whose origin E. Blese discusses separately15. Among the certain Lithuanianisms mentioned by neither E. Blese nor D. Zemzare, the following can also be listed: Geddäht, sägeddäht (ze[r]gehen) and Pa-geddusch (an gekōmen, verdorben) 7616, Gelbäht (beschützen) (cf. also the derivatives Gelbeis, Gelbähschana) and Gilbäht (helfen) (cf. also Eegilbäht, Eegilbähschana) 77, Gestées, passgestees (missen) 77 (Passigestees 352 is also cited by E. Blese on p. 553), Gihmis (ein Gesicht, oder Gestalt, Aussehen eines Dinges) 77, Kähwa (eine Studte, Mähre, Strense) 104, Kettäht (vermeynen) and Paketäht 113 (three of these Lithuanianisms—gelbėt, gimís and kėve—are no longer mentioned by D. Zemzare, perhaps because she had already recorded them from G. Mancelis’s dictionary; see p. 45 of her work). Thus supplemented, the list would seem to include nearly all of J. Langijs’s less doubtful Lithuanianisms. Alongside clear Lithuanianisms, Latvian may contain almost as many words that can be explained almost equally well as Lithuanianisms, as borrowings from some other language (especially often as so-called Curonianisms), or as native words (often as archaisms preserved in some dialects). Anyone undertaking a special study of Lithuanianisms in Latvian (a more comprehensive work in this field would be very desirable) should not leave aside words of doubtful origin either. Lithuanianisms or Curonianisms include, for example, words in J. Langijaus’s dictionary such as Bangā (a water swell, wave. Bulge) 29, Lenckt (to yield, give way, give room) 139 and Aplenckt (cf. Tahdu — Ackmin’, Zelm’ waigā aplenckt) 140, Mentäht (to mix) and Mente (a broad piece of wood with which one mixes) 156 (the author also lists the latter word among G. Mancelis’s Lithuanianisms), Stencktees (to strive) 287, etc. Some words with non-Latvian phonetics may be explained either as Lithuanianisms or as Germanisms; cf. Kibbeles (a quarrel or dispute) 113 (and the derivative Kibbeläht here) — rather, from Lithuanian kibelė ‘intrigue, trap; quibble; confusion’ (J. Endzelīns gives Juška’s dictionary entry kiba ‘fault-finding, picking on someone’17 as a possible original; in the dialects, kibė⟧ is fairly widely used in this sense), Kinckeläht (to dawdle, make a great fuss or be over-scrupulous) 113 — might sometimes derive from Lithuanian (už-, su-) kinkeliuoti ‘to entangle, snarl’ or similar words18. Among words whose phonetics (or other features) do not reveal their non-Latvian origin, but which are uncommon in Latvian (occur only in some written sources or in dialects near the Lithuanian border, lack other closely related words with the same root, and so on) and could be considered almost equally plausibly either Lithuanianisms or native, unborrowed words, the following may be mentioned: Buhda (a nature, kind; the expression Man nhe gir tahda Buhda is given, so Buhda is the nominative form; here it could also be incorrectly written instead of Buhds) 39 — this word (and expression), somewhat later 15 E. Blese, op. cit., p. 509. 16 Page numbers refer not to the dictionary’s separate pagination, but to the pagination of E. Blese’s book as a whole. 17 K. Mülenbachs-J. Endzelins, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca, II, Rīga, 1925—1927, p. 378. 18 For the possible derivation of this Latvian word from German, see K. Mülenbachs-J. Endzelins, op. cit., II, p. 382. 295 it is also repeated in the manuscript dictionary Manuale Lettico Germanicum, but seems to be entirely unknown from elsewhere19; Kalts (schuldig) 106 (cf. also 181)—Endzelīns cites it only from the aforementioned Manuale (where it came, undoubtedly, from J. Langijs’s manuscript dictionary) and from Mėmelė, near the Lithuanian border (not far from Neretai)20; there are also more words similar to those of J. Langijs in other old Latvian dictionaries. The book does not specifically discuss Lithuanianisms in other dictionaries: in some cases their presence is noted and one or another example is given (in descriptions of the Manuale and the dictionaries of J. Kurminas, M. Miežinis, and A. Juška, as well as of M. Felkel’s 1879 word collection, and perhaps a couple of other places); elsewhere it is observed that the dictionary authors themselves tried to mark certain words as Lithuanian in origin (for example, in descriptions of G. F. Stender’s 1761 dictionary and J. Lange’s dictionaries); in still other cases, Lithuanianisms are not mentioned at all (most dictionary descriptions fall into this category, and, of course, it would be wrong to equate the failure to mention Lithuanianisms with their absence from the dictionaries themselves). To give a clearer idea of how many Lithuanianisms, and of what kinds, occur in old Latvian dictionaries, and also to show how successful the dictionary authors themselves were in identifying Lithuanianisms, some representative examples from several more dictionaries are presented here. D. Zemzare, having had to survey such a large number of lexicographical works, has not yet been able to examine this aspect of them in greater detail. In G. F. Stender’s small 1761 dictionary (the dictionary itself, excluding various supplements and the grammar printed with it, occupies only 173 pages), at least twenty words are regarded as Lithuanianisms (alongside them appears the abbreviation Lit.), not counting further derivatives sometimes given with them. Almost all are enclosed in square brackets (except, it seems, only Bumbisi and pikts), indicating that they are words not used in the written language. Of these twenty words, only a few are indisputable Lithuanianisms, namely: Bumbisi (Reformirten) 27, dabbar (jetzt) 27, gīltens (Tod, Todtengeripp, it. der wie im Grabe gelegen aussieht), 45, praggars (den man nicht satt machen kan) 110. As for the words balla (Blankwasser, Morast) 19 and dirwans (neu gerissen Land) 32, it is difficult to say whether they are Lithuanianisms or merely equivalents of Lithuanian words. The origin of ķirnis and ķirļis (magere Sau) 63 is not entirely clear; compare dialectal Lithuanian kī̆nuiti ‘to die’ and kirļėti ‘to dwindle, diminish’, ķirļytis ‘to wither, dwindle’. Meanwhile, it has not yet been established whether the names Latvian judri 53 and other names for the flax weed botanically called Camelina sativa can be considered Baltic. 19 Cf. J. E n d z e l ī n s - E. H a u z e n b e r g a, Papildinājumi un labojumi K. Mūlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīcai, I, 1934—1938, 257 (s.v. II būda), Rīgā. 20 K. M ū l e n b a c h s - J. E n d z e l ī n s, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca, II, Rīgā, 1925—1927, p. 146. On p. 88 of her work, D. Zemzare lists the adjective kalts ‘guilty’ among the words J. Langijs himself regarded as Lithuanianisms (in fact, he seems never to have mentioned the Lithuanian origin of this adjective; on the contrary, using folk etymology, he appears to have thought it Latvian, related to the verb kalt ‘to forge’: kalts esas alb zur Schuld geschaffen 106), whereas these words are now recognized as native, cognate with the corresponding Lithuanian words; on p. 374 of the work, where J. Alunans’s word list is discussed, the adjective kalts is already mentioned alongside other borrowings from Lithuanian. 296 (the forms judras, -ės are also known), Lithuanian judrà (and jūdrėj)²¹; perhaps they are related to judrùs, -i, judėti and other words in this family. Compare the names for the same plant in German Dotter, Swedish dådra (older dudra), as well as English dodder ‘Cuscuta (another flax weed)’ and others, which are associated (though not by all etymologists) with English dodder ‘to tremble, totter, sway’, Norwegian dudra ‘to tremble’, and dialectal German tottern ‘to sway, move’? The following alleged Lithuanianisms of G. F. Stender seem to be purely Latvian: gau̇t (=guht) 44, gumba (eine Manns­krankheit, der Räderkuchen genannt) 50, keiris (linksch) 62, perpt (quie­nen), -plis (was vom Vieh nicht recht fortkommen will) 104, pikts, a (böse, arg, scharf) 105, šebs, šebbu (spät), pašebbinat (verspäten) 131. The rest of the ‘Lithuanianisms’ consists of Slavisms: batschwīnisch (die Blätter der rothen Rüben, die zum Essen zubereitet werden) 20, bl̦uhdeht (irren, herum streifen) 24, durns (doll, dwatsch) 37, gluppis (einfältiger Tropf) 46, pekle (Hölle, morastiger Weg) 104, plihte (Ziegelstein) 108. It is quite possible that some of these words did not actually come directly from Slavic, but through Lithuanian, in which case classifying them as Lithuanianisms would be entirely justified (this explanation would particularly suit the first three words; compare the Lithuanian Slavisms bačviniai, blūdėti, dūnas). Even a cursory review of this dictionary shows that most genuine Lithuanianisms in it have been left unmarked. This is confirmed by words such as the following, which do not bear the abbreviation Lit. alongside them (they are usually given without square brackets, unlike words marked Lit.): bandas (es) (Knechtssaat, i t. Nebenverdienst, ausserordentlich Profit) 20 (with several derivatives)—from Lithuanian bandà ‘a hired worker’s crop; an in-kind supplement (grain, potatoes, meat, bread...) to a hired worker’s wages’; gélbhet (einen Flüchtigen verbergen), -tees (sich durch die Flucht retten) 44—from Lithuanian gélbe-ti(s); gihmis (Angesicht, Ebenbild) 44—from Lithuanian gýmis ‘face, appearance; image, picture’; gillas (-is, -otas, -ens) (Pferdegeschwār, die sich wie Erbsen und Nüsse zwischen Fell und Fleisch setzen) 45—from Lithuanian gilė (gilė, gilia, gilīs, -iēs, gīlis, -io) ‘acorn; gland’; gint, is (zu Grunde gehen) 45—from Lithuanian gęsti (gendù > eastern Aukštaitian gindu > Latvian *gindu, later gįnstu; the present-tense -in- was generalized throughout the verb in Latvian)²²; ginta (Familie, Anhang) 45—from Lithuanian gentis (gentė) ‘all one’s relatives; relative, kinsman; close friend’ (apparently borrowed from dialects in which it is pronounced -in-); gīrgse (Knorrband, d. i. wenn es am Gelenk der Armes wehe thut) 45—from Lithuanian girgždė, girgždà ‘a creaking sound, creak’; kehwe (Stutte) 61—from Lithuanian kėvė ‘a nag; a poor, lean animal’; paġires (=patsirras) 100—from Lithuanian pagiros. Here we also find the somewhat doubtful Lithuanianisms kibbele (Verdruß und Lärm) 62 and kin̦keleht (sich kuppeln, quackeln) 62, already mentioned from J. Langijs’s dictionary. J. Lange also attempted to identify Lithuanianisms. In the list of rarer words and words otherwise important for linguistic history, compiled from his work and published by P. Šmits (see note 2), thirteen words bear the abbreviation Lith. Of these, only two are not— 21 E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955 tt., p. 196. 22 J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga, 1951, p. 171. 297 doubtful Lithuanianisms, namely: dsaugtees (lustig seyn), which in the second part of the dictionary is more correctly (but without the abbreviation Lith.) written dschaugtees (sich lustig machen), — from Lithuanian džiaugtis ‘to rejoice’, and gėela (die rothe Ruhr) — from Lithuanian gėlà (dial. giela) ‘diarrhea, dysentery; severe pain’. The words dals (eine Sense) — from Lithuanian dalgis, and ustuppis (der dritte Ehemann) — from Lithuanian užtupýs, could also be regarded as Lithuanianisms, although K. Mühlenbach and J. Endzelīns’s dictionary treats them as equivalents of Lithuanian words. The remaining nine words all appear to be purely Latvian; most have equivalents and close cognates in Lithuanian. The same list shows that J. Langė, too, left most Lithuanianisms without indications of origin. Here we find the following Lithuanianisms without the abbreviation Lith.: gē rkle, pagē rkle (soll das deutsche Gurgel seyn) — from Lithuanian gerklė, pagerklė (pagerklė, of course, could sometimes also have been formed by the Latvians themselves from the Lithuanianism gerklė; cf. similar formations padegune ‘under the nose’, pakakle ‘nape, underside of the chin, dewlap’), jentes (Familiē, Geschlecht) — derived from gentes23, singular gente < Lithuanian gentė (gentis), kēppals (auf den Kohlen gebratener Teig) — from Lithuanian kėpalas, Schabbals (ein Kurzsichtiger [von Pferden gesagt]) — from Lithuanian žabalas, -à ‘cross-eyed, bleary-eyed’, schalga (eine Angelruthe, Pohl, Paß; Spitzrute) — from Lithuanian žalgà ‘a flexible pole, a long switch’, schebis (buntköpfig Vieh) — from Lithuanian žėbras, -à ‘having a mottled muzzle, with small patches’; and also bumbisi and bombihsi, and girgsde and girsde, already mentioned from G. F. Stender’s 1761 dictionary. In the Latvian-German section of G. F. Stender’s 1789 dictionary, Lithuanianisms are generally not marked (the abbreviation Lith. is very rare). Almost all the Lithuanianisms from the 1761 dictionary were included in this dictionary, but there are also others, most of which were evidently borrowed, along with other words, from J. Langė (the letter L. = Lange is often added beside them in the dictionary). Lithuanianisms given here as J. Langė’s words include, for example, kēpparoht — written in parentheses beside kēppureht (Zappeln, wie ein Windelkind mit Händen und Füssen spielen), known to G. F. Stender himself — 106 — cf. Lithuanian išsikėparoti ‘to struggle out, extricate oneself’, kėperuotis ‘to flail one’s arms and legs’ and apsi-kepurėti ‘to topple over, fall down (violently, so that one’s arms and legs dangle)’, kept (haften), keptees (anhaften) 106 — from Lithuanian kėpti (kėmpa, kėpo) ‘to stick, adhere’, and so on. Among the Lithuanianisms mentioned above, one requires separate, somewhat more extensive discussion: bumbizi (bombizi): in G. F. Stender’s 1761 dictionary, Bumbisi (Reformiren. Lit.) 27; in J. Lange (classified as a rare word!), bumbisi (in Kurland nennen sie so die Reformirte) II 68, bombihsi I 433. Today, bumbize (bumbižu ticība “Calvinism”) is known from Sunakste (not very far from Lithuania); it is first of all derived from Lithuanian bumbizas [bumbī.zas] “Calvin,”24 that is, from the dialectal (High Lithuanian ry- form of the word bambizas. 23 Mūlenbachs-J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca, II, Rīgā, 1925—1927, p. 110. 24 J. Endzelīns-E. Hauzenberga, Papildinājumi un labojumi K. Mūlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīcai, I, Rīgā, 1934—1938, p. 252. 298 te-forms). The old dictionaries’ bumbizi and bombizi are, of course, of the same origin (the latter, if correctly recorded, could derive from Lithuanian dialectal bombiz.(a)s [Vaškai] or a similar form). Lithuanian bambizas was formerly regarded as a Slavicism25. Polish does indeed have the word bombiza, bambiza ‘(derog.) Protestant clergyman; lout, fat man, pot-bellied fellow’, which Polish linguists formerly derived from Latin, though unable to identify the actual original: J. Karłowicz cites Medieval Latin bombizare ‘to be pompous, speak bombastically’26, while A. Brückner suggests Latin bombyx27. This word, however, is known only from the so-called Polish dialects of Lithuania28, and that alone leads one to suppose that it entered Polish from Lithuanian. In his recent survey of Lithuanianisms in the Polish dialects around Sejny, T. Zdancewicz quite correctly included the word bamb’iza ‘a large, fat person; a clergyman of a non-Catholic faith’, deriving it from Lithuanian bambizà and bambizas, bambýzas29. Belarusian bambíza ‘lout, fat fellow’, recorded in M. Harecki’s glossary, should also be considered a Lithuanianism30. Lithuanian bambizas is known from a great variety of dialects, but cannot be said to be used throughout the entire Lithuanian-speaking area. Its meanings (of which the Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language distinguishes six) fall into two groups, namely: ‘a pot-bellied, chubby person (more often said of children); a bad child, brat; a fatso, lazybones, good-for-nothing’ and ‘a priest of a non-Catholic denomination (Reformed, Evangelical Lutheran), or more generally a person of another faith’. In any given locality, the word is usually used with only one of these meanings. bambizà (known in the southern part of the Lithuanian-speaking area) has the same two kinds of meaning, whereas bambýzas (Klaipėda, Pernarava, Šiaulėnai) is so far known only in the sense ‘brat’. These meanings of the words associated with religious differences among people are undoubtedly secondary. Their primary meaning is ‘pot-bellied, chubby, paunchy’, and they seem to be derivatives of the verb bãmbti, -sta, -bo ‘to grow fat, swell, become bloated’ (bámba, bámbėti, bambsóti and others are from the same root31), just like the similarly meaning words bãmbalas ‘a fat child, chubby fellow; a small, sturdy person’, bamblys ‘a sturdy, usually pot-bellied child, a rascal; a short, fat person; a clumsy, good-for-nothing person’. There are also other pejorative terms for people formed from verbs with the same or similar suffixes containing -za(s), e.g. vėpiza ‘chatterbox’; bambėzas ‘grumbler, mutterer’, kernėzas ‘a stunted, feeble person, animal or tree’ (: kernėti ‘to languish, grow poorly’), švelpėzas ‘a lisping person’ (: švélpti ‘to lisp’); keikãzas ‘one who often swears, a swearer’. 25 J. Balčikonis, Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, I, Vilnius, 1941, p. 515. 26 J. Karlowicz, A. Kryński, W. Niedźwiedzki, Słownik języka polskiego, I, Warszawa, 1900, p. 189. 27 A. Brückner, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Warszawa, 1957, p. 35. 28 J. Karlowicz, Słownik gwar polskich, I, Kraków, 1900, p. 104. 29 „Lingua Posnaniensis“, VIII, Poznań, 1960, p. 336. 30 M. Гарэцкі, Невялічкі беларуска-маскоўскі слоўнік, Вільня, 1919, p. 27. 31 E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955 tt., p. 33. 299 narnāžas “one who speaks while walking, a mumbler”; čiupėiza “one who grabs, snatches,” etc. Returning to the examination of loanwords in D. Zemzare’s book, it should be said that, broadly speaking, loanwords are correctly distinguished here from other words. In identifying loanwords, the author relies mainly on K. Mülenbachs and J. Endzelīns’s dictionary and J. Ževeris’s studies of Germanisms, and in individual cases also on other etymological literature (e.g., E. Fraenkel’s dictionary, etc.). A somewhat greater number of instances involve words where one or another indisputable loanword is treated as a purely Latvian word (which partly explains why the lists of loanwords presented are incomplete) and is even cited as a Latvian substitute for loanwords, as an example of some Latvian derivational type, or the like. This has happened, for example, with the Slavicisms diva (and divs), p. 137; (es) duomā, p. 70; krāsa (with its derivative krāsains), p. 81 (cf. also p. 290; yet on p. 294 it is already noted that J. Endzelīns regards it as a Slavicism); pātaga, p. 49; sedlenieks, p. 70 (a derivative of the Slavicism sedli); tirdzniecība, p. 312 (ultimately based on the Slavicism tirgus, and therefore it cannot be classed among “words of Latvian origin”); the Germanism kūts (which entered via Prussian and perhaps also Lithuanian32); the word buras, borrowed from the Finno-Ugric languages, p. 55 (its origin has been thoroughly and conclusively elucidated by E. Nieminen33); and some other words. On p. 472, among G. Elger’s other Slavicisms, kulita and kalita “pouch, bag” are correctly mentioned, but the two are mistakenly understood as one word (how, then, can the appearance of -a in place of -u- be explained?), which, in the author’s view, supposedly arose from Russian and Belarusian куль, apparently with a diminutive suffix added in Latvian (but then we would have only -īte, not -ita!). In fact, the word kalita, like its more widely known variant kalite, derives from Russian калита34 or Belarusian каліта (cf. also Old Polish kalita)—that is, from the same source as Lithuanian kolytà35 (rare, kolỹtė). The Slavicism kulīta, kulīte is of an entirely different origin. For the second variant (the form kulīte), D. Zemzare’s aforementioned explanation might sometimes also be applicable (kulīte is also listed in K. Mülenbachs and J. Endzelīns’s dictionary under the word kule<куль or Polish kul, though the meaning given does not suggest that this is a diminutive form of that word36). Nevertheless, it would be more reliable to explain the word kulīta with the variant in -a in mind (if, indeed, it is an authentic linguistic form and not the result of old writers’ inability to distinguish final vowels). 32 K. Mülenbachs-J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca, II, Rīgā, 1925—1927, p. 338, E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955 tt., p. 322. 33 E. Nieminen, Die baltischen und ostseefinnischen Ausdrücke für Segel, „Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen“, t. 72, Berlin, 1955, p. 129—160. 34 K. Mülenbachs-J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca, II, Rīgā, 1925—1927, p. 141. 35 E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955 tt., p. 281. 36 K. Mülenbachs-J. Endzelīns, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca, II, Rīgā, 1925—1927, p. 306. 300 (kulite) is the result of contamination between the synonyms kalita (kalite) and kule. This interpretation is also supported by Lithuanian (in some Samogitian dialects) kulytą (2) ‘purse; (anat.) scrotum’, which undoubtedly arose through contamination between Slavic loanwords with the same meaning, kolytą and kūlis (kulys, kulė). On p. 381, among the Slavic loanwords of the Latvian Kūpininki (inhabitants of the Curonian Lagoon’s western shore), borrowed through Lithuanian, ee-win̦jaht is incorrectly mentioned: Lithuanian į-vynioti is no Slavic loanword. A larger part of the concluding chapter, “On Latvian Lexicography” (pp. 408–420), is devoted to issues concerning loanwords in Latvian. Among other things, drawing on existing research into loanwords and her own observations, the author indicates an approximate number of loanwords in Latvian. The total number of dialectal and obsolete Lithuanian loanwords does not exceed two hundred, while several dozen words of Lithuanian origin are said to have become established in the literary language. Germanisms number more than three thousand (including those known only from older written sources), of which about five hundred have become established in the written language. There are said to be more than five hundred loans from Estonian and Livonian (the Estonian linguist K. Aben surveys this many in his dissertation), while about eighty are used in the written language. After loanwords, the book devotes the most space (more than a hundred pages) to neologisms and words belonging to various word-formation types. No fewer than 81 pages (223–289 and 503–518) are devoted to formations in Kr. Valdemar’s 1872 dictionary. Of the other dictionaries, only G. Mancelis’s formations receive a somewhat more extensive review (pp. 20–30 and 423–431). The book offers valuable observations on the productivity of individual word-formation types in the dictionaries mentioned and provides material for clarifying the history of some neologisms now used in the literary language. Among the questionable aspects of word formation and the individual inaccuracies in this area, the term “short derivatives” (Latv. īsie atvasinājumi) is the first to stand out; it is used very imprecisely in the book. As the examples on pp. 79–80 show, it is applied to words of widely varying structure and origin: some cannot be classified as derivatives at all, because they are either isolated borrowings, cf. the Lithuanianisms g̦ieda, g̦inta and the Slavisms k̦āse, uoma, or, although Latvian, are simple or simplified words with no derivationally related base words alongside them, cf. daiļš, īpats; others are indeed clear derivatives, but cannot all be treated alike, since they are either formed with suffixes, cf. mākslis, sekme, vēsma, or belong to the class of ending derivatives, cf. pines, slāpe, žnauga. As used here, “short derivatives” is in fact no longer a word-formation term, but merely an unsuitable substitute for the simpler expression “short words” (if mākslis and similar words can still be considered short). The term for agent nouns (nomina agentis) (Latv. darītāju vārdi) is also used too broadly in the book; for example, it is applied to such derivatives in -nieks, which vary greatly in meaning and formation, as bezdievnieks, bezmājnieks, bufetnieks, lērum nieks, pagrābnieks and the like (p. 328). In fact, this term is suitable for only a few 301 derivatives in -nieks—those formed from verbs (or at least now derivationally related to verbs), cf. mērnieks (:mērīt), strādnieks (:strādāt) and the like. In some cases, suffixes are identified inaccurately; for example, on p. 27, of the eleven derivatives with the suffix -ava attributed to G. Mancelis, only two certainly have this suffix—Pällawas and Raggawas—while all the others are formed with the suffix tava, cf. kahstawa, Reestawa and the like. The examples of compound words taken from G. Mancelis’s dictionary (p. 30) do not differ in their formation from compound words in other written sources and in present-day Latvian. There is no mention here of the rare and unusual formations in this dictionary, such as Darrwa-wazele (Therpudel) 360, Dsirnawa-ackmins (ein Mühlstein) 312, Wassara-swehtki (Pfingsten) 136 and so forth, where the linking -a- might sometimes be associated with a stem-final vowel ā, unless, of course, it is the result of inaccurate spelling by a non-native author. Other lexical matters are addressed less frequently and much more narrowly in the book. The question of legal terminology in G. Mancelis’s dictionary, it seems, should be approached with greater caution. It is too bold to assert that Latvian legal terms had already taken shape in the early seventeenth century (p. 58). Contrary to the author’s view, G. Mancelis’s dictionary does not provide sufficient evidence for such a claim. Most of the words from G. Mancelis that the author presents as legal terms (pp. 59 and 431–438) can also be understood as ordinary everyday words, cf. burt, dalīšana, draudēt, draudzība, durt, dzimtene, griezums, palīgs, slēpt, šķirt, vilt(e)nieks, zaglis, etc. (as can be seen, the list also includes very old words with exact counterparts in other related languages). On the basis of the examples collected by the author, it would even be possible to try to prove the opposite, namely, that established legal terminology did not yet exist in the early seventeenth century, since the dictionary quite often provides several words for the same concept, cf. apłaupīts, appuostīts ir izpuostīts, bārties ir rieties, atzīt ir izsacīt, kult ir sist, nepaties(s) ir netaisns, pretī stāvēt ir pretī turēties, saderēt ir salīdzenāt, suods ir tiesa (suodāties ir tiesāties), etc. The author’s broad interest in dictionary vocabulary has often enabled her to identify the sources of the dictionaries under discussion and to show how much and in what ways a lexicographer drew on earlier dictionaries and what they added themselves. In the process, she also explains how certain distorted, nonexistent words came to appear in old dictionaries; one or two even made their way into K. Mīlenbachs and J. Endzelīns’s dictionary, e.g., atleties (instead of atslēties), ātuoties (instead of āļuoties), ikls (instead of īls), kapuole (instead of kāpele; see pp. 96–97. Little can be said about the discussion of dictionary structure and lexicography in general. The most that can be said is that these matters receive somewhat too little attention in the book. It does not give a sufficiently clear picture of how lexicographic methods developed and continued to improve, how independent dictionary authors were in this respect and how much they depended on their predecessors, how the development of Latvian lexicography was influenced by German and other nations’ lexicography of the same period, and so on. 302 The descriptions of dictionary structure are sometimes not entirely precise because of their brevity. For example, discussing A. J. Stender’s Latvian-German dictionary, published in 1820 together with a German-language textbook37, it is said that words with the same root are grouped together in one place, and also that “words sometimes placed side by side because of their related meanings, e.g., aisdars and aisleija 30, dihziba and leeziba 35” (p. 199). In fact, matters are somewhat different. Beside dihziba, leeziba is added only in parentheses, as if by way of explanation (the latter word also appears in its alphabetical place, p. 45); this is perhaps the only such instance in the entire dictionary, while the fact that aisdars, aisleija are given on the same line does not warrant the conclusion that the author was concerned with combining words of related meaning in a single dictionary entry, since these two words follow one another alphabetically. Indeed, the most characteristic feature of this dictionary’s structure is precisely that, to save space, it more often prints not one but two (sometimes three or four) alphabetically adjacent words on a single line, and such words on the same line often have nothing in common; compare, from just page 37 of the dictionary, ehka, ehna, ehrglis (Gebäude k. Schatten m. Adler m.); ehrselis, ehselis (Hengst m. Esel m.); esis, ezzeščhi (Schweinigel m. Egge w.); gailis, gaiščh, gaišma (Hahn m. hell, Licht k.); gaßpascha, gattaws (Frau w. fertig) and other similar cases. The description of the entries in K. Elvers’s German-Latvian dictionary (1748) is also much too brief: “The words in the columns are arranged in nests” (p. 113). Perhaps most of the entries in this dictionary really do contain several related words; compare abschaffen (together with Abschaffung) 12, abschneiden (with Abschneidung, Abschnitt) 14, anfrischen (with der Anfrischer; but anfrischung is listed separately) 31, kauff en (with Kauffmann, Kauffmannschaft, der Kauff, Käufer, kauffbar; nevertheless, even here einkauffen and other prefixed forms, even gekaufft, are separate) 185. In many places, however, derivatives or compounds that are no less clearly related are not placed with the base word, but form independent entries; compare abend, abendbrod, abend Demmerung, abend Essen, etc., 3—4, aendern and aenderung 23, billig, billigen and billigkeit 102, gemein, gemeine, gemeiniglich and gemeinschaft 163. There are even quite many cases where the same word forms several or a dozen entries—usually as many as it has distinct meanings; compare abnehmen, which has a dozen entries, pp. 10—11. In conclusion, it remains to discuss separately the dictionaries of G. Elger and J. Kurminas, supplementing and somewhat refining what D. Zemzare’s book says about them, their authors, who are little known to us, and especially the dependence of these dictionaries on K. Sirvydas’s dictionary. Georg Elgeris is the only known Latvian Catholic writer of the 17th century. Born in 1585 in Valmiera, he studied at the Vilnius Academy and at the Catholic seminary in Braunsberg (present-day Braniewo, Poland), and entered the Jesuit order in 1607. He taught rhetoric at the Vilnius Academy38; some historians count him (along with K. Sirvydas) among the notable professors of the Vilnius Academy’s first century 37 A. J. Stender, Wahzu Wallodas-un wahrdu-gramata..., Jelgavā, 1820. 38 J. Bielinski, Uniwersytet Wileński (1579—1831), III, Kraków, 1899—1900, p. 163. 303 of existence39. From 1620 he served as a Jesuit missionary in various parts of Latvia (Riga, Cēsis, Ilūkste, Jelgava), from 1631 to 1635 in Smolensk, and in 1636 in Orsha. In 1638 or a little earlier he settled in Daugavpils, where that same year he opened a grammar school40; later he was for some time superior of the Jesuits in Daugavpils. He died in Daugavpils on 30 September 1672, aged 88. His nationality is not known with certainty. In the biography written in the mid-18th century by the Lithuanian Jesuit P. Pošakovskis, he is described as Natione Livo, patria Volmariensis41. J. Brown calls him a Latvian42 (as do many of those who later wrote about him). Linguists, however, judging from the linguistic errors in G. Elger’s writings, consider him unquestionably German43. G. Elger’s first Latvian book—a hymnbook published in Braunsberg in 1621—has not survived. It was not until half a century later that three other Latvian works of religious content by him were printed at the Vilnius Jesuit press: in 1672, Evangelia Toto anno and Catechismus; in 1673, Cantiones Spirituales (apparently an expanded edition of the 1621 hymnbook). Finally, ten years later, his most notable work also appeared there: the trilingual dictionary Dictionarivm Polono-Latino-Lottauicvm. Opus posthumum. R. P. Georgii Elger... Vilnae, 1683. In addition, his manuscript Evangelia et Epistole toto anno has fortunately survived to this day; its text was recently published by K. Dravinis44. The inside covers of this manuscript, which has 70 leaves (five of them blank), were lined with paper that turned out to be part of G. Elger’s lost manuscript hymnbook, containing an alphabetical index of hymns. The index shows that this hymnbook was smaller than his 1673 hymnbook, but presumably larger than the lost 1621 hymnbook45. All G. Elger’s later writings, as mentioned, were printed in Vilnius, and the history of this manuscript is also connected with Vilnius. The editor states that the manuscript was obtained from a private individual in Berlin, and that it had reached him there from Vilnius during the last war; however, he says he does not know more precisely where in Vilnius the manuscript may have been. This account can be extended somewhat: the manuscript was held in the manuscript department of Vilnius University, formed part of the collection of library (scholarly-literary) manuscripts catalogued before the war by M. Brensztejn, and bore the call number 200846. From here 39 St. Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce. IV (cz. 1), Kraków, 1905, p. 96. 40 St. Załęski, op. cit., IV (cz. 3), 1314. However, it appears that a Jesuit school was already operating in Daugavpils somewhat earlier; see Latvijas vēstures avoti, Latvijas vēstures institūta izdoti. III. Latvijas vēstures avoti jezuītu ordeņa archīvos. 1 d. (sakārtojis Dr. J. Kleijntjenss), Rīgā, 1940, p. 245. 41 J. Kleijntjenss, op. cit., I d., p. 470. 42 J. Brown, Biblioteka pisarzów assystencyi polskiej Towarzystwa Jezusowego, Poznań, 1862, p. 168. 43 Plg. A. Augstkalno užuominas: „Ceļi“, V, Rīgā, 1935, p. 46—47; Rīgas Latviešu biedrības Zinātņu Komitejas Rakstu krājums, XX, Rīgā, 1938, p. 111. 44 Evangelien und Episteln. Translated into Latvian by Georg Elger. Vol. 1. Texts. Edited by K. Draviņš, Lund, 1961, XXII+152 (=Slaviska Institutionen vid Lunds Universitet. Text-och materialutgåvor. 1.). 45 Op. cit., XXI—XXII. The text of the index is given on p. 142 of the publication. 46 Polski slownik biograficzny, VI, Kraków, 1946—1948, p. 227. 304 During the German occupation, it was taken away and transported, as has now become clear, to Germany. This manuscript had undoubtedly already been here before the First World War, in the manuscript department of the so-called Vilnius Public Library: among other things, the surrounding Latin manuscripts (shelfmarks 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010), bearing printed labels inscribed Рукописное Отделение Виленской Публичной библиотеки, permit us to think so. The manuscript collection of the Vilnius Public Library, opened in 1867 in the former university premises, as is known, consisted mainly of manuscripts that had already been here somewhat earlier and belonged to the Archaeological Commission, as well as collections of manuscripts confiscated after 1863 from monasteries, schools, and private individuals47. For the time being, it is impossible to say more precisely how G. Elger’s manuscript came to be in the collection. In the manuscript itself, as the editor notes, there is an inscription in another hand indicating that it once belonged to the Daugavpils Jesuit College. In any case, it did not arrive at the Vilnius Public (now University) Library entirely by chance: we find here other manuscripts that belonged to former Jesuit establishments (residences, colleges) in Latvia. For example, the Latin manuscript Liber Institutionum Spiritualium from 1652, which was kept alongside it (shelfmark 2009), bears an inscription in another hand, Residentiae Illuxnange S. J.; the description of manuscript no. 9 (shelfmark Б 2314/12) in the 1906 printed catalogue of manuscripts gives Colleg. Düneburg. S. J.; no. 26 (shelfmark Б 2013/20), from 1763, is said to have belonged to the Daugavpils Jesuit College; and no. 47 (shelfmark Б 238/17) is noted as containing, at the end, lists of pupils of the Daugavpils Jesuit College with assessments of their progress48. Of all G. Elger’s works, his dictionary, compiled on the basis of K. Širvydas’s dictionary, is most closely connected with Lithuania: the Polish and Latin sections are taken from the latter almost without any changes, with Latvian words substituted for the Lithuanian ones. Earlier scholarship usually claimed that G. Elger’s dictionary was a compilation of G. Knapij (Knapski)’s dictionary, with Latvian added in place of Greek (this idea seems first to have been put forward by the Vilnius classicist L. Sobolevski49). D. Zemzarė seems to have been the first to notice that G. Elger’s dictionary derived from K. Širvydas’s, but she is somewhat incautious in associating it (p. 64, n. 1 of her book and elsewhere50) solely with the third edition of K. Širvydas’s dictionary. A comparison of G. Elger’s dictionary (its Polish and Latin text) with the third and fourth editions of K. Širvydas’s dictionary clearly shows that G. Elger’s dictionary is closer to the fourth edition, and that the shared features of G. Elger’s dictionary and the fourth edition that distinguish them from the third edition could not have arisen independently. These shared features (and 47 M. Brensztejn, Zbiór Rękopisów Uniwersyteckiej Biblioteki Publicznej w Wilnie, Wilno, 1932, p. 4—5 (Odbitka z Księgi zbiorowej „Biblioteki Wileńskie”. Rocznik VIII „Ateneum Wileńskiego”). 48 Описание рукописного отделения Виленской Публичной библиотеки, вып. V, Вильна, 1906, p. 104, 110, 113. 49 „Dziennik Wileński”, I, w Wilnie, 1819, p. 605. 50 Plg. Rakstu krājums. Vel­tījumus akadēmiķim profesoram Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei, Rīgā, 1959, p. 636. 20. Kalbotyros klausimai VI. 305 (together with differences from the third edition) are of several kinds: 1) a general dictionary entry absent from the third edition, namely: Dar. Donum E (Elger’s dictionary) 55 — Dar, donum Š4 (Sirvydas’s dictionary, 4th ed.) 31 (since only part of the whole text was compared, it must be assumed that there are more such entries in the dictionary; this entry is also found in both the first and second editions of Knapius’s dictionary51, but, as usual, it has a much fuller Latin section: Dar. Munus n. Donum... Donarium... K1 115); 2) general variants in entry headwords and in the Polish text as a whole, differing from those found in Š3, e.g.: Gontą E 92 — Gontá Š4 50 — Gont Š3 72 (cf. Gont, gontą, Bkudłá K1 203), Ludzki/abo lucki... E 203 — Ludzki, ábo lucki... Š4 103 — Ludzki/lucki... Š3 158 (cf. Ludzki, ábo lucki... K1 379, with abo also in K2 373), Ludzko E 203 — Ludzko Š4 103 — Ludzkie Š3 158 (cf. Ludzkie, lucko, but a little further on also Ludzko, lucko K1 379; K2 373 has only Ludzkie/lucko), Obalenie E 291 — Obalenie Š4 154 — Obalanie Š3 228 (cf. Obalánie K1 577, Obálanie K2 557). Zwierzyniec albo pas niebieski E 671 — Zwierzyniec albo Pas niebieski Š5 462 (since the ending leaves are missing in all of the several copies of Š4 examined, the fifth edition is cited, which, judging by its entries, seems to differ nowhere from the fourth) — zwierzyniec niebeski/pas niebieski Š3 557 (cf. Zwierzyniec niebieski. Pas niebieski K1 1531; likewise K2 1456). Zwodcą v. szalbierz E 671 — Zwodca/V. Szalbierz Š5 462 — zwodźiciel/zwodnik|zwodca, v. Szalbierz Š3 557 (cf. Zwodźiciel, zwodnik, zwodca, v. Szalbierz K1 1532; likewise K2 1457; it should be noted that this entry, both in Š5 and in E, after abridgment, has ended up not quite in its proper place, since it follows Zwodzę.); 3) commonalities in the Latin text of entries, most often grammatical characteristics given for inflected words (endings of certain forms, gender indications), which are not yet present in Š3, e.g.: (s. v. Gay) Nemus oris n: saltus (ūs m:) lucus (i: m:) E 84 — Nemus (oris, n), saltus (ūs. m), lucus (i, m) Š4 46 — Nemus, saltus, lucus Š3 67, (s. v. Gáydą) Vtricularius, ascaules, (ae: m:) pithautes (ae m:) E 84 — Vtricularius, ascaules (ae. m), pithautes (ae. m) Š4 47 — Vtricularius, ascaules, pithautes Š3 67, (s. v. Gębą) Os oris: n: bucca (ae: f:) E 84 — Os (oris. n.), bucca (ae. f) Š4 47 — Os, bucca Š3 67, (s. v. Gładze) Polio (is.: ire) laeuigo (as) dolo (as.) E 85 — Polio (is. ire), laevigo [as], dolo [as] Š4 47 — Polio, laeuigo, dolo Š3 68 (similar grammatical characteristics are rarer in G. Knapius’s dictionary, since there the inflection of a word can often be discerned from the cited sentences); among other commonalities in the Latin text, word order may also be mentioned, e.g.: (s. v. Garbułę skory) Pelles depilo as E 83 — Pelles depilo, (as) Š4 46 — Depilo pelles Š3 66, (s. v. Giermak) Plebeia epomis, (idis f:) E 85 — Plebeia epomis (gė. idis. f) Š4 47 — Epomis plebeia Š3 68 (in these cases, the word order in G. Knapius’s dictionary agrees with that in Š3). Nevertheless, the Polish and Latin sections of G. Elger’s dictionary differ slightly from the fourth edition of K. Širvydas’s dictionary. The more characteristic differences (which remain in all cases even when the comparison is made not with Š4, but with Š3) are 51 Thesavrvs polonolatinograecvs, sev promptvarivm lingvae latinae et graecae... Opera Gregorii Cnapij... Cracoviae... M. DC. XXLI. (II leid.) M. DC. XLII. 306 such as: 1) G. Elgeris omits altogether some of K. Širvydas’s entries, for example: Ankrowānie, klamrowānie §⁴ 2, Aptekaŕska nauka §⁴ 2, Atlas §⁴ 3, Dąchowka §⁴ 31, Dłubāczkā ogrodniczā §⁴ 32, Dug §⁴ 32, Galąž §⁴ 46, Głodny jestem bardzo §⁴ 48, Głowki czosnku, cebule, etc. §⁴ 48, Głowny. §⁴ 48, Goržey §⁴ 73, Ludzkóść §⁴103, Mądry jestem §⁴ 105, Majętnośćka §⁴ 106, Nim, vide. Im §⁴ 152, Nogietek §⁴ 152, Obeznac się gdzie §⁴ 155, Oblepianie §⁴ 157, Obłocze kogo w szatę §⁴ 157, Obmowca uczonych §⁴ 157, Oboźnego wzrąd §⁴ 158, Oboz ruszam §⁴ 158, Obrąbienie §⁴ 159, zwodzę kogo. (= Vide. — §⁵) Obukiwam §³ 557 (all these entries are also found in G. Knapij’s dictionary); 2) some entries in G. Elgeris’s dictionary are absent from K. Širvydas’s dictionary (although there are far fewer such added entries than omitted ones), for example: Angelica korzeń. Angelica radix E 2 (this entry is absent even from G. Knapij’s much more extensive dictionary), Ani ten/ani ow. Neuter E 3 (cf. Ani ten āni ow/žaden że dwu/neuter K¹ 7; also given in K² 7), Anyelski, Angelus E 3 (cf. Anielski Angelicus K¹ 7, but no longer given in K²), Obijam bląchą. Laminis operio (is ire) E 295 (cf. Obijam bląchą... Laminis cingo, vestio, tego, operio K¹ 585; also given in K² 565); here one can also mention the Latvian saying added to the entry Gębą E 84: WinB nae māk muttu atples't, which is then translated into Latin as Nescit os aperire and has no Polish equivalent at all; 3) in some places the Polish part of G. Elgeris’s entry is more extensive, containing synonyms and variants of the headword not supplied by K. Širvydas, for example: Deka nastelka / naścielnik. Sagulum stratu instragulum E 56 — Deká, Sagum, instratum, instragulum §⁴ 32 (cf. Deká, Nastółka, Sagum... Instrātum... Instrāgūlum... Strātum K¹ 119, Deká / Nastotką / Naścielnik... Stragulum... Sagum... Instratum... Intragulum... Stratum K² 119), Gieb / gier E 85 — Giersz §⁴ 47 (cf. GierB / gier / gir K¹ 191, K² 190), Gnąbie / gniotę E 88 — Gnąbię §⁴ 49 (cf. Gnabię, gniotę K¹ 197, Gnąbię / gniotę K² 196), though elsewhere the reverse also occurs, for example: Gáydá E 84 — Gáydá, dudá §⁴ 47 (cf. Gáydá, dudá K¹ 188, Gayda / dudá K² 187), Obrąbiam E 298 — Obrąbiam, obrębię §⁴ 159 (=K¹ 591, K² 571); among other differences in the Polish part, cf. Adamaßkowa Suknia; Damasceni operis E 1 — Adámászkowy. Damasceni operis vestis §⁴ 1 (cf. Adámászkowy, Damasceni operis vestis K¹ 4, and likewise K² 4), Zweżam có E 670 — zweżam czego §⁴ 394 (cf. Zweżam czego K¹ 1529, and likewise K² 1455), Zwatpić v. nadzieję tracić E 670 — Zwątpić / Vide. Nadzieję tracę / serce tracę §⁵ 461 (similarly in §³ 556; cf. Zwatpić, v. Nádźieję strącę, Serce tracę K¹ 1529, Zwatpić / v. Nádźieie strácić / Serce tracę K² 1455; here the cross-reference entry had to be shortened because E and Š do not have a separate entry Serce tracę K² 988). Zwyący żyjący E 672 — Żyjący / żywiący §⁵ 463 (and likewise §³ 558; cf. Żyący / żywiący / żywy K² 1460; after the rearrangement, E’s entry ended up not quite in its proper place, since, as in Š, it is given between Zydowski and Zyię); 4) in some places the Latin part of G. Elgeris’s dictionary is more extensive, containing synonyms not given by K. Širvydas, for example: (s. v. Gibam) Lento (as.) lentare remos, inflectere E 85 — Lento (as) §⁴ 47 (cf. Lento... Lentare remos... inflectere K² 189), (s. v. Giermak) Plebeia epomis, (idis f.): Epilogium plebeium E 85 — Plebeia epomis (gē. idis. f) §⁴ 47 (cf. Epomis plebeia... Epilogium plebe- 307 ium... K2 189), (s. v. Gniády) Castaneus, obscurus, fuscus E 88 — Castaneus, obscurus Š4 49 (cf. Castaneus, obscurus, vel fuscus ad castaneum vergens K1 197, K2 196), (s. v. Zyzny) Faecundus, opimus, ferax, vber, vberrimus fertilis E 674 — Faecundus, opimus, ferax Š5 464 (cf. Fecundus... Ferax... Vber... Vberrima... Vbertus... Fertus... Opimus... K2 1465), though in some other places the reverse is true, for example: (s. v. Aptekarz) Myropola ae. m. Pharmacopola E 3 — Myropola, [ae. m.] Pharmacopola, [ae. m.] unguentarius Š4 2, (s. v. Astrych) Tabulae... E 4 — Tegulae, tabulae... Š4 3, (s. v. Dąb) Quercus (vs f.) E 54 — Quercus, (us. f.), robur (oris. n) Š4 31, (s. v. Obeymuie co) Circumplector (eris) complector E 293 — Circumplector complector, apprehendo, occupo Š4 155, (s. v. Obfićie)... cumulatim E 293 —... cumulatim, plene et cumulate Š4 155; cf. also (s. v. Obracam co) Verto, verso, obverto E 298 — Verto, verso, torqueo aliquid in varias partes Š4 159 (and likewise K1 591, K2 571; G. Elgeris’s entry also does not include obverto here). Among the other differences, one may also mention the occasional transposition of alphabetically adjacent entries; cf. E 83, 295; the conversion of a cross-reference entry into a standalone one: Dań Tributum, census, pensio E 54 — Dań, Vide. Czyńsz Š4 31 (Š follows Knapij); and the division of a single entry into two, cf. Gęsty E 85. A substantial proportion of the changes in G. Elgeris’s dictionary were made deliberately and purposefully. Some obvious errors in K. Širvydas’s dictionary are also absent here (for example, the entry Zwietrzaty/v. Wywietrzenie Š3 557, which arose through an oversight and is repeated in both later editions of K. Širvydas’s dictionary, is no longer included). The comparisons presented show not only that, of all the editions of K. Širvydas’s dictionary—the principal source and model for G. Elgeris’s dictionary—the fourth is the closest to G. Elgeris. They also reveal another point: namely, that G. Elgeris (or at least the editors and revisers of the manuscript he left behind) made occasional use of G. Knapij’s dictionary, the work on which K. Širvydas’s dictionary (editions III–V) was based, and that he also added some material himself (very rarely), or perhaps took it from other lexicographic works. It is difficult to say whether G. Elgeris had learned Lithuanian or not. Anyone undertaking a special study of the Latvian part of his dictionary would need to compare it with the Lithuanian part of K. Širvydas’s dictionary as well, and determine whether the latter exerted any influence. For now, it will suffice to say that K. Širvydas and G. Elgeris, when selecting equivalents for Polish-Latin words, seem most often to have followed entirely different paths, for example: Filozofia. Philosophia, studium sapientiae. Pratomęte Š⁴ 42 —...WismodriBen E 77, Okrutnik, Tyrannus, Baysnikas, gaylinikas Š⁴ 180 and Tyran. Tyrannus, Gaylinikas, smarkinik as Š⁴ 321 —...Tyrans/assinsuns/nabbago liauzu aedais E 332 and Tyrans E 553, Papuga Psittacus, (m.) psittace, (es) avis indica. Pauksztis Indios Š⁴ 197 —...Pappugs E 358, Testáment, Testamentum, voluntas vltima. Testamentas Š⁴ 315 —...Pastars prats E 544. If it were finally established that the Lithuanian part had no influence on G. Elgeris’s dictionary, that would not in the least cast doubt on the claim that the Polish and Latin parts of this dictionary were taken (and only in a few places somewhat revised or edited—most often in accordance with G. Knapij’s dictionary) from K. Širvydas’s trilingual dictionary. The only non-Lithu- 308 The only other Polish dictionary that could be cited as a source is K. Sirvydas’s bilingual (Polish-Latin) dictionary, published in Warsaw in 164152. This dictionary merely lacks a Lithuanian section; otherwise, it corresponds entirely to the third edition of K. Sirvydas’s bilingual dictionary. The differences observed, almost without exception, concern not content but form, graphic appearance, and printing technique (the presence or absence of diacritical and punctuation marks; the different placement of the first two letters of the words listed on a page—the 1641 dictionary usually gives them only at the top of the page, whereas the third edition places them in the text itself, immediately above the first entry beginning with those letters; the 1641 dictionary has no pagination; the two entries §3 161 Madry and Madry jestem are presented as one in the 1641 dictionary; the 1641 dictionary does not contain some §3 printing errors—for example, Gniady is correctly given here, whereas §3 70 is printed as Gniazdy; the erroneous entry Zwietrzaty/v. Wwyietrzenie, found in all three later editions, is also absent here). In the respects in which G. Elger’s dictionary agrees with §4 and at the same time differs from §3, it also differs from the 1641 dictionary: among the features of this kind mentioned above, there is only one small detail in which the 1641 dictionary agrees not with §3 but with §4 and G. Elger’s dictionary: it gives the form ludzko (not with -ie, as in §3). The finding that G. Elger’s dictionary (its Polish-Latin sections) is closest to the fourth edition of K. Sirvydas’s trilingual dictionary, and that the shared features indicating this affinity could have arisen only through one dictionary’s influence on the other, does not yet amount to asserting that G. Elger compiled his dictionary on the basis of the fourth edition. Such an assertion is clearly impossible, since the fourth edition appeared in 1677, five years after G. Elger’s death in 1672. The conjecture that G. Elger might have used the manuscript of the fourth edition would scarcely be credible, if only because it is difficult to suppose that the manuscript had been prepared many years before printing. It must also be borne in mind that G. Elger seems to have written his dictionary not at the very end of his life, in his eighties, but considerably earlier. It therefore remains to suppose that, in writing his dictionary, G. Elger relied on an earlier edition of K. Sirvydas’s dictionary; however, the manuscript he left behind, prepared for printing only after 1677, was carefully edited in accordance with the latest, fourth edition. The Ilūkštė Jesuit mission oversaw the editing and printing of the manuscript (as is evident from its signature beneath the dedication included in the dictionary). Many years later, already in the mid-nineteenth century, a second Latvian dictionary was written on the basis of K. Sirvydas’s trilingual dictionary and was likewise published in Vilnius53. Its author, Jonas Kurminas, like G. Elger, was a Catholic clergyman. He studied at the Kraslava seminary54, which operated from 1757 to— 52 Dictionarium polonolatinum. In usum Studiosae Iuuentutis Polonae. Avctore Constantino Szyrwid è Societate Iesv. Editio nova. Varsaviae, Apud Ioannem Trepinski S. R. M., Typogr., Anno Domini, 1641. 53 Słownik polsko łacińsko łotewski ułożony i napisany przez xiędza Jana Kurmina. Wilno. w Drukarni M. Zymelowicza Typografa. 1858 (282 psl.), 54 Among the priests who graduated from this seminary, J. Kurmin is mentioned, for example, by G. Manteifel; see G. Manteuffel, Krasław, Warszawa, 1901, p. 14. 309 In 1842, where, among other subjects, Latvian was also taught55. From 1821 he served in various parishes and filial churches in Latgale—Pustynia, Stalarowo, Auleja, Siebiežė, Skaista, Vārkava, and finally Kraslava, where he died on 1860. II. 1156. He was of Lithuanian origin57. He wrote in the Latgalian dialect. In addition to the dictionary, religious writings by him were also published58. D. Zemzare rightly observes that J. Kurmin’s dictionary (its Polish and Latin sections) is based on the dictionaries of G. Elger and K. Sirvydas; it is also natural to assume that the fifth edition of K. Sirvydas’s dictionary was used, since it must have been much more readily available than the fourth. Reliance on K. Sirvydas’s dictionary can be inferred from such entries in J. Kurmin’s work as Ankrowanie, Aptekarska nauka, Atlas, Dachowka, Dubaszka ogrodnicza, Dług, Gałąź, Głodny jestem bardzo, Główka czosnku..., Główny, Gorzej, Obłoczę kogo w szatę, Obrabienie, which occur in K. Sirvydas’s dictionary (5th ed.) but not in G. Elger’s. G. Elger’s influence is less readily noticed, but it too is beyond doubt (that influence is more pronounced in the second half of the dictionary); cf. the entry Obijam ściany, taken from G. Elger; the forms Żywiący, żyjący, presented in Elger’s order; the Latin equivalents uber, uberrimus for the word Żyżny, taken from G. Elger; and so on. In some respects J. Kurmin differs from both K. Sirvydas and G. Elger. First, the Latin section is somewhat reduced: grammatical characteristics are no longer given, and Latin translations are often omitted altogether (and this is not limited to cases where cross-reference entries in the earlier dictionaries have been turned into independent entries)—for example, there are no Latin equivalents alongside Ognisty, Ogorzeć na słońcu, Ogorzałość na słońcu, Okazkę mieć, Okazki miejsce, Okipiam, Okopywanie drzew, Okować co, Okroczenie, Okrucieństwo, and so forth. Some entries found in K. Sirvydas’s and G. Elger’s dictionaries are omitted entirely—for example, Adamaszkowy, Apelulę, Gnida, Ludzie, Ludzko, Zwątpić, among others. When copying the Polish and Latin sections 55 Rubon. Pismo zbiorowe, poświęcone pożytecznej rozrywce... VII, Wilno, 1846, p. 18. 56 It is more difficult to establish his exact date of birth. The publication Directorium horarum canonic arum et missarum pro archidiocesi Mohyloviensi in annum Domini MDCCCLXI... Vilnae... 1860, p. 134, which gives his date of death, states that he was 77 years old; one might therefore say that he was born in 1783. However, on the basis of J. Kurmin’s age given for various earlier years in this annual directory of the Archdiocese of Mogilev (called Directorium or Ordo, and initially printed in Mogilev, but in Vilnius from 1838), several other possible birth dates can similarly be calculated: 1790 (for example, according to information from 1827–1835), 1786 (information from 1824–1825), and 1795 (information from 1845–1846)! 57 G. Manteuffel, Bibliographische Notiz über lettische Schriften... p. 18 (Mitau, 1885). 58 Homīleja izplētiszona, aba mocība, ku zeymoy un kaydus atnas pažytkus, ik wins siewkurs words lyukszonas diwa „Taws mysu“ un pasweycinoszonas engela „Sweycinota“, caur Bazneyckungu Joni Korminu... Wilnie. Drukarnie Jezupa Zawacka. 1858 (96 psl.). Jaunas mocibas uz abskaydrynoszonas laužu sprostu ab ticeybu swatu un irodumim... caur Baznieyckungu Joni Kurminu... Wilnie Drukarnie Jezupa Zawacku. 1859 (443 psl.). Bishop M. Valančius, who knew J. Kurmin’s works (the aforementioned religious writings were printed with his permission), thanked J. Kurmin in a letter from his secretary in 1858 for his efforts to educate Latvians (see “Draugija”, XXVI, Kaunas, 1920, pp. 127–128). 310 words from K. Širvydas’s dictionary (5th ed.); through oversight, J. Kurminas left the fourth–fifth page undisclosed, jumping directly from the third page to the sixth and thereby omitting all the entries on pp. 4–5 of K. Širvydas’s dictionary59—the last word under A, Azal (wątpiąc), and the beginning of B, ending with the word Bánkiet, 52 entries in all. Everything indicates that J. Kurminas was a mediocre lexicographer. Taking as his model dictionaries compiled a couple of centuries earlier, he adhered to them very slavishly, neither adding new entries nor attempting to improve their arrangement. He did not even ensure that all dictionary entries were arranged in strict alphabetical order: when replacing an obsolete 17th-century Polish word form with a newer one, he left the entry in its old place, regardless of the fact that the new headword form disrupted the dictionary’s alphabetical arrangement; for example, Balwierstwo and Balwierz are given after Barwienia, that is, in the place formerly occupied by Barwierstwo and Barwierz, although in their new forms they should be much closer to the beginning of B, before Barani; similarly, Bardziej and Bardzo, which follow Barwistą because this was precisely where the old forms Bârziew and Bârzo belonged alphabetically, should be moved sixteen entries nearer the beginning and placed after Bardysz. J. Kurminas’s dictionary is important for linguistic scholarship only for its Latvian section, because of the Latgalian vocabulary it contains. Lithuanianisms can be found somewhat more frequently in this dictionary than in other Latvian dictionaries. This is because, first, Lithuanianisms are more widely used in the Latgalian dialects on which the dictionary is based than in other parts of Latvia, especially those farther from the Lithuanian border; second, the author, being Lithuanian by birth, may himself have inserted one or another word into the Latgalian dialect he had learned, no longer being able to distinguish strictly between what was Latvian and what Lithuanian; third, K. Širvydas’s dictionary also had some influence. It is difficult to believe that J. Kurminas also deliberately added “Lithuanian words” “alongside Latvian words so that Lithuanian clergy working in Latgale could more quickly understand the meaning of a Latvian word,” as D. Zemzare explains (p. 207)60. Even clergy of Lithuanian origin in those days generally knew Polish better than Lithuanian. Moreover, if J. Kurminas had truly intended to provide Lithuanian explanations, he would have done so much more extensively, rather than limiting himself to words that are often known from other sources as Lithuanianisms in Latvian. Finally, the fact that the Lithuanianisms found in J. Kurminas’s dictionary cannot be regarded as Lithuanian explanatory words deliberately added by him is shown by their intermingling with Latgalian words and their Latgalian form (phonetics and morphology). 59 This fact indicates J. Kurminas’s careless, mechanical copying from K. Širvydas’s dictionary (specifically from the fifth edition, not from any earlier one), and also shows that he did not consult G. Elger’s dictionary throughout; perhaps at the beginning of his work he did not have it at hand at all. 60 Somewhat earlier is her preceding assertion, which concerns not the simple addition of Lithuanian words but Lithuanianisms: “Kurminas increased the number of Lithuanianisms in the dictionary in order to make it easier for other colleagues and collaborators to learn Latvian”; see Rakstu krājums. Veltījums akadēmiķim profesoram Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei, Rīgā, 1959, p. 638. 311 D. Zemzare’s work “Latviešu vārdnīcas” is a major and significant contribution to the history of Latvian lexicography, which is closely connected with Lithuanian lexicography as well. This is demonstrated in part by the review of the work presented here, together with various notes and additions intended to draw attention to one or another question in the history of Latvian and Lithuanian lexicography that warrants broader and more detailed study. Vilnius V. Urbulis 312