Nauji darbai apie lietuvių kalbos tarmes

LT ETUV I UK A LBO T YR OS KLAUS I MALI LITHUANIA SSR ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NEW WORKS ON LITHUANIA'S LANGUAGE TARGETS A. Interesting and valuable material for Lithuanian dialectology is provided by isolated, small and disappearing islands of Lithuanian dialects in the territory of the Belarusian SSR, to which much attention is paid by Soviet linguists, because that material brings considerable light to the development of Lithuanian dialects and to the problem of Baltųslavy linguistic relations. Some of this material has already been published by our linguists, one article and some texts are given in this collection of articles, individual descriptions of those dialects are being prepared for the press. These dialects are also the subject of works published abroad. Meanwhile, attention is drawn to the work of Norwegian linguists professors O. Broch, Ch. S. Stango works. University of Oslo Prof. Ch. S. Stangas published the first significant studies of Lithuanian language and dialects several decades ago?. At about the same time he collected material and now. Zietelos (Diatlovo) district. In the village of Zasečiai in the Belarusian SSR, where there were still a lot of Lithuanian-speaking people at the time. The results of those studies have now been published. * This is the first description of Lithuanian dialects in the Zietela district. It is true that the knowledge of the grammar and phonetics of the Zietela dialect, as well as some texts (which now have only comparative historical value) were provided by E. Voltaire, who visited this area in 1888? * Later, about 1928—1929, the Estonian linguist P. Aruma visited this dialect and recorded and printed a series of dialect texts with commentaries and grammatical explanations. * But those grammatical dialect remarks Mr. Aruma presented without system. So, Chr. The article of S. Stangas on page 30, which systematically sets out the most important phonetic and morphological features of the Zietela dialect, is quite significant. t, Senkus, Some characteristics of the Lazūnų dialect, —„Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos Darbai“, Serija A, 1, 183—194, Vilnius, 1958. * Chr. S, Stang, The Language of the Lithuanian Catechism by Mažvydas, Oslo, 1929; G. Gerullis ir Chr. Stangas, Lithuanian fishermen's dialect in Prasai, Kaunas 1933. 3 Chr, S, Stang, The Lithuanian dialect of Zasėčiai in the area of Vilnius, — „Norsk Tidsskrift for Linguistics®, Volume 1 XVIII, S. 171-201 (1958). ¢E. Wolter, The Lithuanians in the Slonim District, Gouv. Grodno. “Messages of the Lithuanian Literary Society”, 4, 166 —169, Heidelberg (1899). * P. Arumaa, Lithuanian oral Texts from the Wilnaer Area, 41 —53, 68–75, Dorpat, 1931. 239 Zietelos raj. The gardens of Zasečiai and Pagirės, where you can still meet the older generation of Lithuanian-speaking people, are the farthest Lithuanian island to the south of the border of our republic. Its origins have been discussed by scientists in various ways. Some consider the Lithuanians of this place as witnesses of the ancient ethnographic territory of the Baltic peoples in the south, others consider them rebels. For example, E. Walter considered the Zietela dialect as a Lithuanianized variant of the old Prussian (Jotvingian?) dialect of the settlers. Like many of his contemporaries, he was also influenced by the work of Voltaire. £ pronunciation in words: za'sis ~ Goose, beast, bazy'ča?. Chr. S. Stangas denies this view. In the case of the Latin word, the jo word is probably derived from the Greek word, while in the case of the Latin word, the word is probably derived from the Greek word. Therefore, The dialect of Zietela differs from the ir literary language in the same way as other dialects. To our knowledge, 2 sound in place of lk. # occurs somewhere else. For example, Varėnos raj., Kabeliy apyl. In the Ašūšninkų (pronounced Asūsnykai) farm (which is officially called Second Cables) most of the older generation of people almost always pronounce 2 and s instead of Z and š sounds; zu'sis, sitas, z@mé, salis, sasi, zuvis, asarūkas, J. Otrembskis? This phenomenon also tends to be considered as a remnant of the Jotving substrate in Lithuanian dialects, because the mentioned places are located in the territory where the old Jotvingians lived®, in the Phonetics section Ch. S. Stangas makes interesting observations from the history of sounds. Open e po! turns into a: Rdiila'~piguule, kumelas?. Diphthongs ie and uo are shortened in consonants prig, mug. Phonetic changes in the words: jiū'ško, jū'škodama, ru'šutai (next to ji$ko, ri'šutai) are noticeable. The bilabial v alternates with the j in the words: sa sajim, sa tajim(p), greta tavim, savim, tavip, etc. The morphology of the dialect is described much more extensively. The main features of the word construction system can be seen from the most important paradigms of noun conjugation and verb personification. As is well known, the Zietela dialect has preserved many archaic forms of jokes, for example: vns. caud. prig drkli, lig vandini, etc. adesyvo kūteip || kateip, kdiilaip, diktereip || dūkteip, vefšip, veršiėp, žmėogip, vns. aliative namép, gaidėp, dgs. inesyvo: potted, versuesa, gaijuosa. šufiuosa, šuni'sa (next to šunuos), bdbosa, rankosa, aki'sa, plural nouns. and maybe. two gaidū, kalšu, cilvēkū, Sufi, two bdbi, marti, aki, nakti, dūkteri. 25, A. Boabtep, Cream apesuux IlpycoB H ux si35iKa B I'poanenckodt ryO. — ‘H3BecTHa OTA. pycckoro 13biKa H caosectHocTd Hwn, Ak. H.,** T. XVI, ku.4, 151—160, CIMB, 7 J, Otrębski, Gramatyka języka litewskiego, 1, 24,352 —354, Warsaw, 1958. ® Platforms; zūsis occurs also elsewhere, e.g., in Lazūnai (see J. Otrębski, min., veik. p. 24) and Velinai (Dūkšto raj.). It is true that the pronunciation of zūsis in Vėlūnai could be doubted, because it was written by the only representa1912. tive of the dialect who spoke Lithuanian (others no longer knew Lithuanian, see the material collected by the dialectological expedition of the Vilnius State Pedagogical Institute in 1955). * The examples are mainly transcriptions from the “Lietuvių kalbos atlaso medžiagos rinkimo programa”. Only rare transcription variations approved in the original comments are left, e.g., gaidei gaidžei, bū'čap, jdčep etc. ir ir 240 It is a species of the genus Oenanthe. in, ending -ai, or -ei: sa bobai, kaillai, dukterdi, katei, marédi, akdi, nakčai (near night). It is a pity that the author did not express his opinion on the origin of this limb. The noun conjugation has also newer things, Nesena ending is considered to be the plural noun -mi of all stems of the masculine genus: prodami, langdmi, veršdmi, gaidami, sunami, bdbomi. i-stems and some consonant-stem nouns dgsk. ward. transitioned to ė-stems: akés, ndkiés, daritės, dūkterės, šunnės (next to šunei, dantei). Interesting is the plural of the word Žmogus: Žmogai, Žmogil", Zmogdmi, žmonės, žmonėmis, žmoguos (beside people, žmofiū' and so on). The ending for the plural noun of adjectives is -i: laukini, mdlini. This indicates that it is older than lk. end -(i)ai, It is only a pity that the author did not provide analogous endings of pronouns, so common in the Zasecia sodos dialect: katri, kurt, toki, koki, nėkoki „kažkokie“ iri, ri next to irie, riė, Slavic means are used to make the highest degree of adjectives: gdras, gerdsnis, ndigerdusis, du(k)štas, au(k)štėsnis, ndiau(k)šreesnis. Similarly, adverbs are graded: well, get better, ndigerést, niigerdusa, ndigerdiist; dilg, daaūg(el)is, ddugést, ndiddugdusa, dduaist. Forms with =-(i)ausia, Chr. S. Stango uZregistruotos, today very rarely occurs in ZaseCiy dialect. It is necessary to remember the origin of the personal singulars that coincide. and maybe. the forms of jokes; manė, tavé, savé, as well as the plural noun. and innag. Mumi, Jumi. Third person singular and plural nouns. forms are: ūnas, ana, amis (next to ūni's, ūnės). In the singular inessive sense, the author gives only one form of the questioning pronoun, namely: kam. Today, the pronoun Rur is used much more frequently in the same sense next to this form. : kui ti bū'sti (živi)?, where is nature your daughter? But to describe the direction of movement, the iliative of this pronoun is always used kana? : kana ti vafiosi nakčai?, kana ti aimi, birk ča. The demonstrative pronoun izsaik, itoj also differs from the literary language and is very characteristic of other dialects adjacent to Zietela, e.g. Lazūnų, Rodūnės, Varanavo and others. The numbering differs only in one small detail, for example, instead of the plural numbering antras the dialect uses the word kitas, and the first root is only preserved in the compound numbering pusositro, pusefitro. Often used co-ordinate numerals: tweeitas, trditas, katvertas, periketas, septi-net. For the verb Ch. S. Stangas is paying more attention. The author attempts to explain the emergence of some verb forms historically. For example, he explains the influence of analogy of other persons in the past tense vns. I person verbs varidū, staidū, gduddu, skdlddu appearance. The dull labial -b5 or -p (buū'čap, jocep, aičap, veščėp), often joined to the verbal noun vns, the first person forms, the author cautiously tries to identify with the Belarusian 6(5:). However, regarding the forms with -pė (aičepė, burčapėgi, gulčepės), which he considers contradictory to his guess, he does not draw a firm conclusion. The author describes the imperative manner extensively. The only example without the suffix k is a(i)md (an old athematic form of the indicative), which is sometimes still used for a command. Typical endings of the 2nd person plural are -z, but occasionally the imperative forms made with short-rooted conjunctions are pronounced with elongated a, e: v@sk, mesk, kūsk, rdsk. Anyway, everywhere the voice that has disappeared remains before the particle 241 - It's just aikido, 1k. Iš po -k -i -g (paldukig) or accented (gulki’. . Chr. S. Stangis managed to record even more varied ir examples with semi-participants than are now used in the Zasečiai dialect, e.g. žmogus nūmirė dirbdami, dirbdama (-mds, mosi); grandson knocked off a dick while riding (jodamos, jodamd). The author has written a lot of valuable material in the form of recursives. Many examples are collected su by the pronounced particle of return, namely: es. I. III person. sits, stands, stands, stands; be. l. in all persons sitting, sitting, sitting, sitting, sitting, sitting, standing, standing, laying, lying; will be. |. stosios, sésios, rasis, laisis; strokis, stokités, gulki, gulkitės, sėskis, séskités of the imperative sentence; gulčapēs, sēsčapēs, juokčapēs, skusčapēs, stočapēs of the verbal order; common station, sit, lie, find, Iaistis, Because of the vowel end of the regressive forms of the pronoun, which Chr. S. Stangas in his description everywhere ė marked with a sign should be added that In the Zasečiai dialect it is pronounced ė, i, differently: i, i". In addition to one other already mentioned remark, the author should also add some inconsistencies in the transcription (many of which can be seen in the above examples). It is true that some jų of these iš differences are explained by the diversity of the living language of the large Zietela Lithuanians. Another part of them could have arisen also not because of the author's fault, for example, the unequal length notation in diphthongs: vef.šis, vef.šu, but vefšip psl.) (183 ir etc., but these things are relatively insignificant, and do not diminish the value of the whole work in any way. Since the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela is living its last days, people are forgetting the Lithuanian language more and more year after year, so many of Chr. S. Stango's written forms can no longer be heard today. In this sense, Ch. S. Stango’s work is like a monument to this dialect. It is only a pity that the author did not add the texts, which he probably wrote a lot of. * * * The second, larger in number of pages (71 pages in total), deals with the Lithuanian Dzūkų dialect in the Rodūnės region of the Belarusian SSR, near Žirmūnai and Bastūnai. Its author, Olaf Broch, who is known in the world of linguists as an excellent phoneticist, has many merits in Slavic philology. Now a veteran of this science; having more than 90 years of age, the work of Lithuanian linguists? ?, In his description of O, Broch uses material he collected in 1895, when the whole region was still significantly more Lithuanian. The author mentions that he spoke Lithuanian with the peasants of the Aradnds (I. Horodno) manor, who could also speak “po-prostu”, i.e. Belarusian, understanding Russian and Polish. Mixed people spoke in the nearby Lapėtiškiai garden. These are also Lithuanian former Grubény, Pots, Pdaradnio, Zaniūnai gardens. Thus, these remarks of O. Broch are very valuable to know the history of the inhabitants of this region. For example, apsi0 O, Broch, Zum Litauischen siidlich von Vilna, —,,Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap“, Bind XIX, S, 1—71 (1958), visiting this region 242 po 60 su over the year, t. y. 1957—1958 m. already a different picture. It is true that old people who speak Lithuanian can still be found in ir almost every Rodūnės raj. in the garden. Compact Lithuanian gardens are among Rēdūnes ir South of Pūditvio (į sodyba) ir somewhat Belarusian Lithuanian gardens between Rēduņas ir The Garden of Eden (After the crash. —į morning). Plikiai is also still a completely Lithuanian garden. But, with the exception of these areas, Belarusian is already the dominant language elsewhere, although people often consider themselves Polish. It must be said that O. Brochu was more concerned to ir show the interaction of Lithuanian-Belarusian languages from a phonetic point of view.! * On this subject he intended to write a comprehensive study. However, the first steps of the research showed the author that such work requires much longer time. The author's further work was hindered by the war and political changes in this region. This is not the case with the Ch. Stango encouragement and help, the author, says, not ready to print. However, despite the incompleteness and fragmentarity of the collected material and the errors that occur, the description of the dialect contains many very valuable things. First of all, the author has very well recorded a large number of texts (about 12 pages in total) of this dialect, which gives the description of the dialect great value. Their servers are Jonas Kurauskas (from Lapotiškiai) and Vikentas Jurčys (Jurczis, place of residence not specified). The texts consist of three folk tales, two songs and a few fragments of folk language. Since the author focused on the phonetics of the dialect, the texts are transcribed with extreme accuracy, even the smallest nuances are marked. There are a number of variations on the designation. But many doubts and uncertainties are removed by the very carefully prepared text commentaries. The most important features of noun and verb conjugation are presented after the texts. The dialect is not characterized by archaic forms or any rarer means of production. It has much less of the interesting features that we find, for example, in the Zietela or Laz(d)iny dialects. A picture of the dialectal exchange system can be formed from the following characteristics presented by the author. Singular noun ending, as in Zietela without i; The land, the saint. In addition, the old ending is also found in the conjugated nouns with prepositions: ik,„pačam vakari, ik, „abičdi. The word thief is used with two roots: vėgir vdg-, whose singular origin is; and cattle. coincide: wesho or wafo. Often, the vowel s of the plural locus end is pronounced hard, unlatelised: katésee, srczi'sė, seserose, geruosee, gerosae. !2 We should look critically at the pronunciation of the plural noun: arklam, svecain, voSani, va$am, su'nam next to su'ndm, because, for example, in Pliki and about Pelesas it is more common to hear arklam, svecam. U Pig, O. Broch, Uber einen Weirussischen Dialekt aus der Gegend siidlich von Vilna, —,,Zeitschr, f. sl. "Phil,..", bd. XXVI, pp. 1-46. 12 The transcription of these examples, which the author uses, does not coincide with ours, Atutorius indicates the softness of the consonants everywhere, even before the vowels of the front row. The sign @ in his transcription in this case equals our transcribed a, plg. During the expedition of the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute the gender was recorded: ruguosd, Zeirosa (in žarijos). 243 The old ending of the consonant root of nouns remains as the singular noun and the plural noun of some nouns: dukterés, akmences, piemenės (beside akmenei, piemenei- ), seserés, šunės, dūkteres, sčeseres, Sines. The two forms are rarely found: two kraštū, but dzvi dūkreres. The conjugation of adjectives is almost the same as in other dialects, except for the singular noun, where the ending -u is sometimes replaced by -wm, e.g. gerum, gerūm, next to saldū, dzideli. The singular pronoun of personal pronouns differs from the final one by the adjective: nuk "your, yours, my and my, yours, yours, and the plural pronoun of the final one is mostly the place of accent: mami, jūmi and mumi(m), jumi(m). The ending of the singular noun of demonstrative, and partly of questioning and relative pronouns is -wom in the masculine genus: tūom, jitūom, juom, kūom, o mot. gim. -egg; tūoi, jitūoi, juoj. Very common abbreviated forms of adjective singular nouns: mad, ta, sa next to my, tdvo, sdvo. It is not very different from the other types. The dialect is characterized by the prefixed forms of the numerals: penRkuose, sepci'fiuosėe, aštuofiuosce, dešimceį, vienuolikoi, dzvi"likoiį. They are used, as the author observes, in the sense of a noun both alone and in combination with nouns, for example, penkuosa žmonū. The verb also has some ancient features. Unlike Ik, the predicate is made: suktdu, suktum or suktdi, suktil’, verstdu, verstdi or verse, verstiim, verstūt, mi'lort or mi lol tu13. The following forms of the verbs atematiniy and kontaminuoty are recorded: įėdmi, liekmū, liekmi, ličėkma, miegmū, miegmi, niést. Attention is drawn to the verb séc, which the author assumes to be a communicative verb, which appeared in his notes due to a spelling error from sit (pronounced sédéc). However, the use of this word indicates that it is in the present tense, in the third person, which is probably a shortened form of the word sédzi. There are many examples with sėc in this sense in Rodūnės, Varanavo, Jūrotiškiai districts: dnas sėdės if séc prié langčelo (Plikių k.); afi kélmo sėc iF lauka (Paditvio k.) Anas sėdos if séc iš nė sū kuodį ned.tarija (Lazūnai). There are many examples of communicative use of the e-ending: dzu'ce, jėsce, dzi'gce, dukce, békce, likce, mikce. As mentioned, O. Broch pays particular attention to dialect phonetics. He describes each dialect sound, briefly characterizes and shows the variants of that sound, often even touching the formation of phonemes from the physiological side. Thus, in this sense, O. Brocho’s description of the Lithuanian Dzūkų dialect of the eastern part of Rodūnė district is useful not only for dialectologists, but also for those interested in the phonetics of the Lithuanian language in general. Lk, sounds ą, g in dialect turned ww, i"; kraštu“, kati', Žusis, ti"šū, tu soil gri'*žū, and mixed diphthongs am, en leave intact: Žvengts, pasraigou, v@mc; 13 It is not possible to agree with the author that é after the hard /vše sutamséty up to w, As far as is known, in this dialect ė after /is pronounced only with the middle-order vowel es: hovorék, ci'lėk (Plikiai). 244 The two-vowel consonants (o with a ir strong prefix (not au pronounced together) in the dialect turn ou: rouddna, potūkštė, groilsmas graužou. Other dialects e at the beginning of the word echo these dialects as Gglor, ajeras, alkūtnė, aralis, akéc, aina. Hard i (transcribed in 5!) dialect occurs instead in prefixes nbl-, Žbl-, sol u (ndtvedė, Soimani:, žoispi"rė, sbismušė) in place of ė, going po I(in žolės, dzirgėlėt', dukralors, mi"lov'c) in Slavic ir words: štėrkas, mbislijo. Be consona- / nt dialect also hardens turū, r: ndru, rūtas (sighs), raging. The author observes that the dialect has a Dzuck effect, i.e. the consonants £ and d before i and ie are translated as Africanized c, dz: nmnakcis, ci'lovc, širdzis, ciek, dziėdas. But before the newly appeared:'* this transformation is not, e.g., sblįčdi'" (eaten). A lot of space O. Broch also devotes to dialect accents and prepositions. The author correctly observes that the dialect representatives often do not distinguish in their pronunciation between the strong-end and the strong-start prepositions, because they pronounce the accentuated syllable equally, neither with the rising nor with the ir falling vowel. There are cases where the dialect representatives pronounce tvirtagalė instead of tvirtapradės priegaidė, because to ir by the writer himself, the t. y. author 1895 m. in the notes there are temporary markings that do not coincide su Ik., also o between dialect words tų themselves, e.g.: veizdék, gi‘vas, dzi"ksta, pardijo, pardja, parai, tdi, toi, saldzdį, Li-doj (28 — 29 psl. ), tdm, saldzom, gerom, gerom psl. ), cilvēkūm, swnum, (26 suwnam,sunam psl,), dukterim psl. ). (22—23 (24 In addition to the aforementioned variations in pronunciation, the description also contains a considerable number of other transcriptional inconsistencies. For example, the author uses several characters 0p, oe, 2°, 2 to represent the degree of reduction of the unaccented o: negalžjos, palikos (p. 55), drkl (p. 20), next to drklo, paliko. Therefore, it is quite natural that the author’s attempt to record all the fluctuations of the living language and the nuances of pronunciation (for which ką the authors deserve great appreciatijį on), led to a complex system of transcription, which is not always clear and understandable to us. This work must therefore be used with care and discernment. However, despite these other ir shortcomings, Broch’s work O. on the southern Dzūkian dialect is a great and valuable contribution to Lithuanian dialectology. ir į HOBbIE TPY/Ibl O JIAKTOBCKHX TOBOPAX A. 10. BHJIYTHPHC Peswome B nawmoit nadopmauuu naercst 0630p ABYX PabOT H3BECTHHIX HOpPBEX- “CKHX f3bIKOBeJ0B mnpogeccopos, akagemukoB O. Bpoxa nu X. C. Crasra o FOBOpaxX JIHTOBCKOFO SI3bIKa. Bo-nepsuix, naercsi xapakrepucruka cTaTbH X. C. Craura “The Lithuanian Dialect of Zasé¢iai im Area of Vilnius“, HaneyaTaHHON B S3HIKO- ‘BeJlYeCKOM HOpBeXKCKoM XKypHasie ‘Norsk Journal of Linguistics®, XVIII, t. crp. 171-201. B HacTosiuiee BpeMsl and OMSIHYTasi MECTHOCTb BXOJIHT B -cocras [1AT/I0BCKOTO (3ertesbCKoro) paiiona, I'popuenckoii 06a. Besopycckoil CCP. 245