Senieji latvių kalbos žodynai

LIETUVIETUV TŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAL VI LEIP E. T UV -O S T S R MOKSLŲ AKAD EM. I1II:A OVERVIEWS AND REVIEWS OLD DICTIONARIES OF THE LATVIAN LANGUAGE Daina Zemzare, Latvian vūrdnicas (up to 1900. year), Latvia PSR Zinatgu aka dėmijas publishing house, Riga, Latvia 1961, 559 psl. In this large and ir important work, well-known Latvian linguists D. Zemzare’s work reviews all old printed manuscript dictionaries of Latvian ir language, which are only known from the year of the first dictionary’s appearance to the year. 1638 1900 Interest in the past of Lithuanian lexicography is increasing in Soviet Lithuania, although so far ir only individual dictionaries have been studied more extensively (K. It is to be hoped A. that in the K. future we will ir receive a book that will shed light on the whole history of our lexicography. ir The nature of the future book and the best path to ta follow in the study of the history of lexicography will be easier to decide when we are more familiar with similar works of our neighbours. A closer look iš su su D. Zemzare’s work is important for Lithuanianists because the ir development of the Latvian lexicography itself is in some respects ir closely related to the Lithuanian lexicography and lexicon. su | At the beginning of the book (p. 3—6) The paper briefly reviews the previous literature on Latvian dictionaries and highlights ir the inaccuracies in it. The descriptions of individual dictionaries are based on other works on the ir history of lexicography not mentioned in the introductory literature review. There is not much literature on Latvian past lexicography in general, most of the dictionaries are described so extensively by the author. ir When reading this book, it still falls into the eye that there is a sufficient reliance on previous literature on the subject and gaps in reference to that literature. į Several such ne omissions can be mentioned here. 4 ir 84 psl. stating that: J. Langley's 1685 m. manuscript dictionary 1936 m. has published E. Blessed, but nowhere mentioned that he į šį permission' has inserted ne only J. Langai's life and work p.), but the character of the language- (466—486 ir ! E, Blese, Nicas un Bart's mackerel Japa Longyearbyen 1685. in Latvian—vūciskū vardnica ar Tsu latviešu gramatiku, Rigā, tikā 1936. 287 psl. ). (487—568 Speaking of K. Elverso ir J. dictionaries, it should be recalled that these dictionariiš es chose more characteristic and meaningful words for the history of the — language, as well as o phrases (Proverbs, proverbs) lists are published by Schmidt”, P. while making some remarks ir about the J. Window dictionary (e.g., about the suffix -ums vedinius). On Touch Ch. Furrer's Dictionary of Manuscript Genesis Issues (p. 73), still could be mentioned a few earlier authors who wrote about this platonically, especially L. "Berziny". About G. F. Stender's grammar ir dictionary has been written by J. Endzelynas*, but that commemorajo tive article is worth mentioning ne both for a couple of remarks concerning the dictionary itself, and for G. F. General characteristics of Stender's Latvian language proficiency and jo linguistic views. Very unfortunate that the author did not get to know su B. Jäger's article on 1688 m. dictionary- ", where it is described by The Oslo University Library has found a microfilm of the full copy: this is what the dictionary says in its book ką šį D. Zemzare, who had po only a handful of surviving fragments jo (and, we will add, a J. descriptitų on of the fragments of 91 p. ji undoubtedly relies on), now requires substantial modifications and additions. Po short literature review, the description of the dictionaries is followed. Each vocabulary is examined separately. Dictionary descriptions are arranged chronologically, according to the time ar of writing the dictionary. The whole history of lexicography is divided į into two parts: the first (p. 7—212) includes the era of feudalism (up to 19th a. century), the second (p. 213—407) — dictionaries of the capitalist era. Those dictionaries, though not all of them, here we will briefly indicate that the unread ir D. Zemzare’s books could give an approximate picture of the subject of her research, together with the very past of Latvian lexicography. ir The first Latvian dictionary appeared nine years later than the Lithuanian one (K. Širvydo Dictionarium), namely, 1638 m. Thai George Mancelio Lettus, That is Dictionary/Sampt angehängtem tūglichem Use of the Latvian Language... Riga... M. DC. XXXVIII. The most alphabetical German-Latvian dictionary here occupies (after deducting the cover page, dedication, and the ir commendation address) į Mancelį) 208 pages (not as 207, mistakenly indicated D. Zemzare) ir has about 6000 words; po jo next is the second part — Phraseology Lettica, occupying pages (excluding the cover 190 page); In this section, words and phrases are ir grouped by theme into 51 chapters (e.g., there are chapters "About fish", "About milling", "About clothing", "About colors", "About money", "Names of kinsmen", etc.). ir 2 P. Smidts, Vardu izvilkums no Elversa vardnicas „Liber memorialis letticus- ”, „Rakstu krajams, Rigas Latviešu Biedribas Zinibu Komisijas izdots”, XVI., Riga, 1912, p. 10—20; P. Smidts, Langes latviešu vardnica, ibid., p. 21—58. SL Bērzinš, Kristofors Fiirekers and the meaning of vipa in Latvian literature, „Filologu biedribas raksti", VIII, Riga, 1928, p. 145—224 (about the dictionary p. 160—168). 4 J. Endzelins, Vecū Stendera latviešu gramatika un vardnica, Druva, 1914, No. 9—12, pp. 907—911. 5 B, Jėgers, The German-Latin-Polish-Latvian Vocabulary of 1688,,Sprikliga Bidrag (SprB). The Meddelanden fran seminarierna for slaviska spršk... vid Lunds has about 1,000 German, Latin, Polish Universitet”, Nr. 8, Lund, 1957, p. 22—4l. $ Journal of the Ministry of Education, 1935, p. 288 The second dictionary of Latvian language was prepared by Georg Elger and published in Vilnius in 1683: Dictionarivm Polono-Latino-Lottauicum. Opus posthumum R. P. Georgii Elger... Vilnae, 1683; has 674 pages and about 14,000 dictionary articles. ; The third printed dictionary, anonymous (D. Zemzare calls it G. Dresel's dictionary from tradition), appeared in 1688: Vocabularium Wie Etzliche gebrduchliche Sachen Auff Teutsch/Lateinisch/Polnisch Uund Lettisch/Auszusprechen seynd. Riga... 1688; and Latvian 120 words (almost exclusively po nouns) divided into 24 thematic groups. The dictionary contains many errors, spelling inconsistent, antiquated. B. Jēgers is inclined to believe that the manuscript of this dictionary was compiled before 1621, when the country was still under Polish rule." \ a. ir True, in older literature is still mentioned G. The Dresel Swedish Polish-German-Latvian Dictionary in the list of printed dictionaries of the iš 1677 m. — jį Latvian language refers to ir J. Angel? —, but in later times no one has to seen the dictionary, it is ir now believed that jo there was no buve® at all. Iš to own In the 17th a. century, three unprinted manuscripts of the dictionary have survived. It is primarily two Ch. Fiurekerium (died about m.) 1684 copies of variants of the Latvian-German dictionary iš from the second half of this century; older instance has psl., newer 319 (two volumes) — 555 psl. ; dictionary of 3500 words. Iš 1685 m. is J. Langajus (only known Latin jo form of the surname Langus) manuscript (Latvian-German dictionary) Lexicon), covering about the 7000 words arranged in slots. About the same number of words is given in the manuscript ir of an unknown author Manual Lettico Germanicum (here, other be sources, especially widely used Fiurekerium ir "Languages". Be of that, there is still a small remaining German-Latvian dictionary about words su 900 (from Curonian dialects), which, apparently, some German pastor had made for his own use'®. XVIII were a. printed already seven dictionaries: the 1705 m. — so-called L. Depkin's German-Swedish-Polish-Latvian Dictionary (that is, recycled substantiir iš ally improved 1688 m. edition of the dictionary); 1748 m. — K. Elverso Liber memorialis Letticus (German-Latvian dictionary, about words); 8000 1761 m. — G. F. Stenderium Design of a Latvian Lexici (in one book grammar; su jo Latvian-German dictionary, about words; somewhat supplemented 4000 edition was published in 1999); 1763 1772— 1777 m. — J. Windows Full-time German-Latvian and Latvian-German Lexicon (in the German-Latvian dictionary, published in 1999, the 1772 columns give 607 about words, in the Latvian-Germ15000 an dictionary there are " Sprékliga Contributions, No. 8, Lund, 1957, p. 37 (from The title of the dictionary ir and a short description are taken from Jäger's article). 8 J. Endzelins, levads baltu filologija, Riga, Latvia 1945, p. 68. ? Sprékliga Contributions, No. 8, Lund, 1957, p. 34. 10 More šį vocabulary recently viewed B. Hunter, who, be moreover, believes jį to have written between 1631 ir 1685 years; see. jo Article 10 The Vocabulary Germanic-Curlandic in British Museum,- ,,Arsbok 1955/56“, Lund, 1960, p. 27—57. 19, The dictionary VI, p 289 406 columns and about 10000 words; most of the words are written by the author from the living language- ); 1789 – c. Stender- 's Lettisches Lexicon (two parts: the Latvian-- German part has a total of 404 pages and about 7000 words, and the German-- Latvian part — 773 pages and about 14000 words). The largest of the 18th century manuscript dictionaries is L. Depkin's Lettisches | a dictionary; is a Latvian-- German dictionary written in 1703 and 1704. contains about 16,000 words, collected mainly from writings (a brochure of this dictionary was already printed in 1704). In addition, there are remains of F. Veigelis 1748 German-- Latvian and Latvian-- German, Ch. F. Temler's 1772 "comparative" of the Latvian language (partly also with Lithuanian equivalents), 1782 (J. Baumbach?) manuscript dictionaries of German-- Latvian languages. In addition to these five dictionaries, there are several other manuscripts with more or less processed material for dictionaries. Even without counting the published lists of dialectal vocabulary, dictionaries included in chrestomatias and similar smaller lexicographic works (which, albeit briefly, are also touched on in Zemzare’s book), the number of printed dictionaries of Latvian language was supplemented by more than ten new works in the 19th century. Perhaps the most famous of them —the so-called Kr. Valdemar's Russian-Latvian-German Dictionary (Pycckro-Aarbiuicko-HrMeUUKIŪ cAoBaps), prepared by young Latvians and published by the Russian Ministry of Education in Moscow in 1872 (coverage of about 37,000 words); this dictionary is also based on 1890. Russian-- Latvian dictionary published in Jelgava. The lower is the same Kr. edited by Valdemar and also published in Moscow in 1879 by Aarbiurcko-pycCKo-HmMeukitt CAOBApb. From other dictionaries can still be mentioned J. Kurmino Stownik polsko tacinsko fotewski, printed in Vilnius in 1858 (art. 13000 dictionary articles), K. Ulmanis's Lettisch- -deutsches Wérterbuch from 1872 (about 20,000 words), G. Braže's Deutschlettisches Wérterbuch from 1880 (35,000 words; the two Ulmanis and Braže dictionaries were released as + two separate parts of the same Lettisches Worterbuch) and M. Miežinis’s Lietuviszkai-latviszkai-- lenkiszkai-rusiszka dictionary, printed in Tilžė in 1894 (about 15 000 words). At the end of the 19th century, the first dictionaries of special (terminology of individual fields) and international words appeared: in 1881, Kr. A seafarer's dictionary prepared by Valdemar KapMaHHbiū pyccK0-aHrA iūcko-OpaHnuy3KO0-HPPpMEUKO-UTAAIAKHCKO-gaTrCKO Uu HOpPBEXCKO- -lWBEegCKO-AAThILICKUL MOpCKOŪ CAOBApbL CS npubaBAeHieM®d TOAAGHgCKAro u ucnaHCcKaro s3bIKOB'b; In 1878, F. Mekon published a dictionary of international words, Sweschwahrdu grahmata (about 2,200 words), and in 1886, the first edition of J. Dravniek's dictionary, Sweschchu wahrdu grahmata (more than 5,000 international words) was published. Some larger and more significant manuscript dictionaries from the 19th century. little is known. Tai G. Bergmanio Lūttisch- -Deutsches Wérterbuch ir Deutsch-- lettisches Worterbuch from 1806 (about 5,000 words in the first, 9,000 in the second), Russian-- Latvian dictionary by an unknown author (with I! For more details see. J. Kruopas, The oldest comparative dictionary of Latvian and Lithuanian languages, „Literatūra ir kalba”, II, Vilnius, 1957, p. 467—470. 290 middle part from sacruAdio to ITaBauns), written, D. according to Zemzare, between 1862 ir 1869 m. (approx. 10 000 title words), Juška's A. Latvian-Lithuanian-Polish dictionary iš 1875 m. (7818 words — šį numbers at the end of the dictionary indicates itself A. Juška; Latvian words given the great ir A. Juška's second version of the dictionary, but later the translation into Latvian į was abandoned)'? ir A. Dyrikio (now lost, but more widely known description) Lithuanian-Latvian dictionary iš 1935 m. iš 1872 m. (about 10000 words). Therefore, there are quite a lot of old Latvian dictionaries. Pačios D. Zemzares calculation, from Early XVII a. to By the end a. of the 19th iš century, a total of twenty bilingual and du multilingual dictionaries had been printed, and o twelve of the prepared dictionaries have survived as manuscripts. For comparison, it can be recalled that the printed dictionaries of the Lithuanian language iš XVII is a. only one — K. Širvydo (true, the difference between the first [-the second?] ir subsequent editions here - almost allows to speak of du separate dictionariiš es), XVIII a. — three (all of them are two-part Lithuanian-German German-Lithua- — nian languages): ir V. Hako, P. Ruigio ir K. G. Milkaus, iš XIX a. — five: G. H. F.- Neselman, du F. Kuršaičio, M. Miežinio ir A. Yuškas (beginning); so in iš three centuries there were only nine dictionaries (Latvian twenty-- two!). Manuscript dictionaries iš XVII ir iš XVIII also a. few have survived perhaps a trio of each — po iš (the time of writing some dictionaries is not clearly known), only ir iš XIX a. jų we have more than the Latvians. Iš of the given comparison of ir the number of Lithuanian Latvian dictionaries, it would of course be wrong to conclude that the old Lithuanian lexicography in general was inferior to the Latvian: in its quality už - (especially in terms of more accurate representation of the language) Lithuanian dictionaries to often outperform Latvian dictionaries of the same time, which the a. second half of the nineteenth century were written almost exclusively by foreigners (mainly Germans) who did not speak Latvian perfectly. To get acquainted with so many dictionaries su to properly characterize them is not an ir easy job, requiring a lot of energy, diligence and — time. ir Ne all dictionaries in the book are equally exposed. This, first of all, (depends on the dictionaries themselves — ne all of them are equally important of the same size; There ir are, of course, other, more subjective ir reasons many dictionaries have not — been studied so far, so it is difficult to examine them all at once in detail. iš Most of the place in the book is devoted to Russian-Latvian-Ge1872 m. rman dictionary (Kr. Valdemar) for his special role in jo the formation of the current Latvian literary language about pages — 117 (p. 218—311 ir 503—526), or more than a fifth of the entire book. Almost as extensively examined the first ir (G. Mancelio 1638 m.) dictiona- — ry for him about 100 pages '2 D, Chapter of the book of Zemzare ‘Antano Juška's Latvian-Lithuanian-- Polish Dictionary" it is valuable (352—362) — B. Tolutiene- ’s ir extensive, carefully written studies , Antanas Juška leksikografas" (Literature ir speaks, V, Vilnius, 1961, p. 87—377) replenishment; presents some new facts and reasoning about the A. Your relationships su A. Dyrikiu ir Rigas The scientific commission of the Latvian Society, and, most importantly, characterizes the dictionary itself (mainly, of course, interested in Latvian words and phrases). 291 (p. 11—63 ir 423—470). The descriptions of other dictionaries usually only take up a few po pages. Ancient dictionaries can be studied from different perspectives. The nature of the research, at least, can be twofold here: lexicographic, when the researcher is concerned to clarify on what lexicographic principles and 1) methods the author has relied, choosing words for his dictionary, grouping them, explaining the meanings and giving equivalents of other languages, indicating grammatical, stylistic, origin, etc. ir characteristics, illustrating the use of words in phrases ir t. t., ir 2) lexicological, when the researcher is interested in the “art” of ne creating a dictionary, the words o contained in it, classifying them as archaisms, various types of derivatives, borrowings, etc., in the į eyes of a modern linguist. ir To illuminate the development of lexicography, an overview of lexicographic dictionaries is sufficient, but in practice, the studies of old dictionaries very often have elements of historical lexicology, which is quite natural, since our old ir dictionaries are also monuments of language, so ir without saying that they give to the history of language, especially lexis, the characteristics would not be quite complete. The author of ir the book does not mention the nature and purpose of her ką work anywhere, but after getting ir acquainted with the content of the book itself, it is clear that jų she has been concerned as much with purely lexicographic as with lexicological subjects, i.e., as much with the methods and development of dictionaries as with the lexicon of dictionaries and its enrichment. su ne ne jų Only those sections of the book, which are specifically dedicated, indicating this with titles, to the - characteristics of ir various kinds of words in individual dictionaries or, more often, simply to lists of words, take up over pages, which constitutes tų significantly more than half of the entire text 300 of the book ir « (here it should be recalled that the least pages are occupied 75 by facsimiles of individual — illustration dictionaries, usually the first pages, title pages, otherwise related to ar dictionariessu ). The rest of the text is mostly occupied by lexical overviews and word lists iš (sometimes quite long, cf. 1782 m. manuscript dictionary germanism dictionary p. 161—163, 1879 m. newcomer p. 316—319, The 19th a. anonymous manuscript dictionary of various types of words, p. 325—332), although special headings do not indicate ir this. Because by its nature D. Zemzare’s book is first of all a work of historical lexicology (which in this case is concerned with the lexicon of Latvian old dictionaries) and then of the history of lexicography, so it will be useful to start with ir the lexical aspects and to — dwell on them a little longer when moving on to some of the comments. The book deals with the following groups of dictionaries: borrowed Germanisms, Slavisms, Lithuanianisms originating from Finnish-Ugric languages; ir neologisms otherwise derivatives of different types, archaisms of meaning — ir iš ir (G. Mancelio žodyne) meaning ir neologisms (Kr. Waldemar- 's dictionary), dialectisms (only discussed separately G. Mancelio, J. Larigės ir Kr. Valdemar's dictionaries), proper names, international words (G. Elgerio, K. Elverso, J. Langės, G. Stenderio ir Kr. "Dictionary of Terms". (G. Mancelio, Elgerio, G. Langės, J. Stenderio G. ir Kr. "Archaeology" (PDF). archaeology. (G. "Mancelio dizionario". The author is often not satisfied with a general overview of a certain type of words, ir illustrating her statements with more 292 typical examples, but presents, as already mentioned, entire alphabetical lists of words selected from dictionaries, a kind of dictionaries of one or another type of words in individual dictionaries. Those dictionaries provide considerable material for historical lexicology and the historical vocabulary of the Latvian language, but on the other hand, there is not much use from such dictionaries. Their value is reduced by two things: inconvenience of use and lack of completeness. As they are compiled for individual dictionaries, they are given either with the description of the dictionary itself, or at the end of the book (without always being warned about this in the description of the dictionary), in the so-called appendices (pp. 421—537). In addition, when a word is mentioned, it is often mentioned from which later (and sometimes earlier) dictionaries that word is still known, without mentioning it in the descriptions of those other dictionaries. Because of this arrangement, it is sometimes not easy to use the given dictionaries even when the reader is interested only in one word from any dictionary. A reader would find himself in a rather difficult position if he wanted to find out, for example, since when and in which dictionaries the Slavism he is interested in has been used — then he would have to review almost the whole book. When presenting words selected from dictionaries in the way Zemzare has done, there is only one solution — to add an alphabetical index of all words at the end of the book. Even more serious is the second shortcoming of dictionaries, namely, that they are usually not complete, do not cover all the words of this or that kind in the dictionary. Because of this shortcoming, the given dictionaries cannot replace the dictionary itself for the reader interested in one or another type of words. If, for example, the searched Slavism is not found among the Slavisms presented in a dictionary, the reader cannot be sure that it is not actually in that dictionary. It would have been better to give less different dictionaries, more look at the completeness. o jų Iš of all the lexical groups, the most ir frequently and extensively touched on in the book are borrowings. There is a lot of space for Slavisms, a little less for Germanism- — s. | Stubborn debtor lists are given iš G. Mancelius' dictionair ry, but there are omissions here: for example, neither pages 46—48, nor 438—441 mention the Slavisms contained in this dictionary baggatz (s. v. Reich) 1413 (this word is not completely unknown to the author, cf. her work psl.), 50 Birkaws (one Ship found) 375, Blehdis, Blehds (An old Schalck) 19 ir Blchuhd (Schalck) 151, Buhda (BawrenhduBlein) 28, domaht (thinking) 46, ghattaws (ready) 31 (cf. also Semme ghattawa 17), Kaschohx (Beltz) 30, klanniteeB (biicken) 43, mehroht (messen) 122 (cf. also Vedic iBmehrot, Mehrotais 25), Nabbags (Arm) 22, iBpost (arm making) 22 ir iBmail (GROANS) 215 (plg. and Pohstitais 193, pohstitais, pohstischana 215), Pullx (hauffen Volcks) 86, rohbesis (Target) 220, schūloht, apschūloht (Have mercy) 27 (plg. ir abschiloteeB 54, schchliex 27), Sohliet (promise) 91, Swanniet (pull, people) 77 (plg. ir swafiites 77; similar ir 401) ir kt Iš missed germanizmy (48—55 ir 441—468 psl.) may include, for example, the following: Balle (Ball) 27, Bickeris (Cup) 28, Bulldrians (Baldrian) 27, Cantzels 13 The numbers here indicate G. The pages of the Mancelian dictionary according to the photographed edition of this dictionary (the pages of the 1638 edition are not numbered): A. Gūnther, Altlettische Sprachdenkmadler in Fax printing, II, Heidelberg, 1929, 293 (Cantzel) 44, Cūntzleris (Cantzler) 44, 402, Dantzis (Tantz) 181, Elle (Hell) 87, Junckars (ein Schreiber auffm Ampte) 402, Keisers (Keyser) 401 (Keysers 101), Kesteris (Kiister) 401, klingkis (Handhabe) 84, Kumeles (Camillen) 44, Kungs (Herr) 88, Marskallkis (Marschalck) 122 (Marskalkis 402), Muhks (Monch) 126 and Muhx (ein Miinch) 401, Pawests (Bapst) 401, Pieskhops (Bischoff) 35 (Pieskops 401), preddigkis (Predigt) 138 (see also preddigkeht 138), Rahtusis (RahthquB) 139, Rentmeisters (Reintmeister) 142, 402, Siepohls (Zwiebel) 222, Skriewers (Schreiber) 161, 402, Strenghes (Strengen) 362, Suckurs (Zucker) 221, Sallwes (Salb) 148 (400), Wacktmeisters (Wachtmeister) 404, Wackts (Wacht) 198, Wieges (Feigen) 58, Wieweles (die Fiebel) 273 and others. The lists of borrowings from some other dictionaries have even more gaps. For example, the dictionary of Slavisms selected from J. Kurmin’s dictionary (pp. 490—503) seems to cover only a small part of all the Slavisms contained in this dictionary. Of the words beginning with the letter k, only five are given here (two others are also given on pp. 209—212), but this number can be quickly increased several times, even without looking through the whole dictionary, by adding such as Kalada (Koleda) 51 (cf. and katadawoju —Koleduje 51), kaleka (Niedofezny) 93, karawojs (Kotacz) 51, Kasztanawots (Kasztanowaty) 47, kasztawoj (Kosztuje) 56, Kiarzinia (Koszyk) 56, kierawoju (Kieruję) 48, Other (Other) 48, Kytbasa (Kietbasa) 48, Ktaniejus (Ktaniam sie) 49, Ktapatejus (Ktopocę sie) 50, klęczeju (Klęczę) 49, Kmins, kminy (Kmin) 50, Knatensz (Knot) 50, Kocz (Aby raz) 1, Krata (Klatka na zwierza) 49, kryuda (Krzywda) 61, Kudtas (Kosm) 56, Kudiots (Kudfaty) 62, kums i Kyums, kyuma (Kum) 63, Kurtka (Kurta) 64, kurwa (Natożnica) 87, Kutasys (Kutas) 64, kuznie (Kowalnia, kuznia) 56, 64, Kwarba (Farba) 29, etc. Most of these Slavisms are rarely found in Latvian (mostly only in Latgalian southeasterly dialects) or are not known from other sources at all (this can be indicated in the dictionary), but they are very characteristic of J. Kurmin’s dictionary anyway, and a dictionary of Slavisms that does not include them cannot give a true picture of the Slavisms of J. Kurmin’s dictionary and its vocabulary in general. One of the most close and interesting things touched on in this book for Lithuanianists are Lithuanianisms in Latvian. The author speaks more extensively only about two old dictionaries —G. Mancelio and J. Langinio — Lithuanianisms, providing their lists. In the old Latvian dictionaries, like in the current Latvian written language, there are not many Lithuanianisms. This can be seen from the two lists of Lithuanianisms mentioned above. They do not yet give a true picture, because, like other borrowed dictionaries, they need to be supplemented. Especially inadequate is the presentation of Lithuanianisms in J. Langys’s dictionary. The author does not take advantage of what has already been done in this field by the editor of the dictionary, E. Blesa. Thus, to the eight Lithuanianisms of J. Langijus mentioned by her (p. 88) we must first add eleven other borrowings from the list of Lithuanianisms presented by E. Blese'*, and also partly from It E, Blese, Nicas un Bartas mūcitūja Jaga Langija 1685. gada latviski-- vūciskū vardnica or isu latviešu gramatiku, Riga, 1936, p. 553. 294 word Ankschis (a netig Ding), about whose origin E. Blesė speaks separately '5, Iš unquestionable Lithuanianisms, not mentioned neither E. Fleas, neither D. Zemzarės, the following can also be mentioned: Gedddht, Sageddiht (de[r]gehen) ir Pa-gedusch (come, corrupted) 76'S, Yellow (shooting) (plg. ir hydrogen Ge" beis, Gelbūhšchana) ir Gilbuth (HELP) (plg. ir Eegilbūht, Eegilbūhschana) 77, Gestees, pasgestees (missing) 77 (Passigestees 352 points ir E. "Blesė 553 psl.), Gihmis (one face, or shape, appearance of Dinges) 77, Kūhwa (one Studte, Mdhre, Strense) 104, Ketch (vermeynen) ir Packet strength 113 (three of iš these lituanizmy — gelbét, birth kéve ir — D. Zemzarée doesn't mention them, maybe because she had already registered them iš G. Mancelio Zodyno, see. her work psl. ). 45 The list thus supplemented appears to already cover almost all the less questionable J. The Liturgy of Lithuania. In addition to clear Lithuanianisms, there are perhaps no fewer words in Latvian that can be interpreted as Lithuanianisms almost as well as borrowings from other ir languages, (especially ir often as so-called coronisms) as native words. — ar (often as — archaisms preserved in some dialects). Anyone who undertakes a specific study of Lithuanianisms in Latvian (a broader work in this area would be highly desirable) should not leave out words of doubtful origin. Lituanisms coronisms are, for example, ir tų such ar J. Langley dictionary words such as Banga (one Water wave, wave. Bulge) 29, Steers (join, give way, give room) at 139 Aplenckt (plg. Tahdu — Ackmin', Zelm' waiag aplenckt) 140, Mentdiht (mixing) ir Mente (a wide Holtz so man mixes) 156 (the last word at G. Mancelio lituanizmų nurodo ir autorė), Stencktees (aspiring) 287 ir kt Some non-Latvian phonetic words can be interpreted either as Lithuanianisms or as Germanisms, cf. Kibbeles (one Zanck or Zwist) 113 (here ir derived Kibbeldht) — rather iš than let. bucket "intriga, traps; trailer; confusion’ (J. Endzelynas refers to Juška's dictionary kiba as a possible original. "NpuAHupKa, npunenka"; In dialects this meaning is used plateau kibé), Kinckelūht (sich sūumen, Viel Wesens or Federlesens machen) 113 — could sometimes be liet. iš (for-, with-) kinkeliert „(su)konfuzuoti, (su)velti" ar similar zodziy'®. Iš words whose phonetics (or other characteristics) do not jų indicate non-Latvian origin, but which are little familiar to the Latvian ti (only occurs in some scriptures ar In other words, they do not have ~ the same roots as the other words. ir ir about equally well could be considered both Lithuanianisms and own, non-literal words, mentionable: ir Buhda (one Nature, an Art; a statement is given I don't want to turn back Buhda, so the form of the denominator Buhda could be spelled incorrecir tly here instead of Buhds) 39 — this word (and saying) a little later Ss E, Blese, op. cit. p. 509. 14 Pages are listed by ne the individual of the dictionao ry itself, by the general of all E. Bless the page numbering of the book. T K, Mūlenbachs-J. Endzelins, Latvian language dictionary, II, Riga, 1925— 1927, p. 378. '8 For the possible origin of this word in German, see iš Germanization. K. Mūlenbachs-J. Endzelins, op. cit., II, the -nieks p. 382. 295 suffixes derived —those that are made from verbs (or at least now adjectively relate to verbs), cf. mērnieks (:mērit), strūdnieks (:stradat) and so on. ; In some places, suffixes are not accurately distinguished; for example, on page 27 of the eleven Manceli's vedas mentioned with the suffix -ava, only two words —Pdllawas and Raggawas — have this suffix, and all the others are made with the suffix —tava, cf. kahstawa, Reestawa, etc. The examples of composed words from G. Mancelis’ dictionary (p. 30) differ in no way from the composed words of other scripts and of the present Latvian language. It is not mentioned here that this dictionary also contains such rare and strange formations as Darrwa-wazele (Therpudel) 360, Dsirrnawa- -ackmins (ein Mūhlstein) 312, Wasšara-swehtki (Pfingsten) 136, etc., where the consonant -agal could sometimes be associated with the stone-age vowel a, unless, of course, this is the result of an inaccurate spelling by a foreign author. Other lexical subjects are touched on less frequently and more narrowly in the book. It seems that the question of legal terminology in Manceli’s dictionary should be dealt with with some caution. To claim that Latvian legal terms had already been formed at the beginning of the 17th century (p. 58) is too bold. Contrary to the author’s opinion, the dictionary of G. Mancelis does not provide sufficient material for such a statement. Most of those words of G. Manceli, which the author presents as legal terms (pp. 59 and 431-438), can be understood as ordinary everyday words, cf. įr burt, dališana, draudėt, drau-. dziba, pierce, homeland, cut, stay, hide, steal, thief, thief, etc. (as you can see, there are also very old words with exact equivalents in other related languages). Based on the examples collected by the author, one could even try to prove the opposite statement, namely, that at the beginning of the 17th century there was not yet established legal terminology, because quite often several words are given in the dictionary to represent the same concept, e.g. aplaupits, appuostits and izpuostits, barties and rieties, atzit and izsacit, kult and sist, nepatiess and netaisns, preti stūvėt and preti turėties, saderét and salidzenat, suods and tiesa, etc. A wide interest in the lexicon of dictionaries allowed the author to identify the sources of the descriptive vocabulary in many places, to show how much and how the dictionary writer has taken from previous dictionaries and what he has added himself. On the same occasion, it is explained how some distorted, non-existent words appeared in the old dictionaries, some of which even entered the dictionaries of K. Mühlenbach—J. For the English dictionary, e.g. atlėties (instead of atslėtis), ūtuoties (instead of ūluoties), ikls (instead of ils), kapuole (instead of kūpele), see pp. 96—97. Not much can be said about the study of the structure of dictionaries and lexicography in general. Except that the book is a little too little interested in these things. It is not possible to get a clear picture of how the methods of lexicographic work have been formed and improved, how independent the authors of the dictionaries have been in this respect and how dependent they have been on their predecessors, how the development of Latvian lexicography has been influenced by the lexicography of the Germans and other peoples of the same time, etc. 302 The characteristics of the structure of the vocabulary due to its brevity when xur are not quite accurate. For example, in reference to A. J. Stender- 's Latvian-- German dictionary*, published in 1820 together with a German textbook, it is said that in this dictionary words of the same root are grouped together in one place, and also that "sometimes words that are close in meaning are placed next to each other, e.g. aisdars and aisleija 30, dihziba and leeziba 35" (p. 199). In reality, it is slightly different. Next to dihziba, as if for explanation, leeziba is added only in parentheses (the latter word is also in its alphabetical place, p. 45), and this is perhaps the only such case in the whole dictionary, and the giving of aisdars, aisleija in the same line does not lead to the conclusion that the author was concerned here to combine words of close meaning into one dictionary article, because the thin words follow each other alphabetically, and the most characteristic thing of this dictionary's structure is precisely that in it (for the sake of space saving) in one line are more often written not one, but two (sometimes — three and four) alphabetically adjacent words, and such one-line words often have nothing in common with each other, cf. from page 37 of the dictionary alone ehka, ehna, ehrglis (Gebūude k. ehrselis, ehselis (Stallion m. Donkey m.); esis, ezzešchi (Schweinigel m. Egge w.); light, lightness, brightness (cock light, m. light k.); Gašpaša, gattaws (Frau w. fertig) ir other similar cases. Overly jacket and characteristic of the articles of K. Elvers’s German-Latvian dictionary (1748): “The words in the columns are arranged in nests” (p. 113). Perhaps the majority of the articles in this dictionary really include several related words,. plg. abschaffen (kartu su Abschaifung) 12, abschneiden (su Abschneidung, Abschnitt) 14, anfrischen (su der Anfrischer; bet jau atskirai anfrischung) 31, kaufen (su Kauffmann, Kauffmannschait, der Kauff, Kūuiier, kauffbar; nevertheless in ir this case separately einkauifen and other prepositions, even gegaufft) 185. In many places, however, the equally clear derived or enriched words are not added to the base word and form independent articles, cf. abend, abendbrod, abend Demmerung, abend Essen, etc. 3—4, aendern and aenderung 23, billig, billigen and billigkeit 102, gemein, gemeine, gemeiniglich and gemeinschafft 163. There are even quite a few cases when the same word forms several or a dozen articles — usually as much as it has more separate meanings, cf. abnehmen mehrere Artikel, p. 10—11. Finally, it is still necessary to touch on the dictionaries of G. Elger and J. Kurmin separately, to supplement and somewhat to clarify what has been said about them and their little-known authors, and especially about the dependence of these dictionaries on the dictionary of K. Širvydas, in the book of D. Zemzare. Georg Elger is the only known Latvian Catholic writer of the 17th century. Born 1585 m. in Valmiera, studied Vilnius Academy ir In 1607 he entered the Jesuit order at the Catholic seminary of Braunsberg (now Braner, Poland). Taught rhetoric® at Vilnius Academy; Some historians mention him (together with K. Širvydas) among the famous members of the Vilnius Academy ¥ A. J. Stender, Wahzu Wallodas-un wahrdu-grahmata..., Jelgava, 1820. 38 J. Bielifiski, University of Vilnius (1579-1831), III, Krakow, 1899-1900, p. 163. 303 of the first century profesoriy®. From 1620 m. how the Jesuit missionary operates in various Places in Latvia (in Riga, Cesis, Ilūkste, Jelgava), 1631— 1635 m. — Smolenske, 1636 m. — Orsha. 1638 m. ar a little earlier settled in Daugavpils, in the same year opened a grammar school*?, later for some time was The Chief of the Jesuits. Died in ir Daugavpils 1672.IX.30, at the 88 age of years. Jo nationality is not certainly known. Lithuanian Jesuit P. Poshakovskiy A biography a. written in the middle of the 18th century states that the former Natione Livo, homeland "Volmariensis". J. Brovna jį calls me a Latvian? (so do a significant ir part of those who wrote about it jį later). But linguists, when deciding iš G. "The German language of the 1930s, without the German jį language". First G. Elger's Latvian book — 1621 m. The castle of Braunsberg was not — destroyed. Only half po a century Three other Latvian works of religious content were printed at the Jesuit printing press in Vilnius: jo 1672 m. — Evangelia Total year ir Catechism, 1673 m. — Cantiones Spiritual (apparently, 1621 m. supplemented edition of the hymnal). Finally another po ten years here appeared the most ir famous jo work — trilingual dictionary Dictionarivm Polono-Latino-Lottauicum. Opus posthumum. R. P. Georgii Elger... Vilnae, 1683. Be of which, fortunately to this day is the surviving manuscript jo Evangelia et Epistolae toto anno, the text of which was recently published by K. Dravinis- *. This manuscript, which 70 contains pages (5 jų pages are empty), the inside of the iš covers were pasted with paper that turned out to be part of the missing G. The Elger manuscript hymnbook, containing an alphabetical register of hymns. Iš register shows that that hymn was a smaller hymn, but it must be už jo 1673 m. assumed that a wider non-preserved už 1621 m. the hymn". All later G. Elger's writings, as it is said, were printed The su history of this manuscriir pt is linked to Vilnius. The publisher indicates that the manuscript was iš received from a private person Berlin ir that there he got during the last war iš Vilnius, but more precisely, where the manuscript could have been In Vilnius, he says he doesn't know. This story can be extended a little: the manuscript was held Vilniaus University Manuscripts Department, became part of the library (scientific-literary) į manuscripts collection, organized before the war M. Brenštejno, ir had a signature 2008%, Iš here 34 St Zaleski, Jesuits in Poland, IV (part 1), Krakow, 1905, p. 96. 40 St, Zalęski, op. cit., (cz. IV 3), 1314. However, it seems that In Daugavpils, the Jesuit school has been operating some time before, see. Sources of Latvian History, published by the Latvian Institute of History. III. Latvijas vēstures avoti Archives of the Jesuit Order. Id. (creator Dr. J. Kleijntjenss), Riga, Latvia 1940, p. 245. i 41 J. 12, Op. cit., Id. p. 470. 42 J Brown, Library of Polish Assistant Writers Societies Jesus' Church, Poznan, 1862, p. 168. 43 E.g., High A. Mountain hints: “Celi”, V, Riga, 1935, p. 46—47; Riga 1938, p. 111. #4 Gospels and Epistles. Ins Latvian Translated by Georg Elk. Bd. 1. Tex tea. Hrsg. of K. Dravins, Lund, 1961, XXII+152 (=Slavian The Department at Lunds University. Text and material design. 1.). 45 Up. cit., XXI-XXII. The text of the registry is 142 available on page 10 of the publication. 4 polski slownik biograficzny, VI, Krakow, during the German 1946—1948, p. 227. 304 occupation he was taken and taken, as it now turns out, to Germany. This manuscript has undoubtedly been here before the First World War, in the so-called Vilnius Public Library’s manuscripts department x, among other things, the surrounding Latin manuscripts (signed 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010), bearing a printed jk glue with the inscription Pykomucnoe Otperenue Buaenckoit ITyGanunoit 6ubaucrexn, allow us to think so. The Vilnius Public Library, which was opened in 1867 in the premises of the former university, as is known, mainly consisted of the manuscripts of the Archaeological Commission, which had been there some time earlier, as well as the collections of manuscripts of monasteries, schools and private individuals confiscated after 1863.” To say more precisely where the manuscript fell iš į G. Elger's manuscript, meanwhile, can't. In the manuscript itself, as the publisher points out, there is another handwriting indicating that the manuscript once belonged to the Daugavpils Jesuit College. It did not end up in the Vilnius Public Library (now the University Library) by chance, anyway — there are more manuscripts belonging to the old Jesuit residences (residences, colleges) in Latvia; For example, the adjacent (signed 2009) Latin manuscript Liber Institutionum Spiritualium from 1652 has the inscription Residentiae Illuxtanae S. J. ; In the 1906 printed manuscript catalogue, Colfeg is given in the description of manuscript No. 9 (sign B 23'*/j»). Dnneburg. S. J., No. 26 (sign B 20'*/59) from 1763 —indicates that it belonged to Daugavpils |. Jesuit College, No. 47 (sign B 23%/,;) —remembers that at the end there are lists of students of Daugavpils Jesuit College with their progress assessment”**?. Of all Elger’s works, his dictionary, compiled on the basis of the dictionary of K. Širvydas, is the closest to Lithuania: the Polish and Latin parts are taken from the latter almost without any changes, and only Latvian words are given instead of Lithuanian words. In earlier literature it was usually said that G. Elgerio dictionary was a compilation of G. Knapio (Knapskio) dictionary, where the Latvian language was added instead of the Greek language (the idea was first raised, it seems, by the Vilnius classic L. Sobolevskis**), G. El- = good dictionary dependence on K. Širvydo dictionary was probably the first to notice D. Zemzare, but she is a little reckless, linking it (on page 64 of her book, note 1 and elsewhere- ®) only to the third edition of the dictionary of K. Širvydas. Comparing the Elger dictionary (its Polish and Latin texts) with the third and fourth editions of the Širvydas dictionary, it becomes clear that the Elger dictionary is closer to the fourth edition and that the similarities between the Elger dictionary and the fourth edition, which differ them from the third edition, cannot in any way have arisen independently. Tos bendrybės (and 47 M. Brensztejn, Collection of Manuscripts of the University Public Library in Vilnius, Vilnius, 1932, p. 4—5 (Printed from the Collection of Manuscripts of the University Public Library in Vilnius). *8 Ommcanme pyKommcHOro orAeAemus Buaemckoi TlyCjiaumoi GuGAuoTreKm, Bum. V, Buasna, 1906, p. 104, 110, 113. 4% „Diennik Wilenfiski“,- .I, in Vilnius, 1819, p. 605. 50 Plg, Book of Writings. Dedication to academician Professor Dr. Janis Endzelis in commemoration of his 85 years of life and 65 years of work, Riga, 1959, p. 636. 305 together with the differences from the third edition) are of several kinds: a general dictionary article, which is not in the third edition, namely: 1) A gift. Donum E (Elger's words.) 55 — But, donum Š* (Short story). IV leid.) 31 (because only part of the entire text was compared, it is assumed that there are more such articles in the dictionary; that article is ir ir Knapius' dictionary in both the first and second editions*', ir but has, as usual, a much larger Latin part: A gift. Munus nm. Donum... Donarium... K' 115); 2) general versions of the titles of articles ir in general Polish text, different from S$? existing variants, e.g. : Gonta E 92 — Gonta Š* 50 — Gont Š* 72 (plg. Gont, gonta, Bkudta K' 203), Human/abo lucki... E 203 — Human, dbo lucki... Š* 103 — I'm sorry... Š3 158 (plg. Human, dbo lucki... K' 379, su or ir K2373), Ludzko E 203 — Ludzko Š*103 — Human Š* 158 (plg. Ludzkié, lucko, but a little further ir Man, man, man K'379; K? 373 only Human/lucko), Coating E291 — Oblating S*154 — Overthrow Š* 228 (plg. Obaldnie K' 577, Obdlanie K* 557). Blue belt E 671 — Sphincter or Blue Belt Š* 462 (because nė in one of iš several There are no end pages of the copies of the book, the fifth edition is indicated, which in its articles, it seems, is nowhere different from the fourth) zwierzyniec niebeski/pas niebieski — Š* 557 (plg. Animals are mean. Pas niėbiéski K' 1531; yes ir K? 1456), Zwodcd v. shalbierz E671 — Deceiver/ V. Szdlbierz §° 462 —woddziéiel/wodnik|wodca. v. Shield S* 557 (plg. Zwodžičiel, zwodnik, zwodzcd, v. Szdlbierz K' 1532; yes ir K? 1457; it should be noted that this article both in Š* and in ir E po the abbreviation is found quite in place ne because it goes po I deceive); 3) commonality of the Latin text of articles, grammatical characteristics usually given to — the variable words (ends of some forms, family references) that are not yet present 8% e.g. : (s.v. Gay) Nemus oris n: saltus (as m:) lucus (i:m:) E 84— Nemus (oris, n), saltus (us. m), lucus (i, m) Š* 46 — Nemus, saltus, lucus Š* 67, (s. v. Gayda) Vtricularius, ascaules, (ae m:) pithaules : (ae mi) E84 — Utricularius, ascaules (ae. (m), pithaules (ae. m) Š*47 — Vtiricularius, ascaules, pithaules S* 67, (s. v. Gebd) Os oris: n: mouth (ae: f:) = E 84 — Os (ori. n.), mouth (ae. f) Š* 47 — Bone, mouth Š* 67, (s. v. Gtadzę) Polio (is: ire) laeuigo (as) dolo (as.) E85 — Polio (is. ire), laevigo [as], dolo [as] Š* 47 — Polyester, laying, sheeting Š*68 (similar grammatical characteristics G. In the Knapius dictionary, they are more rare, because there the word caityba is often seen in already iš quoted sentences); iš other commonalities of the Latin text can still be mentioned word order, e.g. : (s. v. I've got a bump) Pelles depila as E83 — Pelles depila, (as) Š* 46 — 66 pp. (S. 66). v. Giermak) Plebeia epomis, (idis f:) E 85 — Plebeia epomis (see section 4.4). idis. f) Š* 47 — Epomis plebeia Š*68 (in these cases G. Knapie's dictionary word order agrees su $9). Nevertheless, G. The Polish Latin parts of Elger's ir dictionary differ slightly from the fourth edition K. of Širvydas's dictionary. The more prominent differences (in all cases they remain ir when compared to ne su Š*, o su S*) is 51 Thesavrvs Polonolatinograecvs, sev promptvarivm lingvae Latine et Graecae... Opera Gregorii The gangsters. Cracoviae. M. DC. XXI; (II leid.) M. DC. XLII. 306 such as: 1) G. Elgeris does not give some of K. Širvydas' articles at all, e.g. : Anchoring, stapling Š*2, Pharmaceutical science Š*2, Atlas Š*3, Breathing Š* 31, Garden diubdic Š* 32, Diug Š* 32, Gatąž Š* 46, I'm hungry, I'm awake S' 48, Glowkd garlic, onion, etc. Š* 48, The chief. Š* 48 Gorzey Š* 73, Ludzkošėž $'103, Madry iestem Š* 105, Maietnoskd Š* 106, Nim, see. Im S* 152, Nogietek Š* 152, Find out where Š* 155, Oblepianie S* 157, Oblocze kogoś w szate Š* 157, Obmowca vczonych S* 157, OboZnego vrzqd Š* 158, Camp move Š* 158, I insult Š* 159, anyone. (= Environment—S% I'm studying. Š? 557 (all these articles are also in G. Knapis’s dictionary); 2) some articles of G. Elgerio dictionary are not in K. Širvydo dictionary (but such added articles are significantly fewer than those omitted), e.g. : Angelica spiced. Angelica radix E 2 (this article is not even in G. Knapis's much wider dictionary), Ani ten/ūni ow. Neuter E3 (plg. Neither this nor ow/no dwu/neuter zė K' 7; duoda ir K? 7), Anyelski. Angelus E3 (plg. Anielski Angelicus K' 7, but no K? longer gives), We'll get the ball rolling. 295) and the Lamini opera (is ire) E 295 (plg. Laminis cingo, vestio, tego, operio K! 585; duoda ir K?2565); Here we can also mention the Latvian saying WinB nae mak muttu atplest added in the article Gębd E 84, only later translated into Latin Nescit aperire, which has os no Polish ir equivalent at all; 3) in some places the Polish part of G. Elgeri’s article is broader, has synonyms and variants of the title word not given by K. Širvydas, e.g. : Blanket cover / headboard. Sagulum stratū instragulum E 56 —Dekd, Sagum, instratum, instragulum Š*32 (cf. Dekd, Nast6ikd, * Sigum... Instratum... Instragilum... Stratum K' 119, Dekd /Nastolka /Naščielnik... Stragulum... Sagum... Instratum... Instragulum... Stratum K? 119), GieB | gier E 85 —Giersz S* 47 (cf. GierB /gier /gir K' 191, K? 190), Gnabie | gniote E 88 —Gngbie S* 49 (cf. Gnabie, gniote K' 197, Gngbie /gniote K? 196), but elsewhere the reverse occurs, e.g. : Gdydd E84 —Gdydd, duda Š* 47 (cf. Gdydd, duda K' 188, Gaydd /dudd K? 187), Obrgbiam E 298 —Obrgbiam, obrebuie S* 159 (=K' 591, K? 571); from other Polish part differencey still plg. AdamBkowa Dress; Damasceni operis E1 —Addmadschkowy. Damasceni operis vestis Š*1 (see AddmdBkowy, Damasceni operis vestis K' 4, as well as K* 4), Zwezam ¢o E 670 —zwezam czego S* 394 (see ZweZam czégo K' 1529, as well as K? 1455), Zwatpič v. nadžiieę tracié E 670 —Zwatpič /Vide. NadZieie trace | serce trace S° 461 (similar to S° 556; cf. Zwatpič, v. Nadziéie strdce, Heart of trace K' 1529, Zwatpič | v. Nadziéie straci¢ | Heart of trace K? 1455; here the abbreviation of the reference article was necessary because E and Š do not have a separate article Sérce trace K? 988), Zywigcy żyiący E 672—Zyiqcy | žywigcy S° 463 (as well as S® 558; cf. Zyqcy | zywiqcey | žywy K? 1460; after the interchange the article E appeared not quite in place, since, like the Š, it is given between Zydowski and Zyię); 4) in some places the Latin part of G. Elgerio dictionary is p teser, has synonyms not given by K. Širvydas, e.g.: (s. v. Gibam) Lento (as.) e remos, inflectere E85 —Lento (as) Š* 47 (cf. Lento... Lentare re inflectere K? 189), (s. v. Giermak) Plebeia epomis, (idis f:) Epilogium plebeium E 85 — Plebeia epomis (gé. idis. f) S*47 (plg. Epomis plebeia... Epilogium plebe307 jum... K2 189), (s. v. Gniddy) Castaneus, obscurus, fuscus E 88 — Castaneus, obscurus Š* 49 (plg. Castaneus, obscurus, vel fuscus castaneum ad vergens K! 197, K? 196), (s. v. Zyzny) Faecundus, opimus, ferax, vber, vberrimo fertilis E 674 — Faecundus, opimus, ferax S°® 464 (plg. Fecundus... Ferax... Vber... Vberrima... Vbertus... Fertus... Opimus... K* 1465), but in some other places it's the opposite, e.g. : (s. v. Pharmacist) Myropola ae. m. Pharmacopola E3 — Myropola, [ae. m.] Pharmacopola, [ae. m.) ungventarius Š* 2, (s. v. Astrych) Tabulae... E 4 — Tegulae, tabulge... S* 3, (s. v. Dgb) Quercus (vs f:) E54 — Quercus, (us. f.), robur (ori. n) 31, (p. v. Obeymuie what) Circumplector (eris) complector E 293 — Circumplector complector, apprehendo, occupo 155 (s.v. Obficie)... cumulatim E 293 — ... cumulatim, plene et cumulaté S* 155; plg. ir (s. v. I turn what) Verto, verso, obverto E298 — Verto, verso, torqueo quid in varias paries $* 159 (yes ir K' 591, K? 571; G. There is also no Elger's obverse.) Iš other differences can be mentioned the occasional occurrence of alphabetically related articles changing places, cf. E 83, 295, self-processing of the reference į article: Dart Tributum, census, pension E 54 — Dani, Vide. Rent Š*31 (Š — according to 2, 2nd edition, pp. 2. į Dense E 85. Significant part of the changes G. Elger's dictionary is made deliberately ir purposeful. There are no ir longer some obvious K. errors in the Širvydas dictionary (e.g., no longer given accidental article Winded up/v. Ventilation $° 557, which is repeated ir by both later K. "Dictionary of the Serpent". The presented comparisons ne show only that all the Širvydas žo-' iš dyno main K. — G. Elger's dictionary source and sample editions — nearest G. Elger is fourth. Iš jų see ir another thing, namely that G. Elgeris (or at least the editors jo of the left manuscript) places still has used G. Knapius's dictionar- — y, a work on which Širvydas- 's own K. dictionary is based (III-V ed.), kai o ką (in very rare cases) added by himself, maybe ir even taken other ar lexicographic iš works. Ar G. Elgeris had learned Lithuanian, no, it’s ar hard to say. Anyone who would study the Latvian part of the jo dictionary should compare it with the ją Lithuanian ir su K. part of Širvydas’s dictionary to see if the ir latter has ar had any influence. In the meantime, it will be enough K. to say that Širvydas ir G. Elgers, choosing the equivalents of Polish-Latin words, probably have most often followed quite different paths, e.g. : Philosophy. Philosophia, studium sapientiae. Pratomeyte Š* 42 — ..WismodriBen E 77, Okrutnik, Tyrannus, Baysinikas, gaylinikas Š* 180 ir Tyrant. Tyrannus. Gaylinicus, smarkinicus Š* 321 — ...Tyrants/assisuns/nabbago liGuzu aedais E 332 ir Tyrant E 553, Papuga Psittacus, (m.) psittace, (es) avis indica. Pauksztis Indians Š* 197 — ...Pappugs E 358, Testament, Testamentum, voluntas vitima. Will S315 — ..Pastars prats E 544. If ‘finally explained that the Lithuanian part did not affect G. Elger's dictionary, it's a nė bit of a... "There is no doubt in the statement that the Polish Latin ir parts of this dictionary are taken from (and only somewhat processed, edited mostly by — G. The Trilingual iš K. Dictionary. The only non-Lithu- >: 4 anian dictionary that can still be cited as a source is the bilingual (Polish-Latin) dictionary by the same K. Širvydas, published in Warsaw in 1641®. The latter dictionary does not have the Lithuanian part, but otherwise it coincides with the third edition of K. Širvydas’ bilingual dictionary. The differences observed almost without exception do not concern the content, but the form, graphic image, printing technique (presence or absence of diacritics and punctuation marks; Different emphasis on the first two letters of words on a page — in the 1641 dictionary they are usually written only at the top of the page, while in the third edition they are given in the text itself, immediately above the first article beginning with those letters; The 1641 dictionary has no page numbering; two articles of Š* 161 Mądry and Mądry iestem are given as one in the 1641 dictionary; The 1641 dictionary lacks some $° printing errors — e.g., here Gniady is given correctly, while Š*70 is printed as Gnidzdy, here is still missing the incorrect article Zwietrzaty/v of all three last editions of Š. Ventilation). In that G. Elger's dictionary coincides with Š* and at the same time differs from Š*, it differs from the 1641 dictionary: of the above-mentioned things there is only one minor thing in which the 1641 dictionary coincides not with Š*, but with Š* and G. Elger's dictionary: it gives the form ludzko (not with -ie, like Š*). The finding that G. Elger’s dictionary (its Polish-Latin parts) is closest to the fourth edition of K. Širvydas’s trilingual dictionary and that the similarities showing this closeness could have arisen only as a result of the influence of one dictionary on the other, does not mean that G. Elger compiled his dictionary according to the fourth edition. This is clearly not the case, since the fourth edition appeared in 1677, five years after Elger’s death in 1672. The conjecture that Elger could have used the manuscript of the fourth edition would hardly be at all reliable, if only because it is difficult to believe that the manuscript was prepared many years before the printing. It is also worth noting that Elger did not write his dictionary at the very end of his life, in his nineteen, but much earlier. Therefore, it is only to be assumed that G. Elgeris, when writing the dictionary, has relied on the earlier edition of K. Širvydas’s dictionary, but the manuscript he left, which was finally prepared for printing after 1677, was carefully edited according to the latest, fourth edition. The manuscript was edited and printed by the Jesuit mission of Ilūkste (as can be seen from the dedication below the dictionary)., Many years later, already in the middle of the 19th century, a second dictionary of Latvian language was written on the basis of K. Širvydo trilingual dictionary, also published in Vilnius®. The author, Jonas Kurminas, like G. Elger, was a Catholic priest. He studied at the seminary of Kraslava®, which operated from 1757— $2 Dictionarivm polonolatinvm. He studied at the Polish Academy of Sciences. "Stanislav Stanislavovich". Editio nova. 1641, in Warsaw, near the loan Trelpinski S. R. M., Typogr., Anno Domini, 1641. 8 Polish-Latin-Latvian dictionary laid down and written by the judge Jan Kurmin. Vilnius. in Drukarnia M, Zymelowicz Typograf. 1858 (p. 282), ® Among the priests who graduated from this seminary, J. Kurmina is mentioned, for example, by G. Manteifelis, cf. G. Manteuffel Kraslaw, Warsaw, 1901, p. 14. 309 From 1821 he worked in various parishes and branches in Latgale — in Pustina, Stalarove, Auleja, Siebieze, Skaista, Varkava, and finally in Kraslava, where he died in 1860. 11%, former Lithuanian of Kilimo". He wrote in the Latgalian dialect. In addition to the dictionary, there are also published religious his rasty®® D. Zemzare quite correctly notes that J. Kurmino dictionary (its Polish and Latin parts) is based on the dictionaries of G. Elger and K. Širvydas; it is also natural to think that the fifth edition of the dictionary of K. Širvydas was used, because it was supposed to be much more accessible than the fourth. The reliance on K. Širvydas' dictionary can be judged from the articles of J. Kurmina, such as Ankrowanie, Aptekarska nauka, Atlas, Dachowka, Diubaszka ogrodnicza, Diug, Gatąż, Glodny jestem bardzo, Gtęwka czosnku..., Glowny, Gorzej, Obtoczę kogo w szatę, Obrgbienie, which are in K. Širvydas' dictionary (5th ed.), but not in G. Elger's dictionary. G. Elger’s prevalence is more rarely observed, but his influence cannot be doubted either (this influence is more pronounced in the second half of the dictionary), cf. the article Obijam szciany taken from G. Elger, the forms presented in Elger’s order Zywiacy, zyjący, the Latin equivalents of the word Zyzny taken from G. Elger uber, uberrimus, etc. In some respects J. Kurminas differs from K. Širvydas and G. Elger. First of all, the Latin part is somewhat reduced here: grammatical characteristics are no longer given, often the Latin translation is omitted altogether (and this is done not only where reference articles from previous dictionaries are made independent) — for example, there are no Latin equivalents next to Ognisty, Ogorzecz na storicu, Ogorzatoszcz na stoncu, Okażkę miecz, Okazki miejsce, Okipiam, Okopywanie drzew, Okowacz co, Okrocenie, Okrucienstwo, etc. It happens that some articles in the dictionaries of K. Širvydas and G. Elgeri are completely omitted — this has happened, for example, with the articles Adamaszkowy, Apeluię, Gnida, Ludzie, Ludzko, Zwąatpič, etc. 55 Rubon in Polish and Latin. Collective letter, devoted to knowledgeable entertainment... VII, Vilnius, 1846, p. 18. % More difficult to specify his true date of birth. In the Directorium horarum canonicarum et missarum pro archidiocesi Mohyloviensi in annum Domini MDCCCLXI- .., Vilnae... 1860, p. 134, where the date of his death is given, it is noted that he was 77 years old, so it could be said that he was born in 1783. However, according to the age of J. Kurminas stated in various earlier years in this annual informational publication of the Archdiocese of Mohylov (called Directorium or Ordo and initially printed in Mohylov, and from 1838 in Vilnius), it is also possible to determine several other dates of his birth — 1790 (e.g., according to information from 1827—1835), 1786 (1824—1825 inf.), 1795 (1845—1846 inf.)!. 57 G. Manteuffel, Bibliographical Note on Latvian Writings- ... p. 18 (Mitau, 1885). | 54 Homily extended, or a prayer, that we may and should know each other, each with the words of the light zone god “Taws mā” and the dark zone angel “Sweycinota”, through Rev. John Cormin. Wilnie. Drukarnia Jezupa Zawacka. 1858 (96 pp. ) 4 Ą New torture on the abskayddrynoszon rubble cage ab ticeybu swatu and irodumim... through Baznieyckung Joni Kurmin u... Wilnie Drukarnie Jezupa Zawacku. 1859 (443 pp. ) Bishop M. Valančius, who knew about J. Kurmina- ’s works (the above-mentioned religious writings were printed with his permission), thanked J. Kurmin in a letter from his secretary in 1858 for taking care of Latvian education (see “Draugija”, XXVI, Kaunas, 1920, pp. 127—128, words 310 from the iš K. edition of the (V Širvydas dictionary); J. Kurminas has by accident left unrevealed the fourth and fifth page from the third page, skipping directly — over the sixth, thus skipping all ir the pages of the Širvydas dictionary. į ir K. 4—5 articles® — the last A word of the letter Aza/(watpiqc) ir B beginning of letter, ending with word Bdnkiet, iš total 52 articles. Iš of all it appears that J. Kurminas Menkas is only a former lexicographer. Having chosen as an example the dictionaries compiled a couple of hundred years ago, he remained very slavely, neither adding new jų articles nor trying to improve the order. Jo not even checked that all the dictionary articles *+are arranged strictly alphabetically: replacing obsolete In the 17th a. century he replaced the Polish word form with a newer one, leaving the article in the old place, despite the fact that the new form of the title word undermined the alphabetical order of the dictionary; for example, Balwierstwo ir Duodami balwierz po Barwiernia, that is, where there was previously Dyeing ir Barwierz, although according to their new form they should be much closer to the beginning of the B letter, even before Aries; similar: Bardziėj ir Very, going po Barwista, because just here was the alphabetical of the old BdrZiey ir Bdrzo place, turébeing tų moved over sixteen articles closer to the beginning ir of go po Bardysz. J. The dictionary is important for linguistics only because of the Latvian part, because it contains Latgalian vocabulary. This dictionary contains more Lithuanianisms than any other Latvian dictionaries. This is because, firstly, the Latgalian schnecks themselves, on which the dictionary is based, use more Lithuanianisms than other In places in Latvia, especially farther away from Lithuanian border; secondly, the author, a Lithuanian of origin, ir could have inserted one more word into his own į learned Latgalian dialect, no longer knowing how to distinguish strictly between Latvian and ir Lithuanian; thirdly, the dictionary of Širvydas has had some ir K. influence. Kad J. Kurminas would have written down "Lithuanian words" on purpose ir “alongside Latvian words so that Lithuanian clerics working in Latgale would understand the meaning of the Latvian word faster”, as explained by D. Zemzarė (p. 207)%," It's hard to believe. Net ir iš Lithuanian- -born priests in those days usually knew Polish better than Lithuanian. Be if J. Kurminas would certainly have cared to give Lithuanian interpretations, he would have done it much more broadly, not content with such words, which often ir iš other sources are known as Latvian Lithuanianisms. Finally, that J. Lithuanianisms in Kurmino dictionary cannot be considered as deliberately written Lithuanian explanatory words, shown by the presentation in Latgalian form with mixed jų Latgalian words su ir jų (phonetics, morphology). ** This fact shows J. Kurminas’ careless, mechanical copying of iš K. Širvydas’ dictionary (and precisely from the fifth edition, not from any previous one) and at the same time the fact that į G. Eiger's dictionary he has looked at in full, at ne the o beginning of the work maybe jo ir not at all at hand. 40 Somewhat more acceptable is her earlier assertion, where she is not talking about a simple attribution of Lithuanian words, but about Lithuanianisms: “Kurminas increased the number of Lithuanianisms in the dictionary in order to make o it easier for other colleagues to learn Latvian”, cf. ir A bush of writing. Tribute to an academic professor Dr. Janim Endzelinam vipa 85 years of life and 65 years of work, Riga, 1959, p. 638. 311