S. Daukanto leksikografiniai darbai

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, IV LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA S. DAUKANTAS’S LEXICOGRAPHICAL WORKS J. KRUOPAS S. Daukantas is one of the most distinguished and productive Lithuanian figures in scholarship, culture, and literature in the first half of the 19th century. His activities were highly diverse: he was a historian, a literary writer, a folklorist, a linguist, a popularizer of scholarship, and an educator of the people. Like other figures of his time, Daukantas devoted much attention and effort to reviving his native language, expanding its use, and fostering its development. Through his abundant and varied writing, Daukantas sought to prove that Lithuanian, scorned by the Polonized clergy and nobility, could be used to write scholarly and literary works. In his first work, “Darbose” (1822), he notes: “I wished once again, through my writing, to show the enemies of Lithuania and the Samogitian language that anyone who wishes can write in Lithuanian, if they have the ability, just as in any other already polished language”1. He acknowledges that the language of Lithuanian writings of the time, especially religious ones, was inferior, for example, to Polish literary language, but “it was once so polished that even today, whoever has the mind and golden pen of Homer and Virgil, can, I say, write anything they wish, ever more skillfully, in that language. The celebrated poet Donelaitis demonstrated this truth in his renowned poem—“The Seasons”2. S. Daukantas was interested in various questions concerning the Lithuanian language. He was concerned both with general questions of Lithuanian linguistics and with matters of language purification and improvement, as well as with various aspects of literary-language grammar, lexicon, spelling, and more. This is clearly evident not only from his linguistic works, articles, and notes, but also from his other writings and his literary and cultural activities as a whole. Although Daukantas concerned himself with matters of the Lithuanian language throughout his life, he devoted most of his efforts to them after about 1840 in St. Petersburg and upon returning to his native region (1850), when it became difficult to continue his historical research3. In an 1842 letter to T. Narbut, S. Daukantas wrote: “At first I was occupied with investigations [historical]; but, having observed that this work required too much expense, free time, and peace, I set it aside and began to study the language itself, but I encounter many obstacles in this field as well”4. It is clear that, owing to a lack of time, his study of the language proceeded slowly and with difficulty, since in 1848 S. Daukantas complained to the same T. Narbut: “I wrote to you earlier that, being unable to 1 S. Daukantas, Darbay senuju Lietuwiu yr Žemaycziu 1822, 6. Kaunas, 1929. 2Ibid., 20. 3Cf. History of Lithuanian Literature, 1, 466. Vilnius, 1957. 4Mūsų senovė, 1, books 4–5, 695, Tilžė, 1922. 20. Kalbotyros klausimai, IV 301 to buy the books I needed, I gave up history; I had begun studying the language, but that work, too, is not progressing, since I have to serve two masters: fulfill my official duties and earn my bread and clothes; after all, with that salary of 300 silver rubles that I receive, I could not subsist and clothe myself if I did not have other work on the side5. Only after returning to Lithuania and being freed from other duties, with circumstances allowing him more time and opportunity to work in the field of language, did he especially emerge as a lexicographer, enriching Lithuanian lexicography with a substantial contribution. Daukantas was drawn to lexicography—an area into which almost all participants in the cultural and literary movement of the early 19th century had ventured for reasons including the development of literary language (D. Poška, S. Stanevičius, K. Nezabitauskis, K. Uvainis, and others)—by his linguistic research, literary activity, and desire and efforts to contribute to the development of the Lithuanian written language. It is probable that others’ encouragement to compile dictionaries also played a part; J. Šliūpas mentions this negatively, describing it as work imposed on Daukantas by M. Valančius6. At that time Daukantas began preparing his largest and most important lexicographical works (Polish–Lithuanian and Lithuanian–Latin dictionaries), studying other dictionaries, and intensively recording lexical material. Among S. Daukantas’s lexicographical legacy, consisting of several manuscripts held in the manuscript collection of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences (SD12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 27), and one printed glossary, the following works are noteworthy (here, apart from minor works and notes, an attempt is made to describe them in chronological order). 1. Polish-Lithuanian Dictionary Besides the three-volume Polish–Lithuanian dictionary (see below), a manuscript of a small-format (22 × 17.5) and modest-size Polish–Lithuanian dictionary has survived (SD13). It lacks its beginning, starts with the letter Cz (Czerwcony), and ends with Z (Zbiegam); it consists of small double leaves of bluish and whitish paper, cut from larger sheets and sewn together into a notebook. In all, 391 double leaves are numbered, but leaves 1—24 (A—C), 27 (end of Ch), 52—158 (I—N), 163—273 (beginning of P—R), 275—389 (end of R—W), and the very end (end of Z and Ž) are missing. They have disappeared somewhere. Thus, approximately one twelfth of the dictionary has survived. Each page contains an average of 16—18 words, so the dictionary must originally have contained about 24,000 words (the surviving portion contains about two thousand). The years in which the paper was made, printed on various leaves of the manuscript (34, 42, 160) (1814, 1818, 1820), indicate that the dictionary was compiled after 1820. It should be assumed that this is one of S. Daukantas’s earliest works. It is likely that, having begun his literary activity (in 1822 he wrote „Darbai senųjų lietuvių ir žemaičių“, and in 1824 Pedro’s fables were translated into Lithuanian), S. Daukantas felt the lack of a Polish–Lithuanian dictionary and resolved to prepare one himself. Drawing on a Polish-language dictionary, he compiled a register of Polish words and added Lithuanian equivalents. Some Polish words were left untranslated. It appears that S. Daukantas wrote down the Lithuanian equivalents mostly 5 There, 771. 6 “Lietuviškieje raštai ir raštininkai,” 34, Tilžėje, 1890: “But soon in Varniai the bishop burdened Daukantas with fruitless tasks: reading to the blinded priest Kodainis for three hours each day, writing a Polish-Zemaitian dictionary, copying a Polish-French dictionary, and so on.” 302 from memory, since there is no evidence that he followed the only Polish-Latin-Lithuanian dictionary, by K. Sirvydas, very closely. A cursory comparison of the two dictionaries shows that their registers of Polish words differ, and that in many places S. Daukantas provides different Lithuanian equivalents, among them Zemaitian words and neologisms, for example:7 Część — Garba: góda; Często — Daznay, tunkiau: takė; Czlon — Eldija: waltis; Czop — wole: kamsztis, spuntas; Dachowka — Plitele dunktine: Stiegele; Dom — Namay: trobesis, numas; Długowieczność — Ilgaumżiste: ilgamžybe, ilgumžybe; Giermek — Szarwanėsis, skidanėsis: ginklanėsis; Pokrzywa — Dilgine: notrures arba notrynes. However, it cannot yet be claimed that S. Daukantas made no use at all of K. Širvydas’s dictionary. This dictionary by S. Daukantas is interesting as his first lexicographical work. The dictionary, at least the portion that has survived, is not especially rich in words and synonyms, but it clearly shows that S. Daukantas became interested in lexicographical matters at the very beginning of his literary activity and began recording Lithuanian words and gathering means of expression to enrich the literary language. 2. Žodrodys This is S. Daukantas’s only printed lexicographical work, included at the end of the booklet “Epitome Historiae Sacrae” (“A Brief Excerpt from Sacred History”), published in 1838, where the words, phrases, and expressions of the Latin excerpts are explained in Lithuanian. It is a small (42-page) Latin-Lithuanian dictionary intended to aid reading the excerpts presented in the booklet. It contains approximately 2,350 Latin words and 250 phrases, and 3,880 Lithuanian words and 260 phrases. Several Lithuanian equivalents, synonyms, or words more or less related in meaning are given for some Latin words, so the number of Lithuanian equivalents exceeds the number of Latin words. For example: Abduco, cis, xi, ctum, cere. I lead away, [=lead], extend, guide, mislead, turn aside... (1). Abeo, is, ivi arba ii, itum, ire. to go away, slip away, move off, hurry, withdraw, go away, disappear (1). Lavi nu lavo, I wash, wash, wash, beat, launder, rinse, bathe, wash (23). The numerous Lithuanian equivalents demonstrate the richness of Daukantas’s lexicon and his desire to enrich the language of written works. Most of the words are common to all Lithuanians and readily understood, but rarer, technical, newly coined, and borrowed words also occur. Among the Zemaitian words worth noting are:8 *aplamys ‘fool’ (20), *gražinei ‘ornaments’ (28), Gaszós ‘beautiful, ornate’ (149), *kłuku [=klouku?] ‘I pray, ask’ (4), *likouiu ‘I count’ (27), *likys ‘number’ (27), *mitáls (food) (7), nairaus ‘I answer, repel’ (34), pagibsznūs ‘lively’ (29), *[pūrai] ‘wheat’ 7 First, the equivalents in the 1713 edition of K. Sirvydas’s dictionary are given, followed after the colon by S. Daukantas’s. 8 Here and elsewhere, an asterisk marks Daukantas’s words (dialectal forms, neologisms, Latvianisms) that are also recorded in other works by him. This determination draws on A. Kalniaus’s “Simano Daukanto raštų žodynas” (Kaunas, 1937, manuscript), which covers the vocabulary of 17 printed works by Daukantas and 3 manuscripts (of his lexicographical works, A. Kalniaus used only “Žodrodys”), as well as the card file of the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.” 303 (puru milta 36), pakaitýs ‘rest’ (33), *pawiedùs ‘similar’ (36), *požwìlga ‘appearance’ (9), *pataika ‘favor, grace’ (16), *skieyda ‘splinter’ (7), *steigu ‘I care, strive’ (9), steigim’s ‘caring’ (11), *sriautu ‘I flow, drip’ (17), skìrtyn’s ‘best of all’ (14), skaugìu ‘I hate’ (22), skaugingas (22), *szalaus ‘foreign’ (16), *wardauiu ‘I give a nickname’ (26), wentì nys ‘only child’ (42), *wižta ‘weaves bast shoes’ (39), *žaimòiaus ‘I insult’ (21), *zaliù [žalių] ‘I cause harm’ (26), *žarinay ‘shrubs’ (40). As in Daukantas’s other lexicographical works, the “Žodrodys” also contains Latvian words, for example: *asinas (kraus) ‘blood’ (35), *jautoius (klausinieju) (29), *kalps (werg’s, šuga) (36), kalpa (werge, sarge) (16), *klot, klotiaus (greitiaus) ‘immediately, at a glance’ (7), *lietojų (bronginų) (3), *hugote (prasite) (2), *mala (paszalys) (55), *peldu (plauku) (26). Slavisms predominate among the loanwords. Alongside borrowed words, Lithuanian equivalents are most often also given, for example: altorius, aukuras (5), auka, arba apiera (19, 35), boczius (6), Bestūja, giwolys (6), gosliba, raskażius (12), kabės, drobina (35), karone, koncze (38), karauna, waiskas (10), labdarumas, pataika, łoska (6), laikas, cziesas (39), noumirielys, nabasztik’s (6), newale, wergiba (6), newalnik’s, werg’s (6), nebendring’s, neprieteling’s (21), neturt’s, ubagiste, badas (21), skersys, Križius (10), smertys, giltine (23), straipstys, czonkas (24), skłoustys, jutrina (36), tikiba, wiera (34), užgaule, žala, kriwda (21), wieszpats, pon’s (13), wiiszes [=viešės], gaspada (19). More characteristic neologisms, of which there are considerably more in Daukantas’s other dictionaries and writings, include: *mūksina ‘running’ (18), piktadieningas ‘sinful’ (35), piktadieme ‘sin’ (35), *sóndarine ‘fox’s den’ (39), strunīsina ‘building, creating’ (3). Among archaic words rarely used today, the following are noteworthy: drewejų (plieszu, grobi greiu) (37), nokieis (sekeis) (3), nokous ‘I chase?’ (7), sargtis ‘guarding, watch’ (11), skolu (turiu, Debeo) (11), stogiu (kloiu, dengiu) (39), traktis (węisz-kelys) (22), waisum’s ‘ripeness’ (40), warauiu (žeidu, isžarginu) (41), warùs ‘fierce’ (41), weczasis, weczùs (senasys) (31). It may be inferred that the verbs noktis, stogti, skolėti, warauti were widely used, as shown by the use of other words with the same roots (nokti, stogas, skola, prie varta). There are a dozen or so words that call for explanation. Some of them (with the exception of artis, notìs, palaka, pranara, wisnus) had not previously been recorded anywhere: artis (guwus, mokslī) (29), diewys, diwiesina ‘habit?’ (43), korūtùs (kibus, wiburus) (29), laupau (ramìnu) (23), likeike, ligeiwe, ligbunìe (draugie) (37), ligbunis, ligeiwis (draugas) (37), mediote (iżkela) (40), notìs (nupoulys) (7), nukrittys ‘misfortune’ (7), palaka (ongala, galon) (39), pranara (palinkiems) (11), rūmùs (swarus, sunkùs) (18), rumei (sunkei) (18), swīlkni (: Funda) (18), sztikies (żinys) (9), tauksžūs (adar’s) (28), trakouiu (ketous prisz) (33), widoule (adv. Intus) (22), wisnus (wissoks) (27). Besides individual words, the “Žodrodys” includes various Lithuanian word combinations, mostly translated from Latin. But living folk expressions and idioms also occur, for example: Wisso partekes (3), žinę doute (7), kojem’s wale doute [: se fugae] (8), muni mėig’s apniko (8), didys sziurpulys apniko (40), and others. The structure of the glossary is very simple: Latin words are presented alphabetically with their principal forms, along with characteristic word combinations occurring in the text 304 …giniai; they are followed by Lithuanian equivalents. These are not semantically differentiated or divided by meaning. There is no illustrative material, apart from a few word combinations serving as substitutes for the corresponding Latin combinations. Nevertheless, from a lexicographic perspective, “Žodrodys” is Daukantas’s most thoroughly prepared dictionary. Its scope is limited, bounded by a particular text; moreover, it was prepared for publication and published, so the author, being proficient in Latin, could present the Lithuanian equivalents simply but systematically, often giving several for each entry, leaving no words or combinations untranslated, and bringing his work to completion. The language of “Žodrodys” is strongly Samogitian. This is shown by forms with characteristic phonetic features of the dounininkai dialect of Samogitian, for example: sūsiū — susieju (4), sesou — sesuo (37), rekał’s — reikalas (26), reek — reikia (36), miłta — miltai (36), meldū — meldžiū (27), dongus — dangus (8), etc. Only occasionally is the nominative singular of first-declension nouns written with the Aukštaitian ending -as, for example: draugas, tarnas (8). 3. Polish-Lithuanian Dictionary S. Daukantas’s largest and most significant lexicographic work is the Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. Its manuscript (SD12) consists of three enormous bound volumes (format 35.5 × 21.6): Volume I, A—M, 1—733 pp.; Volume II, N—P, 722 pp.; Volume III, R—Ž, 1—822 pp. The manuscript bears neither the author’s surname nor a title; it is beautifully and legibly written and has been well preserved. The text is unnumbered and arranged alphabetically under separate letters. These letters are marked at the top of the pages and, additionally, on projecting tabs pasted along the edges, so that it is immediately apparent where the words under each letter begin. On the thick, slightly browned paper, a small impression of the paper mill’s mark can be seen in many places at the top of the sheet (on the left-hand side): Фабрики №4 Аристархова. Since paper bearing this mark was produced at the Aristarkhov factory in 18509 and S. Daukantas died in 1864, it may be concluded that the Polish-Lithuanian dictionary was written between 1850 and 1864. The Manuscripts and Rare Publications Department of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR has also expressed a similar view, based on the paper mill’s impression (letter No. 715—139, dated 1961.III.27). It has not yet been possible to establish more precisely the date and circumstances of the dictionary’s compilation, since no evidence has been found either in the dictionary itself or in other writings by Daukantas or concerning him. The Polish word register of the dictionary contains 56 567 words in all (vol. I — 16 750, vol. II — 19 360, vol. III — 20 457). A considerable number of words are accompanied by the reference ob. (=see) to other words, for example: Absolutum, ob. Absolut (I, 2); Amantka, ob. kochanica (I, 7); Aniżeli, ob. niż (I, 9); Bablac, ob. babrać (I, 19), etc. The number of Lithuanian equivalents is smaller — 37 677 words (vol. I — 14 280, vol. II — 14 287, vol. III — 9110). There are especially few equivalents in the individual letters of volume III. For example, under T there are only 20 Lithuanian words (there are 1518 Polish words), and under U (pp. 439—504) — 8 (there are 1698 Polish words). Under W, Z, and Ž, the number of Lithuanian equivalents is again considerably higher. It appears that, while compiling the register of Polish words, the Lithuanian equivalents were written down immediately, without spending a long time looking for them. When a Lithuanian word came at once to S. Daukantas’s mind 9 S. A. Klepnikov. Filigrany i shtempeli na bumage russkogo i inostrannogo proizvodstva XVII—XX veka, 100, Moskva, 1959. 305 Only on a few pages (III, 570, 571, 601, 604, 605), judging by the ink color, were a dozen or so Lithuanian equivalents added later. However, there are quite a number of cases where adding Lithuanian equivalents seems not to have been difficult, yet they are absent. For example, the simplest Polish words under the letter Sz have no Lithuanian equivalents, such as Sznur, Sznurek, Szuba, Szukać, Szybko, Szyć, etc. Thus, it appears that in some places S. Daukantas omitted Lithuanian equivalents because he was in a hurry, concentrating first on compiling the Polish word register. Consequently, Polish words remain untranslated in many places. Nevertheless, the enormous dictionary manuscript contains about 37,677 Lithuanian words, some of which recur as equivalents of Polish synonyms and near-synonyms, for example: Wojkkarejwis III, 559; Wojownik — karejwis III, 560; Wojskowiec — karejwis, kariautos, kariautojas III, 560. A special study is needed to analyze and describe this vast lexical treasure and S. Daukantas’s Polish-Lithuanian dictionary; our lexicographers should undertake it without delay. For now, it is useful to note in the broadest terms that this lexicographic work by S. Daukantas is interesting and significant from several perspectives. The dictionary records a considerable number of old words that were still used by older people in Daukantas’s time but later disappeared from the language. One of the first to draw attention to this was S. Daukantas’s contemporary M. Valančius, describing the language of his writings: „....he devoted his entire life to cultivating the Samogitian language and purging it of macaronisms. To that end, he began writing in a selected, archaic language, no longer used in Samogitia today, and therefore very unpalatable to readers“10. Examples of such obsolete words include: aukles ‘shoes’ I, 468; Deja ‘misfortune, hardship’ I, 52; likys ‘number’ I, 629; majsna ‘food, fodder’ III, 821; medzia, mede ‘forest’ I, 609; notis ‘event, occurrence’ II 688; strubis ‘elbow’ I, 639; taurage ‘small cup’ I, 160; traktis ‘road’ I, 366; warra ‘force’ III, 547, and others. This archaic layer of vocabulary is an important source for the study of the history of Lithuanian lexicon. The most abundant and significant part of the vocabulary in S. Daukantas’s dictionary consists of words shared across the nation, demonstrating the richness and diversity of the Lithuanian language. They clearly show that Lithuanian had a wealth of distinctive means of expression, and that barbarisms belonging to feudal and ecclesiastical jargon, which entered through religious writing, the Church, manor houses, and other channels, were imposed on the Lithuanian language and were alien and unnecessary to it. Hundreds of Lithuanian words recorded by S. Daukantas could have replaced foreign words common in written texts and some dialects, for example: Apklode [„quilt“] I, 519; gaurūtas [„shaggy“] I, 548; gobumas [„lokamstwa“] I, 605; globa [„apjeka“] II, 272; graižtwas [„gvintai“] III, 513; kare [„vaina“] III, 560; karejwis [„žalnierius“] III, 559; laikas [„čėsas“] I, 159; patoga [„vigada“] III, 593; pagalwe [„paduška“] III, 524; praustuwe [„bliūdas“] III, 509; paskolyti [„pažyčioti“] II, 560; pasaulis [„svietas“] III, 576; riestuvėlis [„kočėlas“] III, 508; rangus [„gatavas“] I, 368; stebuklas [„cūdas“] I, 144; swidus [„glencuotas“] I, 346; skindele [„gontas“] I, 362; siuwiejas [„kriaučius“] I, 559; szliektuwe [„krapylas“] I, 566; trinka [„kaladė“] I, 503; taurė [„čėrka“] II, 156; žarsteklis [„kačerga“] I, 515; 10 See A. Janulaitis, Simanas Daukantas, 34, Vilniuje, 1913. 306 žęjsti [“to nibble”] III, 6; wafanda [“adyna”] II, 129; waistis [“liekarstos”] I, 618; wirtuwele [“kuknia”] I, 583; wiltis [“nodieja”] II, 19, etc. For S. Daukantas, the language of the people was the most important source of the literary language’s vocabulary. In his work “Būde” he writes: “It is all the more remarkable that it was not the writings of our priests that preserved the antiquity of our language for thousands of years, down to the present day; rather, it was [but] our wise Highland and Samogitian mothers in their moss-covered little homes among the forests who, I say, preserved our ancient language, which we, their children, can today be proud of and boast about” (p. VIII). Among the folk words one can find quite a number of Samogitianisms, e.g.: *ergla ‘mischief, joking’ I, 62; *gužūti ‘to travel’ III, 559; įtartė ‘suspicion’ II, 446; *ingis ‘bald man’ II, 653; įbingis (= įbingęs) ‘enraged’ III, 49; *kernoti, ‘to abuse, revile’ I, 574; kampinė (=kampinė) ‘ladder’ II 619; nulyda ‘shelter’ II, 600; *skirilus ‘separation’ III, 582; *szažulietis ‘shadow’ I, 132; *teklus ‘flowing, running’ I, 134; wieługa II, 544; žajmoti ‘to romp, frolic’ I, 141, etc. The dictionary also contains neologisms, e.g.: bewajkybe ‘childlessness’ I, 37; bewunde ‘waterless’ I, 50; bediewybe I, 15; beszalybe ‘impartiality’ I, 43; bepradybe, praamžybe I, 44; darboviete III, 511; kraulejdis ‘surgeon’ I, 111; kirptuwe ‘hair salon’ I, 28; klausituwe ‘auditorium’ I, 16; kakloraizztis I, 398; kalietuwe ‘prison’ III, 540; lygsware III, 32; łajkrazsis ‘chronicler’ I, 9; łajkoskajtlus ‘chronology’ I, 124, etc. Thus, the contents of S. Daukantas’s enormous Polish–Lithuanian dictionary are rich and varied. It is worth examining them more closely when studying Lithuanian vocabulary and compiling dictionaries of various kinds. 4. Lithuanian–Latin Dictionary (beginning) Among S. Daukantas’s manuscript papers (SD 14) is the beginning of a Lithuanian–Latin dictionary (A—G), a manuscript consisting of five bundles of sewn sheets in large format (35.2 × 22.2), each containing 40—48 pages (224 pages in all, of which 48 are blank). One bundle is a duplicate (more than 50 cut-out words beginning with the letter A have been pasted in; these are also found in the other two bundles of words beginning with A and A—B). The Lithuanian section of the dictionary (the word register) clearly lists 3977 words in alphabetical order, most of which are not supplied with Latin equivalents (there are only about 1600 such equivalents). In compiling the Lithuanian word register, G. Nesselmann’s “Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache” (1851) was used. This is evident first of all from the direct references to Nesselmann (abbreviated by Daukantas as Nesel., Neselm.) added alongside some words (e.g., Apgėłaj 14, Arakis 15, etc.). Secondly, some words (e.g., Atdaga 62, Auklis 74), as well as phrases and expressions, occur only in Nesselmann’s and Daukantas’s dictionaries, and therefore they too may support the claim that Daukantas used Nesselmann’s dictionary, e.g.: Abejotinas zweifelhaft (2), akys apteka aszaromis (17), marczios aszaras gérti (17), etc. However, no blind copying from Nesselmann is apparent, since many words were omitted and quite a few new ones added. Daukantas took a critical view of Nesselmann’s dictionary (see the following subsection on Daukantas’s comments concerning Nesselmann’s dictionary) and used it creatively. At the end of the letter A, S. Daukantas noted the number of words in pencil (1080 słow) and added that Ruigys’s and 307 In Milkus’s dictionaries there are only 495 words (u Ruhiga V Milke 495). It is evident that Daukantas also had these dictionaries in his possession. That he used Milkus is shown by the collection of proverbs in another manuscript (SD 27), mostly copied from Milkus’s dictionary (pp. 156–166). It is marked there: Dikcionar. Milke. Patarles Lietuwiskas (159). Daukantas probably made the greatest use of Neselman, as is evident from his numerous notes on Neselman’s dictionary. Moreover, Neselman’s dictionary was larger than Rugis’s and Milkus’s dictionaries. His use of Neselman’s dictionary, published in 1851, indicates that Daukantas began compiling his Lithuanian–Latin dictionary after 1851. It is possible that Daukantas also took some material from K. Širvydas’s “Dictionarium trium linguarum” (1713), which was in his library11. It was more difficult to use this dictionary to find Lithuanian equivalents for Latin words, because it gives Polish words first, rather than Lithuanian ones. From K. Širvydas, Daukantas could have taken words, mostly neologisms, found only in the dictionaries of these authors, for example: Auksadajlis, Auksadajle (21), Apkopa [= Akuopa] (45), Apaline [= Apwaline] globus (55), Arklagidis (57), Atateisa (61), Atkalbis (65), Atpjauklas (67), Atskaitine ‘oracle’ (68), Atžwilga (73), Austuwe ‘weaving workshop’ (76), Dousnis (129), Drajkčios (129), Bostós (99), Dunciakalis V dąntkalis (135). From various allusions by S. Daukantas (see SD 19, 27, etc.) and notes on the purity of the language of old writings12, it is evident that he used the writings of M. Daukša and K. Širvydas, various translations of Holy Scripture, L. Ivinskis’s calendars, and others. The greater part of S. Daukantas’s Lithuanian–Latin dictionary consists of words common to the Lithuanian language as a whole, taken from written sources or recorded from memory. Most of them occur in all the dictionaries and are familiar to everyone (e.g., Antakis, Akłas, Akmų, Adata, Alsinti, etc.). Besides vocabulary common to the Lithuanian language as a whole, Daukantas’s dictionary contains dialect words and Samogitian words, including some that have not yet been recorded in his other writings, for example: *Apsokortina (52), *Apuszrotas ‘epnūšynas’ (55), *Atentis ‘coming’ (62), Atide (63), *Atsiauta (69), Atwarstaj ‘reins’ (73), Atžwilga (73), Balinys (81), Blusouti (97), *Daba (111), Glistė, glistele (155), *mandyti (153). The dictionary contains neologisms, many of which Daukantas coined in his writings, for example: rodwalandys ‘the hand of a clock’ (13), Apigarda vide *Apikarta (41), Atskalybe (70), *Auda ‘short song’ (73), Aukautuve (74), Auglinikas (74), Ausurakstis auriscalpium (76), Balsauti ‘to syllabify’ (83), Balsouka V soukbalse prosodia (83), Balsakajitis hirquitallus (83), Bausina (87), Bandisena (84), Bendryba commercium (89), Begalas infinitas begalo (88), Begieda impudentia (89), *Bylys V bilis orator (93), Bilawijte — Bilwijte forum, forum competens (93), Brajža caracterus (99), Brajzintuwe caleographia (99), Budelietuwe suplicii locus (103), Dijnalginikas V dijnalgis (124), Driegnamierė hydrometria (131). Among words no longer used today, the following archaisms are worth mentioning: Arwos tren (58), Aszma likas decimus octavus (59), Bentis ‘friend’ (90), Wetusze ‘grandmother’ (97). We also find loanwords, which Daukantas tried to avoid and replace with Lithuanian words, for example: Abelnas (5), Abrusós (7), Aružna (10), Alasas (10), etc. 11 See J. Lebedys, Simano Daukanto biblioteka. — “Works of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature,” 1, 51—83, Kaunas, 1947. 12 Mūsų senovė, 1, books 4—5, 785—786, Tilžė, 1922. 308 For some borrowings, the cross-reference vide (see) directs the reader to Lithuanian words, e.g.: Abrozas vide pawėkslus (7), Adina vide waląnda (12), Apiera vide Auka (14), Apierawoju vid aukauju (14), Apierawoties vid aukauties (14), Apierawojimas vid aukawimas (14), Apierawotojas vid aukautojas (14), Apierawotinas vid aukautinas (14), Aptiekorius, Wajstinykas (15), Arszus […] narsus (15); Arszumas vid. narsumas (15); Atpuskaj vid atjadaj (18), Bagočzios vide diczturtis (80), Bagotas vide turtingas (80), Bagotis vide turtą, turtingumas (80), Bahkis vide sie (81), Bahwonas vide stabas (84), Barawikas vide joudwirszis (85), Bartis vide drewe (85), Biesós vide welinis V welnias (92), Bikswas vide kėlnes (93); Caras vide wieszpats (107), Czerepe vide poudszuke (107), Czertas vide welnias (107), Czėznis vide pôta (107), Częstawoti vide wajszinti (107), Delmone vide kiszene (119), Drocziós vide Trintojas (132), Dzėgorelós vide waląndinis (138), Gonta vide skindele (157). Among the borrowings are Latvian words that Daukantas wanted to use to enrich the lexicon of Lithuanian literary language, or that he used as words familiar in his dialect 13, e.g.: Austrumas oriens (76), *dwiesele ‘spirit of the dead’ (136), *Dwieselyba (137), *Gôtina ‘young cow’ (158), Gõwe vide karwe (158). Some words have so far been found only in this dictionary and had not yet been included in the card index of the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” e.g.: Apskrūbtinai definite (8), Apłankiej arcuatim (48), Apmaukne cataplasma (48), Bąndiesós vide bąndini-kas (84), Bąndkijmis (84), Bąndakmis basaltę (84), Bakłásos prostratus (89), Bitmede geum rivale (94), Blaksoti (96), Bórniòs blesphema (98), Dīlbiós V dilsbiós observator, speculator (124), Drozės, drozėlas ramentum (132), Durkle vide perstekie (136), Globós ‘protective’ (156), Gabingas venerabilis (145), Gurbuzė (163), Gwildós ‘easily rid of worms’ (164). Some of them remain unexplained; others (e.g., gvildus, globus) will be useful for enriching the lexicon of literary language. In addition to common words, a dozen or so proper names are given, e.g.: Bartuva upis (85), Bartije (85), Budwite (104), Dunajós (135), etc. The dictionary’s structure is very simple. It is an alphabetical index of Lithuanian words with Latin equivalents, which are missing for a considerable proportion of the Lithuanian words. Strict alphabetical order is not observed within the letters. Repetitions occur. Occasionally, words are explained, e.g.: Arkstinas, landi fazda kurė ardamas jautius bada wietoj’ botaga (10); Amyta, wira motina (12); Awynas motinas brolis (18); Awyniene motinas brola pati (18); Bórinti (avys į buri wadinti) (98); Dermie ornetum pliewie žernas óždenganti (119). Besides Latin, the dictionary gives some Polish and a few German equivalents, e.g.: Abejotinas zweifelhaft (2), Aspergiesina Schutz (8), Abžignósina seegen (10), Acziù dėkoju (8), Akywas ciekawy (9), Akywyba ciekawos (9), Akylumas umiejętność (9), Aklinaj nasliepo (10), Ałwas czyza (11), Alwienas każdy (11), Basti [=Besti] stecken (86), Bastunas untertreiber (86), Bastujis sich herum treiben (86), Delsounis ein langsamer (119), Duma consilium status (königliche rath) ukės — duma (134), Dwibuga [= Dwiguba] verzweifelung (137). Illustrative sentences are provided with some words (this is rare), e.g.: jautej ir kómelej czistą abraką ies (7); kanapej ataka (9); dūna akieta (9); 13 A. Kalnius, Simano Daukanto raštų žodynas, 37, 164—169 (rankraštis, Kaunas, 1937); E. Frankel, Letticismen in Daukantas Wortschatz. — „Filologu biedrības raksti“, 11, 52—63, Rīga, 1931. 309 a dotted shaft (10); Aczio mergelė̃ óz meilės zodelus (10); scaring a wolf by shouting (11); Adous, that you were making a fine mess (13); a hare caught in a trap (15); a herd of eight with provisions (17); the eyes see clearly while waiting; ask the eye (21); God, give from your mouth into God’s ear (22); to cast off hunger (26); ahutis sznekutis (30); I did not drink beer, the priests are not drinkers (30); I was drinking beer (30); the beer barrels often burst (30); it is necessary to clasp the legs (45); the voices grew hoarse (45), I fell at his feet as if dead (48); fear overcame [him] (49); let the scab fall off (51); (the sun will set) (the moon will not shine) (54); the dogs attacked (61); the horse recovered (65); the children became impoverished (69); having rested from work (69); golden cloth (75); the ears are ringing (76); he will dry up from fear (81); to get ready for the corvée (87); pearl bread (90); the devil’s seed (92); the axe struck (98); the marshes are bubbling (105); like a rooster with its head twisted (109); now they have followed their own way (111); now nobody makes a noise (111); now evening is not the last [one] (111); to repay work with work (114); to bring to an end (114); the teeth ache, hurt, and throb (117); woe upon woe, that one must die without one’s faith (118); as if abused, let him not be abused (119); what kind of a thing is that? (119); or with nine teeth (120); they reap the hay on the tenth (119); the wolves have bitten our dog (123); nettles and thistles will overgrow their rooms (124); a day in the abode (124); the tree is worked up (128); the meat is spoiled (128); oat bread…; millet… rubbish, pearl barley, rye (: proverbial: oat bread, rye porridge) (128); to give a gift (129); (to drizzle lightly) to drizzle like a willow (134); the young man, foolishly amusing himself (134); (he learned to go through the opening sideways) (137); the drying will be this way, the ploughing this way, the mowing — this way, the digging — this way, the autumn work this way, the sowing — this way, the harvesting — this way, the spring work — this way (138); go home (141); (confusion, trouble) (141); (to press on the legs) (142), go home yourself (143); the end at the end (146); the ends of the world (147); to herd a flock (147); the fire went out (151); to spin flax with a distaff (153); the rooster crows (153); to test the depth (153); grown over like a mushroom (155); the fire’s tongue (155), clean tar (160). Prie Aj! Ale we find sentences from Donelaitis’s “The Seasons,” written in altered spelling, with omissions and distortions, namely, for example: Oh, where has the nobility of our age gone! (16); Oh! how quickly the days of youth have slipped away! (16); Oh! where have your bright spring days gone? (16); Oh! why did illnesses afflict the lords so cruelly, so that they so often went to the grave before their time (17); Oh, if only the lords would disappear, so that they would not have to become peasants (17); Oh, where have your Lithuanian days gone, when Lithuanians did not know how to speak German, Polish, or German [sic] (17); But not in German, as some women have now taken to imagining, but in Lithuanian each of them grew up (23). The language of the dictionary clearly displays features of the Samogitian Dounininkai dialect, since Daukantas was a speaker of that dialect and wrote mostly in accordance with his own dialect. Around the mid-nineteenth century, Daukantas began to make his language more Aukštaitian and to avoid characteristic Samogitian forms. Such efforts are also reflected in the dictionary’s language, where we find: Agūna (9), Atieszkoti (62), Auksawiete (75), Atđanga (62), Awinas (77), etc. Here and there, Samogitian forms refer the reader to Aukštaitian forms, for example: Bėgti vide bajgti (90). Hypercorrections also occur, for example: Akytas V akietas, dūna akieta (9). In some places, Samogitian and Aukštaitian forms are given in parallel, for example: Ajtioti, vel ajczioti (9). Bajgti… bęgti (80), Degas V deglós (118), Gywentos incola vel gywentojas (155), Gundintojas, gundintos (163). In some cases, Aukštaitian words and forms refer to Samogitian ones, for example: Antis vide pyle pl. pyles (13), Antinas — vide gaigalas (13), Awiża vid. wizgė (19), Delgeliu [= nettles] vide notrinos (118), Duktie vide dóktie (134), Dulkinti vide dókinti (134), Giedoti vide gij- 310 doti (152), Giejdra vide gijdra (152). In general, the language of the dictionary is variable and inconsistent; features of the Samogitian dialect still stand out strongly in it. There are proofreading errors, some of which the author himself corrected in pencil. 5. Minor lexicographic works and notes S. Daukantas’s manuscript legacy contains small word lists and lexicographic notes, inserted into various historical and other materials or compiled separately. a) Vocabularium. One of S. Daukantas’s manuscripts (SD27, pp. 1–241, format 35×22) begins with a short list of Greek, French, and Lithuanian words (pp. 1–4; 246 three-part lines, written in two columns), bearing the heading Vocabularium, above which another hand (identified in the manuscript folder as that of M. D. Silvestravičius) wrote Margumynai. The dates of works mentioned in the manuscript suggest that Daukantas’s trilingual list was compiled after 1839. The date when the paper was made (1836), which can be determined from the paper mill’s watermark (small and circular, with a double-headed eagle in the middle and the inscription Ярославской фабрики князя Гагарина around the edge), roughly confirms the same14. Since paper stocks at that time were generally laid in for no more than ten years, it may therefore be assumed that the trilingual dictionary was compiled between 1840 and 1846. S. Daukantas was probably influenced by comparative linguistics and, wishing to demonstrate the antiquity of the Lithuanian language and its affinity with Greek, added several pages of related and somewhat similar words (the French words are usually different), but otherwise unrelated Greek, French, and Lithuanian words, as examples of the kinship of those languages. It has not yet been established where the equivalents were taken from. Here are some examples from the list (p. 1): keras corn — keras; kierō je tons — kerpu; aihos doubur — auka; klaō je brise — klunu; akōn dard — akuotas; polis — vill — pilis; anadidōmi nendre atidūmi; gramma lettre grometa; agchi l’ocil akis; podos ped péda; ōde chant, audōiu auda. Some equivalents derive from a common root (e.g., podos ped, péda), while others have nothing in common (e.g., aihos doubur — auka). Sometimes Daukantas’s own neologisms are paired with Greek words (e.g., ōde and auda). The list is arranged non-alphabetically and is very short; nevertheless, it may be regarded as an attempt at a comparative glossary, adding to the number of glossaries of this kind. It should be noted that French equivalents are given only in this list; they have not been found in Daukantas’s other lexicographic works. Only J. Šliūpas states that M. Valančius had S. Daukantas copy a Polish–French dictionary. No one else mentions this, and no evidence has survived that Daukantas copied such a dictionary. Potocki’s Polish–French dictionary (1813) and several French dictionaries were in Daukantas’s library15, so it is doubtful whether there was any need to copy a dictionary. b) Material for Lithuanian lexicography. Among S. Daukantas’s manuscript papers, the bundle marked SD15 contains 17 large sheets (36.3 × 22.5) with various lex- 14 Cf. C. A. Клеников, cited work, 101. 15 See J. Lebedys, Simono Daukanto biblioteka. — “Lietuvių literatūros instituto darbai”, I, 64, Kaunas, 1947. 311 lexicographical material. On one loose sheet (the paper mill’s watermark is dated 1837), several dozen Lithuanian kinship terms are listed with German equivalents (e.g., Tėwas, Motina, Brolis, Awynas, Mosza, Laigonas, Žiedzei, etc.), together with the names of nine months (Wasaris Januarius; Kowinis Hornung V Kowas; Karwelinis Mertz; Gegužinis V Gegužė April; Semenis Maj; Birželis Brach-monat; Lepas menu Heu — monat V Lepa; Piutis Augustmonat; Rugus menu V Rugginis Herbstmonat). On the second sheet (whose paper mill watermark is also dated 1837), the first ten Lithuanian words are given with German equivalents, followed by more than 40 Prussian words with Lithuanian and German equivalents (e.g., Galbo V Galwos das Haupt; Linno Linnaj das Flachs; Saydit V saugok hüte dich; nevvintas V devintas; galintwvei, tödten). They were copied (some with altered endings) from G. Neselman’s work „Sprache der alten Preußen“ (1845). The third double sheet contains several dozen names of trees and shrubs with Polish equivalents (e.g., ąžuolas dąb; Serede Trzesznia; Putelis Kalina). On one side of the fourth double sheet, a list of words begins: to cry, to go, to peck, to speak, to knock, skull, to mate, to sit hunched, to run, to create, to bark, to lie sprawled and valgvei synonyms (for to go, to speak, to sit hunched, and to run a dozen or so are given) and crossed out. On the second page of this sheet, a date, 1861, follows some household notes. Pages 3–4 are a draft page of a Polish-Lithuanian dictionary (III, 675—6), written (judging by the ink’s intensity) earlier than the first sheet. After the four loose sheets comes a bundle of six sewn double sheets (pp. 1—24), containing more than 700 Lithuanian words listed non-alphabetically, in some cases with Polish, German (rarely), and Latin (very rarely) equivalents, explanations, sayings, and proverbs (most of these on pp. 11—14). The very wide margins of some pages (1, 7, 11, 13) contain bibliographical items (book titles, etc.), excerpts from historical sources, and other notes. Beside the names for oxen (Kerszis, szjemis, Žalis, laukis, balnis, etc.) is the Polish note: jak u Greków. Beside the word versti there is a reference in Latin: wersti wersta akmou ož-werstas uti apud Romanas (4). It is clear that at that time S. Daukantas was interested in the kinship between Lithuanian words and words in the classical languages. The dates of the literature mentioned in the margins (1, 13) suggest that this list of Daukantas’s words was compiled after 1845. Some wish to regard this collection of Lithuanian words by Daukantas as the beginning (the outline) of a Lithuanian dictionary16, but in fact it is merely an initial, unordered (non-alphabetical) list of recorded words, raw lexicographical material that cannot be called an attempt to compile a Lithuanian dictionary. All the more so since the equivalents in other languages appended to some Lithuanian words indicate that this material may also have been intended for bilingual dictionaries (Lithuanian-Latin, Polish-Lithuanian). It is unlikely that S. Daukantas was thinking of compiling a monolingual (explanatory) Lithuanian dictionary. c) Notes on Neselman’s dictionary. S. Daukantas used the dictionaries of K. Sirvydas, Rūgys, Milkus, Neselman, and others. He consulted Neselman’s Lithuanian-German dictionary (1851) most extensively. This is particularly evident from Daukantas’s numerous notes concerning Neselman’s Lithuanian words. They are written on separate large 16 See Simonas Daukantas, Rinktiniai raštai, 13, 1955; K. Grigas, Simonas Daukantas — lietuvių tautosakos rinkėjas ir leidėjas (autoreferatas), 7, Vilnius, 1958. 312 sheets (SD19), comprising a total of 36 pages. Only four double sheets (pp. 9—22) are marked with numerals (1, 2, 3, 4); the others are unnumbered. At the beginning (pp. 1—7) there are mostly separate Lithuanian words beginning with the letters A, E, J, U, V, T, and, more rarely, others; most are copied from Neselman’s dictionary. Some have German and Polish equivalents, brief explanations, word combinations, and notes on usage. The Neselman dictionary does not contain some of the listed words, and these were probably supplied as additions. From p. 9 (p. 8 is blank) begin continuous notes on the Lithuanian section of Neselman’s dictionary, concerning words under the letters D, Č, M, P, S, Š, among which a few words from other letters, taken from Neselman’s entries, also occur. The notes are clearly not arranged letter by letter: those at the beginning (pp. 1—7) are very haphazard and consist mostly of individual words. In addition, there are no notes on words under certain letters (e.g., B, L, O, U, Z, Ž) (either there were none or they have not yet been found). S. Daukantas’s notes vary in nature, but most often they state that Neselman uses a particular word or form, whereas, according to Daukantas, a different word or form should be used. In disagreeing with certain aspects of Neselman’s dictionary and proposing other equivalents, Daukantas draws on the language of his native region, especially individual usage and his own linguistic intuition. As a result, many of his notes are subjective, unfounded, captious, or even mistaken. Some cannot be understood without Neselman’s dictionary. Nevertheless, they provide a wealth of material for studying word usage, geography, and history, especially for illuminating differences between the lexicon of writings from East Prussia and Lithuania. To illustrate this, the first four pages of notes are presented here, with their spelling unchanged, errors uncorrected, and entries separated by a slash. Only occasionally, to make the text easier to understand, are endings added in square brackets, errors corrected, and so on. [1] Atamusyna for alūzna /Atasas szum/ Alasawoti szumic, I cry out when drunk /alba odzież do mszy alba/ Alġoczius tageloner, not an algininkas /alġoczauti/ elbow and ułektis—a great difference /not aloju, but uju ujdami bajda wilka/ Almens elmens, for sriutas gelmes /Atmonas, tenant farmer/ Alpti to faint /Kwosas for alūnas/ Alwas cina /Alwienika[s], Geßkan[ne], Žiamaj piltiuwe/ Not supokle but supyne /Amas not amalis mispeln/ Dygulys, a sting, not amazuj /not ambriju but wambrytu/ not amteru but wam pteru /amzius [Nes. Amžis]/ /not anakinoju Szem. oznaczę dirbinti darydinti/ andaj, onigdy in Žmudž. the day before yesterday /Andainiszkis, Žem. the day before yesterday, wasci, užwakarzykstias/ [Anapus for Anupus /Ane vide Ona/ Ant ankszczia instead of pałukas, pakłau nas, /Paanks-cioju mas paskoliju/ not ankszta but ankžtima /u Žmudzinuo naziwasę pamatą/ not antrokaj but paales podpivki /not Antuke, brother-in-law, kutupis—in Žmudz/ Aparas for apwaras, to open /Apczorus V awcziorius, awiganis/ Apieka vide głoba /Apekunnas, V głobiejas/ Apekunyste, care-taking/ Apynys /Apinojis, hop garden/ Apinwarptis, hop pole /Apinwirkšte, hop stem/ Apūkas, hoopoe/ Auka /Apsabas, for dra-bužis, clothing/ Apsacas, kūlnis /Arosas v Karosas/ Žiewie arbona /Erdwas ardwas za erlas breit means layers/ Arkliġone, with us prigule /aroda, aro das zasieki/ asa for ąnsa, /not asdinis but ąnsinis./ not asoczius but ąnsoczius /not dwiasis but dwiąnsis/ Aszajos in Žm. Hülsen /opuscil aszarotas wejdas aszarotas, skrūstai aszaroti/ Aszmen, the trunk, I do not understand/ opuszczony aszminūtas asztūniokas /Asztraregis Žem. Luszis/ aszrinti, aszrus, was. łandus, hence galandu/ Aszarys pl. aszatej in Neselm. Aszutas /Aszatine, drobe/. Aszatinas /Aszatiutas/ Aszwoke for Aszoklej /Aszoklynas/ Atezaiza, coarse cloth, milas /Wolas/ Atkonieze, Tanka Žem. pinele, užriszys /Atakaj, threshing-floor worker, leke/ [2] Atklapas Žm. atlapa niesprawiedli /nie Atpencz, lecz apent znowu/ nie atrajte u Žmu, lecz. atrajtaj /atrajoju, kawen, tego nierozumie a mówi gromulti/ atenczioj za atejnanczio /atente przyszłość/ Aukle, pl. aukles. f. /Awałas pl. awałaj obuwie/ nie Au- 313 tawas lecz autuwas/ /Azdaba pagrazinimas/ Salyklinkas /Ažu/ Aismares, having forgotten /Aibrumas waser im munde/ not Austuwas but stakles /not gewerbe but audeklas/ E [words beginning with the letter E are started, but thereafter mixed] /Jedminis rzeczy do zjedzenia, /Eldijele rauch eröffnung bei Schamaj. /Būres segel, to raise the sails, to furl the sails, /Akselis niema w Žmudž. /Jekas niema w Zmudz /Arelis /Grenže niem Z. /Iszėjga, stat, iszeginis drubazis /Iszejwis emigrant/ Ajtra /Pardem, perdiem parejti wskroś przejšć/ Dagtis u Nesel Ildegimis V Ildegis /Zwicėžki niema takego wyr. u Zmu. jak apimtinis nie sujemiejas lecz kajkaras harscher Stadskne /Prisiiekinu gahm werden u Zm. junkti, junkstu/ not Isztuga, but pumpa u Zmud /parmuskza, Brei, Muhs/ Abolis. Zm. Obulas, Obolene Obulyne /Abare-piesas, V pisjas/ not ūda but ūdega/ ūkas, not okas, is an instrument that softens pickled and undried kajlus /ūkūti V wokūti/ not Ubaga: wogis, ūgis/ not wokiszkas, but ukiszkas Žem./ ukztis u nas pigule /Ungura Angerburg, /Ungure upe angerapp/ ermas, monstrum pl. ermai ermuties/ Ergle, fool, jester/ Erglokės /ulbėti tetirwinas ulb/ ubauti, karwelis ubau, /not unksna, but uksmie u Žm. /upu, there is [no] u Žm. burejs szusniem/ atakkalus, attakelju aparnas /Atkakbywe [Akaklybe] resistance to defiance /Upalis stream/ malas bank /upešmala riverbank/ upeplaudis niema u Žm. upeakis niema takego wyra[zu] trout/ ažu not u Žmudzi /not jauja but daba brakstube u Ž. /ikures, ikurti /not Jaknas but kėpenas/ Apent again /not Nėga in Žemaitian, there is none, but spiekas/ [3] Judras grass [Struck out: field radish] /Jedrūs arklis a horse that trots quickly and eats a lot/ not Jegzlis but pūkis jazgarz /Jakli [Jakti] osliepnąg not Jengli [Jėnkti]/ Akti Apakti Prakti Užakti Apjakinti /Gentaras, but gintaras/ Jerka in Žm. irka /Prairikas front part of trousers where the pin is fastened/ not Plebeja epomis, in Žm Jermėkas unterkleid in Polish Giermak /Jerube rebhūne Kurapka haselhūner/ Apjeskoti /Nujiku in Žm. to capture someone /jispiėti wagumi, nucziūpti/ Jomarkaj, among us woratinkles through the fields; /Jonuszus, fam. in P. Jonuszewicz V Janusze, not the grass Jomuszaus žole (Epheu)/ Josmenis hüfte? Žemaitisz /Jūsti not josieti but Jūstyti not josieti/ Apjostuwe eine Tepich eine Vorhang. Žem. Prijostuwe szirce kwartugas/ Jūjaus takego wyrazu niema u Žmudzi /Jūdis, in jüdybe/ not Jūstu czernieje jūsti Že. jūdūti/ jūdyme a black mark, not a well /Judus gansküchtig waid-wilkis wajdnotis /Judimas/ Junkykle der Koder lockspejse. Junkle tos sam /Jupa der Taler der Geistlichen Ž. /Jausti/ Jantoties to find out /Prajauti to sense beforehand, to foresee; hence Prajowas Prophet /Juntu wachen/ Juntus not jutus /Jutrus but jautrus/ Jaučius Ž /Jaučinūs/ W [words beginning with the letter V are started, but thereafter mixed] /not wadini-mas/ Wakaru evening, in Žm. /Kulinis, on which birwony are led/ naktowidas patiu naktowidu /dienwidis, dienwidiu atejau/ Wiloti, wiło /Wingurti [4] Tewikszczia der Geburtsort (3) /Teisiu, verrichten, abmachen (3)/ atteissa die entscheidung die abfertigung /Isztiesu, lejsten versprechen (3)/ Patejsei, warlich, in der That (3)/ Nemįtinka (3) za netink /Tikyba, 3, Glaub./ Isztikra, in der That, wirklich /Tilstus (3) that which is silent still/ Datiroju wirksamkeit eines Heilmittels /Nutirpintoja ein Fisch, Kramfisch, der Zitterrochen, Raia Torpedo (3)/ Turkey /Patulzis geschwolene (3)/ Turinieju to have (3) /Turtule Kleines bezitthum /Neturte. 3. Armuth/ Nuturiu, gewöhnlich 3 /Tujnas eine Zaumstakete, eine Bohle, Pfahl (3)/ Wė kakas /Turte, es, f. die Habe (3)/ Tusznas leer hohl (3) /Tkapės smiertelna kosule/ Tryne eine Blase, eine Pustel, 3/ Trynis, Haut, Schwielen (3) /Trynetas schweelig (3)/ Trinia, Trinios Sagespene (3), Troszkybe Gier, Sucht (3) /Trudnas trudnastis Schwere (3)/ * * * S. Daukantas began taking an interest in lexicographical matters at the start of his literary activity and did not cease to concern himself with them until his death. This is shown by the lexical purification of the works he prepared for publication (including folklore collections), the enrichment of literary language with various folk words, coinages and Latvianisms, and folk etymologizing (mostly unjustified, naive and erroneous), examples of which are most frequently found 314 “Būdė,” and finally, lexicographical works. One or another of these was begun in his youth, but S. Daukantas was able to devote more time to them only rather late, and consequently did not manage to complete the two bilingual dictionaries he had begun (Polish-Lithuanian and Lithuanian-Latin), which form the basis of his lexicographical work. The bilingual dictionaries met the needs of a fairly large portion of Lithuania’s educated public at the time, who used Polish and Latin for academic, educational and cultural purposes. The Lithuanian equivalents in these dictionaries were to clear a path for the Lithuanian language into broader public and cultural life, in which it had not yet secured its proper place. In those days a bilingual dictionary of Lithuanian and some foreign language (Polish, Latin, later Russian), or the reverse, also served as an explanatory dictionary; S. Daukantas was therefore intent on compiling two large bilingual dictionaries. Since Polish culture and language exerted a strong influence in Lithuania and many Lithuanian intellectuals (including S. Daukantas) used Polish in their correspondence, the main focus was on preparing a Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. The surviving manuscripts give no indication that S. Daukantas was concerned with compiling a dictionary of Lithuanian alone (an explanatory dictionary). At that time this was a secondary and premature task. The lists of exclusively Lithuanian words compiled by S. Daukantas (K. Nezabitauskas and others)—some of them non-alphabetical, occasionally even with explanations of individual words—are not drafts of monolingual explanatory dictionaries, but collections of Lithuanian material that served partly as card files, which could be used to compile various bilingual dictionaries. S. Daukantas’s lexicographical undertaking was ambitious, and he completed substantial preliminary work: he became familiar with the dictionaries of Milkaus, G. Neselmano and others, compiled various word registers, and provided tens of thousands of Lithuanian equivalents in the Polish-Lithuanian dictionary and elsewhere. The sources of the Lithuanian equivalents in S. Daukantas’s dictionaries are varied. Some words were taken from folk speech, others from earlier dictionaries and various old writings. There are also quite a few neologisms coined by S. Daukantas himself. The most abundant source of S. Daukantas’s vocabulary was folk speech, his native dialect. Although S. Daukantas spent most of his life away from home, he wrote in Lithuanian throughout and devoted a significant portion of his writings to the people; he therefore continually drew on the folk language he had learned in his youth, which, in his view, had preserved much of the ancient heritage and was richer and purer than the language of written texts. The Lithuanian-language component of S. Daukantas’s lexicographical works is quite rich and varied. Altogether, they record more than forty-eight thousand Lithuanian equivalents. Although a significant proportion are repeated, S. Daukantas nevertheless recorded vast stores of common national vocabulary and much new material (archaisms, rare words, dialectal forms, etc.). S. Daukantas sought to purify and enrich the language of written texts, and his lexicographical works likewise show efforts to provide as many Lithuanian words as possible and often to give Lithuanian substitutes alongside loanwords, which he sought to use in his extensive writings. In this way, S. Daukantas helped Lithuanian vocabulary enter written texts and helped eliminate unnecessary foreign words. Although S. Daukantas’s efforts to purify the language lacked a firm foundation and were guided in part by naive, romantic views, and although in some instances he was mistaken, treating foreign words as Lithuanian and Lithuanian words as loanwords, the general tendency toward language purification was progressive, and his efforts were not in vain. 315 S. Daukantas’s dictionaries are not marked by lexicographic technique. In this respect they are inferior to the dictionaries of K. Milkus, G. Neselmanas, A. Poška, and D. Sutkevičius, whose dictionary entries are more complex and richer, and in which we find more lexicographic elements (definitions, various notes, references, etc.). The manuscripts of S. Daukantas’s dictionaries resemble simple word registers more than somewhat better-developed bilingual dictionaries. The register for the Lithuanian–Latin dictionary was only begun (letters A–G), while the Polish–Lithuanian one was compiled on a fairly large scale. S. Daukantas’s further task in preparing the Polish–Lithuanian dictionary was to provide Lithuanian equivalents throughout, differentiate meanings, and add various notes, references, etc. S. Daukantas did not manage to complete this work. Because S. Daukantas’s lexicographic works were unpublished and difficult for others to access, they could not have a direct influence on the development of Lithuanian lexicography or its advancement. They are significant as a tremendous effort to contribute to the revitalization of the Lithuanian language and to the enrichment, purification, and cultivation of the literary language. Since this effort was manifested throughout S. Daukantas’s literary and cultural activity, his dictionaries, by recording the abundant treasures of Lithuanian vocabulary that could enter the literary language through his other writings, indirectly contributed to establishing Lithuanian in literature and other spheres of cultural life, and to improving the literary language. Not everything S. Daukantas offered for use was acceptable: many archaisms, narrowly regional dialect words, and unsuccessful neologisms he used did not take hold in the literary language; nor were his efforts to purify the language beyond reproach. On the whole, however, S. Daukantas’s writings contributed greatly to the cultivation of the literary language. They served as a source of language for later writers, dictionary compilers, and everyone else interested in questions of language. Today, S. Daukantas’s lexicographic works are of interest and importance to the history of Lithuanian lexicography as one of the notable and significant attempts to compile bilingual dictionaries, which were intended to help Lithuanian gain a firm place in social, scholarly, and cultural life, establish lexical norms for the literary language, and provide a basis for learning and using Lithuanian. The linguistic works of Daukantas and other nineteenth-century cultural figures help illuminate the development of the Lithuanian literary language, the paths and methods by which linguistic resources were acquired and improved, and the contributions of individual figures of that period to the work of revitalizing and refining the literary language. S. Daukantas’s dictionaries contain entirely new material not recorded in other sources (various words, their meanings, notes, etc.), which can be used in lexicographic work and research. S. Daukantas’s lexicographic material is especially important for studying the vocabulary of the Samogitian dialect and compiling a regional dictionary. His lexicographic works also help shed light on his scholarly, literary, and cultural activity. Thus, S. Daukantas’s lexicographic legacy should be studied and used from various perspectives: as a significant contribution to the scant Lithuanian lexicographic tradition and as an attempt to revitalize and cultivate the vernacular during the difficult period of serfdom and oppression of the Lithuanian nation. LEXICOGRAPHIC WORKS OF S. DAUKANTAS I. R. KRUOPAS R e s u m e The article reviews the lexicographic works of S. Daukantas (1793–1864), the celebrated Lithuanian historian, writer, educator, and public figure of the first half of the nineteenth century. S. Daukantas sought to develop and enrich the Lithuanian literary language. To this end, he collected Lithuanian vocabulary from the vernacular and written sources, compiled bilingual dictionaries (Lithuanian–Latin, Polish–Lithuanian, and others), purified the language of various barbarisms, and so on. The largest of S. Daukantas’s lexicographic works is a three-volume Polish–Lithuanian dictionary (manuscript), rich in common Lithuanian and dialectal vocabulary, archaisms, neologisms, and calques. Although S. Daukantas’s lexicographic works remained in manuscript, the vocabulary he recorded entered the literary language through his numerous published historical, popular-scientific, and other works. Thus, S. Daukantas played a positive role in the development of the Lithuanian literary language. His lexicographic works remain of interest today as a rich source for historical and regional dictionaries and as an attempt to enrich Lithuanian lexicography at a time when the Lithuanian people were under social and national oppression. 21. Kalbotyros klausimai, IV 317