MINDAUGAS STROCKIS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

A LATIN–LITHUANIAN GLOSSARY IN THE GRAMMAR OF SAPŪNAS AND ŠULCAS

KEYWORDS: Sapūnas, Šulcas, Compendium, glossary, translation, Latin.

ABSTRACT

In the Lithuanian grammar published in 1673 by Kristupas Sapūnas and Teofilis Šulcas, Compendium Grammaticae Lithuanicae, abbreviated as Compendium, almost all Lithuanian words are translated into Latin; thus, it de facto contains a Lithuanian–Latin glossary of 1,380 entries. The features of this de facto glossary show that the Lithuanian words were translated into Latin by someone whose native language was German. It can be concluded that the Lithuanian words in Sapūnas’s manuscript were left without translations, which Šulcas added later. Despite minor inaccuracies in translation, this glossary provides valuable evidence about the Lithuanian language of Lithuania Minor in the 17th century.

INTRODUCTION

The Lithuanian grammar prepared by Kristupas Sapūnas and Teofilis Šulcas, Compendium Grammaticae Lithuanicae, abbreviated as Compendium and often referred to in Lithuanian studies by the abbreviation SC, is a valuable monument of seventeenth-century Lithuanian. Researchers agree that it was written by Kristupas Sapūnas, while Teofilis Šulcas published the grammar, adding some material and writing the prefaces. It is natural to ask what exactly Šulcas added to Sapūnas’s manuscript. How

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351-7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 2

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

Tamara Buchienė, Jonas Palionis, and Kazimieras Eigminas have examined this (Buchienė, Palionis 1957: 21–27; Eigminas 1997: 19–22); apart from the prefaces, some excerpts from Klein’s grammar, especially the section on accentuation, were inserted into the original text of Compendium (Strockis 2007: 93–100). Can we know only this much? The aim of this article is to find out, on the basis of the Lithuanian–Latin glossary concealed in Sapūnas and Schulz’s grammar, whether we can learn more¹.

Kaip žinoma, Kristupas Sapūnas (1589–1659), gimęs Mažojoje Lietuvoje, arba Kusuose, arba Didžiuosiuose Rūdupėnuose, vėliau vadintuose Enciūnais (tiksli vieta nežinoma; Biržiška 1960: 263), įstojęs į Karaliaučiaus universitetą, ten užsirašė kaip Christophorus Sepun Lituanus pauper „Kristupas Sapūnas [vėliau jo pavardė vokiškai buvo rašoma Sappuhn], neturtingas lietuvis [ar lietuvininkas]“. Iš to (ir, žinoma, iš pačios jo gramatikos) galima spręsti, kad lietuvių kalba jam buvusi gimtoji. Jei nesame tikri dėl kurio nors Mažosios Lietuvos autoriaus gimtosios kalbos, gali padėti ir pavardės etimologija. Atrodo, kad Sapūno pavardė yra lietuviška, metroniminės kilmės. Ar tai reiškia, kad kas nors iš jo protėvių buvo nesantuokinis Sapės (Sofijos) sūnus, nežinia (pats Kristupas buvo Mykolo

¹ When citing passages from Sapūnas and Schulz’s grammar in this article, the page number of the original 1673 edition will be given; it can easily be found in the photographic 1997 edition as well. If a page is unnumbered in the original (in the prefaces and the afterword), the page number of the 1997 photographic edition will be given. When citing Klein’s grammar (the page numbering in its original is seriously disrupted by printing errors), the page number of both the photographic edition (1957) and the original will be given, separated by a / sign. In cases where the page number in the original of Klein’s grammar does not correspond to the actual number because of a printing error, both the correct and the erroneously printed page numbers will be given; the latter will appear in quotation marks. When citing Compendium and Klein’s text, graphemic transcription is used, transcribing separately only graphemes and those allographs or ligatures that had in fact acquired grapheme status (ſ, æ; œ does not occur), while disregarding the typeface design of the original printing. Thus, the z in the so-called “Gothic” (in this case, Schwabacher) typeface is transcribed as the same z as in the antiqua typeface, rather than with the modern phonetic transcription symbol ʒ (since doing so would make about as much sense as, for example, transcribing the g in a “Gothic” typeface with the modern phonetic transcription symbol ɡ simply because their appearance is similar). The letter ß is transcribed as such, regardless of whether it was printed in the original as a ligature (from which the modern German character ß derives) or as separate letters. If a letter in the antiqua typeface is inserted into a word printed in the “Gothic” typeface in the original, it is transcribed in the same way as all the other letters, without any special notation. Graphemic transcription best serves the aim of this article. Lithuanian words cited from Compendium that are relevant to the argument are set in bold.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 3

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

Sapūno sūnus; Biržiška 1960: 263). Vis dėlto galime atkreipti dėmesį į tai, kad jo gramatikoje tarp negausių moteriškų vardų (skirtų moteriškajai gramatinei giminei lietuvių kalboje iliustruoti) paminėta ir Sape = Sophia (25)². Iš to galima atsargiai spėti, kad galbūt bent pats Sapūnas taip suprato savo pavardės kilmę.

From 1612 until his death, Sapūnas was pastor of Didieji Rūdupėnai (=Enciūnai). He is thought to have written his grammar around 1643 (Biržiška 1960: 264; Eigminas 1997: 10). Although this view is nowhere stated explicitly in the literature, it probably derives from the preface to the 1673 edition, which says that the work had been ultra luftrum fextum pulvere quafi obruta SC 48 “buried as if under dust for more than six five-year periods,” that is, unpublished: subtracting 6 × 5 = 30 from the publication date 1673 gives the year 1643. There seems to be no reason to doubt this view (provided that the preface was written in the same year the work appeared, rather than somewhat earlier)³. Moreover, this would mean that Sapūnas’s grammar is in fact older than Klein’s, and therefore deserves the distinction of being the first Lithuanian grammar. It is also known that Sapūnas was one of the collaborators on Klein’s grammar, to whom Klein had lent the manuscript of his own grammar (Biržiška 1960: 264; Eigminas 1997: 21). Sapūnas is also known as the author of Latin poems (Biržiška 1960: 263; Koženiauskienė 1990: 244, 266–267). He died in 1659 at Enciūnai (=Didieji Rūdupėnai) (Biržiška 1960: 263; ZM 2014: 1555).

Teofilis Šulcas (1629–1673) gimė irgi Mažojoje Lietuvoje, Vėluvoje (Biržiška 1960: 343; ZM 2014: 1651; pastarajame šaltinyje šis faktas minimas su klaustuku). Įstojęs į Karaliaučiaus universitetą, jame užsirašė kaip Theophylus Schultz Welawensis Borussus „Teofilis [vėliau jo vardas buvo rašomas taisyklinga lotyniška forma Theophilus] Šulcas,

² It was probably not a very common name, if Donelaitis did not give it to any of the characters in Metai.

³ The claim that this grammar was written over eight years (SC 255) is incorrect (this will be discussed later). The claim that it was written around 1651, made in the bibliographic annotation of the modern edition on the last page of the book (SC 336), is a printing error.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 4

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

“a late Prussian.” From this one may infer that Schulz was a Prussian (although this may mean only “a citizen of the Prussian state”) whose native language was German; the German origin of his surname would support this as well. After graduating from university, he worked as assistant to the pastor of Nybudžiai (ZM 2014: 1651), from 1650 he was pastor of Išdagai, and in 1662 he became pastor of Katniava. He died in 1673 (Biržiška 1960: 263; ZM 2014: 1651), the same year Compendium was published. Although it is said that he was regarded as a good expert in Lithuanian (Biržiška 1960: 263), it does not seem that Lithuanian was his native language. There is evidence that he wrote a Lithuanian–German–Latin dictionary (Biržiška 1960: 263), but if it was ever written, it has not survived. Incidentally, one of his seven children, Jonas, pastor of Lazdynai (Lasdehnen) (ZM 2014: 1651), is the same Jonas Schulz who published a collection of Aesop’s fables in Lithuanian in 1706.

This is about all we know about the two authors of Compendium. Sapūnas was 40 years older than Schulz. Both were Lutheran pastors in Lithuanian parishes who had graduated from the University of Königsberg; their parishes were no farther apart than Trakai is from Vilnius. As we know from the preface to Compendium, Schulz regarded Sapūnas as his teacher and inherited from him a manuscript of the grammar written earlier (at the time Sapūnas was writing his grammar, Schulz must have been only about 14 years old). In 1673, about 30 years after it was written and 14 years after Sapūnas’s death, Schulz published the grammar and died himself that same year, aged 44. What more can we learn from the text of the published grammar?

Most of the Lithuanian words mentioned in the grammar are translated into Latin. Thus, it contains a Lithuanian–Latin glossary de facto, although it is not presented in a single section but rather scattered throughout the text of the work. This de facto glossary consists of 1,380 entries (most are individual words with translations, but there are also phrases and whole sentences). The corresponding

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 5

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

A glossary of 2,057 entries is also contained in Klein’s grammar.⁴ Thus de facto we have two seventeenth-century Lithuanian–Latin glossaries. Of course, they are much shorter than the dictionaries by Sirvydas published somewhat earlier, but they are nonetheless valuable monuments of seventeenth-century Lithuanian lexicography, whose analysis can teach us a thing or two.

1. PECULIARITIES OF THE GLOSSARY

Reading Sapūnas and Schulz’s grammar, one can see that its glossary contains certain peculiarities that may raise the suspicion that Lithuanian was not the native language of the translator who rendered the Lithuanian words into Latin. We find no such peculiarities in Klein’s glossary. It is precisely these peculiarities of Sapūnas and Schulz’s glossary that may help clarify our knowledge of each author’s contribution to the text of Compendium.

First, it goes without saying that both Compendium and Klein’s grammar, and therefore their glossaries as well, contain both archaic grammatical forms and archaic words, or words still known today but used with archaic or rare meanings. Consequently, a modern reader would not always find them convenient to use as Lithuanian–Latin dictionaries. Such cases are, of course, entirely unproblematic and do not belong among the peculiarities discussed here. A few examples may serve to illustrate the point: Skellu Debeo, Skellejau 57 (skelėti ‘to be in debt’); Lazda Nux 57 (‘hazel, hazelnut tree’; and here lazda does not mean ‘stick’, nor does nux mean ‘nut’); Skilliu Elicio ignem, Skiliau 47 (skìlti, skìlia, skýlė ‘to strike a spark with a firesteel’; see skìlti 2 LKŽᵉ), Gaudžiu Conqueror, Gauzdawau 49 (gausti ‘to lament, mourn, complain’; in Lithuania Minor

⁴ The glossary by Klein used in this article was digitized during a student internship by Ramunė Markevičiūtė, currently a doctoral student at the Free University of Berlin (Freie Universität Berlin). I also thank her for valuable discussions on the topic of this article.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 6

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

a meaning attested in Lithuania); Paſtimpu Rigeſco, Paſtippau 56 (pastipti ‘to stiffen, grow numb’; a meaning also attested in LKŽ^e), Wasfaris Januarius, Kowas Februarius, Karwèlininis Martius 25 (well-attested old month names in Lithuania Minor), and so on. Nevertheless, some cases are somewhat more complicated.

1.1. Dubious but nevertheless correct cases

The 1997 edition (SC 83) had already noted and discussed the case admįfu [sic; judging from everything, this is a typographical error caused by the influence of the Latin prefix ad-; it should be atmįfu], translated as divinabo 11. It may seem that the word ‘I will remember’ is translated here into Latin as ‘I will foresee, prophesy’, whereas in Klein’s grammar (KG 103 / 9) the same word atmįfu is translated as recordabor (‘I will remember’). It is clear that a different meaning of the same word has been translated here, and in Sapūnas and Schulz’s grammar the intended meaning was ‘I will guess’.

Another case, Melmū Calculus 26, although at first glance it looks as though ‘sacrum’ had been translated here as ‘little stone’, is not an error either. Melmuo here means ‘pain in the sacrum, kidney stones’; this meaning is also attested in other seventeenth-century Lithuanian-language sources from Lithuania Minor, as we see from LKŽ^e. The word calculus could also mean a kidney or bladder stone in Latin, so this is essentially a correct translation.

The case Smagurauju Parafitum ago 51 initially seems rather imprecise, as if the word meaning ‘to enjoy delicious meals’ had been translated here as ‘to live as a lodger’ (that is, as a ‘parasite’ in ancient society (Greek παράσιτος), eating at the host’s pleasure) or ‘to live idly’. On closer inspection, it becomes clear that the intended meaning is ‘to live idly, to live beyond one’s means’. Although this meaning is not attested in LKŽ^e, Kristijonas Donelaitis wrote: you, feasting and

⁵ For an attestation in Lithuania Major, see the entry in Sirvydas’s 1642 dictionary: Krzyźá bolenie, Lumbago, Melmenio populis SD³ 137.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikose | 7

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

feasting away, / You’ve devoured the whole field with its fences and the entire house DM PV 465–466. From this context, it is clear that the meaning of the word smagurauti is not so much “to enjoy delicacies” as “to feast beyond one’s means.” This is confirmed by the translation “to live idly” in Compendium (and it seems that this historical meaning of the word smagurauti could have been included in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language).

The case Jauju Aqvā fervidā fup[er] infūdere, Jowjau Jowe 52 is likewise not a mistranslation, although LKŽₑ gives the meaning of the word jáuti (jáuna / jáuja, jóvė) only as “to rummage, turn over, mix, make a mess, stir up slop,” while the Latin sentence means “to pour boiling water over.” On reflection, it seems that jáuti here means “to make slop” not figuratively but literally, that is, to prepare a certain kind of feed for pigs. The ingredients of the slop may have been scalded with boiling water; thus jáuti here would mean what in Samogitia is expressed by the verb plikyti⁶, while in Aukštaitija it would correspond to šutinti (apšutinti)⁷. Thus, this is essentially a correct translation.

To a modern reader, it may seem that the cases Skinnu Eradico 54 (the translation means “I pull [it] out by the roots”; carpo would have been more appropriate) and Nėkaltaĩ impunē 67 (the translation means “with impunity”; perhaps innocue, innoxie or innocenter would have been more appropriate) are also not very precise, but neither can they be regarded as outright mistranslations. Some cases seem genuinely connected with seventeenth-century realities, for example Kėlines Caligae 33 (and the same translation in Klein’s grammar: KG 166 / 72 “70”). In classical Latin, this word meant “soldiers’ sandals.” Naturally, clothing was one thing in ancient Roman times, another in the seventeenth century, and still another today, so one should not expect wholly exact equivalents. The confusion in seventeenth-century Latin, as people tried to name the knee-length breeches, long trousers, boots, gaiters, stockings, and various shoes of the time with names for similar Roman garments, can be seen in Cn 1171 (in the entry Vbránie powſzéchnie, odzież nóg). We see the same thing in the sixteenth century as well,

⁶ I thank my colleague Associate Professor Dr. Petras Skirmantas for this information.

⁷ I thank my colleague Associate Professor Dr. Rasuolė Vladarskienė for this information.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 8

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

DD 23, 357, 434, 485, where the word caliga is explained in German as Hob oder kriegsstiffel (“trousers or military boots”).⁸

The word aviu (Awju qs.⁹ Aweju. Induo ocreas Awejau 52) is likewise translated as “I put on gaiters,” but, as we see from other sources, in the seventeenth century the Latin word ocreae was also used for certain boots or boot-tops; compare the aforementioned Cn 1171 and as many as four attestations in Sirvydas’s dictionary: Bot, boty. Ocreæ. Czebatay SD³ 21; Cholewá. Ocrea. Aulas SD³ 30; Nágolenice żołnierſkie, Ocreæ militares. Cziebatay kariewwiu SD³ 189 and Skornie, Ocreæ, mullei. Ciebałay SD³ 406. Essentially the same case occurs with Szawju Difplodo, Szowjau Szowe 52, where the Latin word means “I fire a shot” or “I discharge [a weapon]”; clearly, shooting firearms is meant here, weapons unknown to the ancient Romans.

The translation of the verb saugoti by a Latin word meaning “to beware” raises somewhat more suspicion: Sawǥmi qs. Sawgoju Caveo, Saugojau 53 (custodio would have been more appropriate). Nevertheless, the meaning “to beware, avoid” for the word saugoti is attested in LKŽe, so there is no actual error here. It is true that in Compendium itself, the same word Sawǥmi is translated just a few pages later as Cuſtodio 58.

At first glance, the translation of the adjective rõdas (a Slavicism meaning “agreeable, willing”) by the adverb “gladly” may seem erroneous (Rodas libenter 67), but this case

⁸ That the Latin word caliga was also used for trousers from the Middle Ages onward is further evident from Hanzíková 1988: 95, which states that the Czech word for trousers kalhoty, attested from the fourteenth century, derives from the Italian form *caligotte “military boots with long, close-fitting tops,” which in turn derived from Latin caliga. Incidentally, this is ultimately also the prototype of the word kalgotkės (“tights”), known in Lithuanian: the first tights were imported into the Soviet Union of the mid-twentieth century—and thus into occupied Lithuania—from Czechoslovakia at the time, and their packaging bore the Czech words kalhotky punčochové (literally “panties with stockings”; compare the Lithuanian name “trousers-stockings,” used in the second half of the twentieth century). Although the internet sources mentioning these latter facts do not have the status of peer-reviewed scholarly articles, there seems to be no reason to doubt their information. An internet search for kalhoty, caligotte, caliga, kalhotky punčochové (in various combinations) yields quite a few sources containing this information.

⁹ The abbreviation qs. here stands for quasi (“as if, as though”), that is, it is said that the past tense of the verb aviu is formed as if its present tense were avėju.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 9

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

as the Nesselmann dictionary explains: Jetzt wird Ródas, Ród’s allgemein als Adverbium gebraucht, gern, willig N 445.

Some plant names may also raise doubts, but, as experience shows, the names of biological species in dictionaries, especially those of ancient languages, are always a tricky matter, and complete consistency should never be expected here. Compendium states that grikiai is panicum (Grikkai Panicum 33), but according to Sirvydas, panicum means millet: Ber. Panicum. Soros nežifžákoi, foros kulines SD³ 10 (see also the explanation of kūlinis 4 in LKŽė). Lėšiai, according to Compendium, is ciceres. This would mean “peas,” but with an incorrect plural form¹⁰ (probably a minor slip, if not a printer’s error); the translation lentes would have been more appropriate. According to Klein and likewise Sirvydas, cicer (the correct singular form) means buckwheat: grikkai ocymum, cicer KG 166 / 72 “70”; Tatárka iarzyna, Ocymum (vulgo) cicer. Gribiey SD³ 442.

Moreover, Sapūnas and Schulz’s grammar (like any complex book) contains minor slips that are difficult to distinguish from printer’s errors. It seems that in the entry ufpraffu intelligo 2, two proofing errors occurred, one in each the Lithuanian and Latin word: if it were [fu]praffu intell[am], it would mean “I shall understand.” The Lithuanian word is corrected in this way in the 1997 edition (SC 65; cf. also Klein’s fuprantu intelligo KG 197 / 103 “101”). A similar case is drifu audeam 11, where the Latin form means not “I shall dare” but “I would dare” (it should have been audebo). Cases such as Nubundu Expergifco 55 (should have been Expergifcor), žirkles Porpex 33 (should have been Forpex), Įfž te illuc inde 65 (should have been illinc, inde), Trysdefžimt Triginti 29 (should have been Triginta) are almost certainly printer’s errors. An obvious printer’s error occurs on page 67 (a misprint; actually page 69), where the following is printed: Po, fub, fubter. Ante, coram. All these are in fact explanations of what

¹⁰ The grammatically correct plural would be cicera, but, as stated in Cicero’s contemporary Marcus Terentius Varro’s work On the Latin Language (De lingua latina, 8.48), this word is singular, and the plural cicera is not used at all.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 10

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

The Latin prepositions correspond to the Lithuanian preposition po, but what happened was that the Latin preposition ante (“in front of”) was printed in the typeface (Schwabacher) that was usually used in Compendium only for Lithuanian words, thus creating the impression that ante was a Lithuanian preposition and coram (“before, in the presence of”) its Latin translation. As a result, the word ante was even included in the index of Lithuanian words in the 1997 edition (SC 270), albeit with a question mark. If a new edition of that book were prepared, the word ante should certainly be removed from the index of Lithuanian words. What was actually intended here was that the preposition po in the phrase po akimis means “in front of, in the presence of”; cf. poakim ante oculos 6, the usage example po Akimis Diewo coram Deo 93, and exactly the same examples, cited no fewer than six times in Klein’s grammar (KG 111 / 17, 114 / 20, 115 / 21, 236 / 142 “140,” 262 / 168 “166,” and 265 / 171 “169”).

1.2. Errors in the glossary

Let us now turn to those cases that appear to be genuine translation errors. The case Sergmi, Sergeju Ægroto 53, although accepted as correct in the 1997 edition (SC 167: note 4), certainly does not seem to be so. Clearly, the word sergėti is translated here as sirgti. Let us compare its translation on adjacent SC pages, where it is translated correctly: Sergmi Cufodio 58 (“I guard”) and Sergu Ægroto, Sirgau 55 (“I am ill”). Let us also compare the translation of the same words in Klein’s grammar: férgmi vigilo, excubias ago, férgiu cuftodio KG 214 / 120 “118” and fergu ægroto KG 198 / 104 “102,” firga ægrotavit KG 194 / 100 “98” (and again on the following page). We can also compare the same words in Nesselmann’s dictionary: Sergmi, Sergiu und Sergėju, ėjau, ėsu, ėti; bewahren, behüten, bewachen; Wache halten N 463 and Sergu, sirgau, sirgsu, sirgti, krank fein, leiden N 463. We find nothing else in LKŽₑ either. The conclusion is obvious: nowhere is it attested that

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 11

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

the verb sirgti ever had forms of the verb sergėti in Lithuania Minor. Even in other pages of the Compendium, that word is translated correctly.

The case Liekmi Volo 59 is also regarded as an error in the 1997 edition (SC 296). Clearly, the verbs likti and lėkti have been confused here, since the Latin translation is “I fly.” One page earlier, the same word is translated correctly: Liekmi Linqvo 58; cf. the translation of the same word in Klein’s grammar: liekmi, paliekmi linqvo, relinqvo KG 213 / 119 “117.” There may be some doubt because the Latin word linqvo (and also relinqvo) means “I leave (something),” rather than “I remain (myself)”; nevertheless, the meaning “to leave something” for the Lithuanian word likti is attested both in LKŽ_e¹¹ and in Nesselmann’s dictionary: Lėkmi, Žem. auch Lėkiu, likkau, liksu, likti, übrig bleiben; zurückbleiben; von etwas laffen N 365.

It seems that the case Klibbu Dependeo, Klibbejau 57 is also incorrect, since the word klibu is translated here as “I hang.” It is very doubtful that the word klibėti could have meant “to hang” in Lithuania Minor; compare Nesselmann’s dictionary: Klìbu, bėjau, bēsu, bēti, klappern. Dantys kliba, die Zähne klappern. Klibanczos dantys, lofe, wackelnde, und daher klappernde Zähne N 215. Compare Donelaitis’s usage as well: Sparai po kraiku su čytais [rafters beneath the roof ridge and gables] kliba supuvę, / O viduj visur po stogu latgalai [boards supporting the roof thatch] kaba DM RG 610–611. It seems that klibėti has always had only the meaning we know today.

Finally, we encounter a case in which the translator failed to distinguish homonyms. The word pakala means both “wedge” and “horseshoe” (LKŽ_e pakala 1), as well as “back” (LKŽ_e pakala 2), and “sedge” (LKŽ_e pakala 3; attested in a source from Lithuania Minor). On page 92, Compendium gives the expression Tu už mano Pakalos flapdawais, which, despite its seventeenth-century spelling (and perhaps a printer’s error in the word flapdawais = flepdawais), undoubtedly means “you used to hide behind my back” to every native speaker of Lithuanian. Here we see that it is translated as Tu poft

¹¹ The meaning II of the word likti (transitive) in LKŽ_e; there are attestations from Lithuania Minor as well.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 12

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

carecta latebas, that is, “you were hiding behind [‘my’ omitted] sedge beds” (the grammar here is correct: “sedge” is carex, while carectum means “sedge bed”). This already gives rise to serious suspicions that the translator of the words in Compendium, who translated them into Latin, was not a native speaker of Lithuanian (although, for some reason, the 1997 edition regards this as a correct translation; see SC 305).

Reflexive verbs. Doubts are also raised by the Latin translations of some Lithuanian reflexive verbs, although some of them are apt, e.g.: Besfibajiu Obftunefco, Besfibajefjau 47 (“I am startled, I am astonished”); Besfigailiu Tāgor mifericordia, Besfigailejau 47 (“I am moved by pity”); Besfigedžiu Pudet me, Besfigedejau 48 (“I am ashamed, I feel shame”), cf. Donelaitis’s usage Aš besigėdėdams išvydau Krizą bekumpsant DM PL 322 and Ir besigėdėdams saugojos man parodyt DM VD 333.

Nevertheless, some translations give rise to the suspicion that the translator himself did not fully understand the meaning of the Lithuanian reflexive verb, e.g.: Rūpinasfi ipfe mæret 14, that is, rūpinasi is translated as “he himself is anxious”; cf. Klein’s clear and precise translation: rūpinūs sollicitus sum de me ipfo KG 180 / 86 “83” “I am anxious about myself”; Rafžaus ego ipfe fcribo 41 (printed as Rafžiaus, corrected in the Corrigenda list) is translated as “I myself write”; Mylius ego me diligo 41, that is, the word myliuosi is translated as “I love myself”; Besfibjauriu Commaculo me, Besfibjaurejau 47, that is, besibjauriu (bjauriuosi) is translated as “I defile myself.” In Klein’s grammar, reflexive verbs are translated impeccably: apfibiaurinu contamino me ipfum “I defile myself” KG 180 / 86 “83”; pafididinu magnifico, extollo me ipfum “I glorify, exalt myself” KG 180 / 86 “83”; apfirupinu curam, rationem mei habeo “I take care of myself, attend to my own affairs” KG 180 / 86 “83”; pafidarijk facias tibi “do it for yourself” KG 251 / 157 “155”; pafizéminu humilio me “I humble myself” KG 251 / 157 “155”.

Regarding the transitivity of the verb, it may also be added that the word važiuoju is translated as “I carry” (Ważuju Veho, Ważawau 52), if this is not a printer’s error, veho instead of vehor.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351-7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 13

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

Causative verbs. The strongest suspicion concerning the translator’s native language arises from the Latin translations of Lithuanian causative verbs (such as rašydinti). The form [R]afžidinu¹² permitto scribere 41 is translated with Latin words meaning “I allow [someone] to write.” The same is found in the translation of the reflexive verb rašydintis (cf. the aforementioned odd translations of reflexive verbs): Rafžidinūs ego ipfe permitto scribere 41 “I myself allow [someone] to write.” In fact, the Lithuanian form rašydinu does not mean “I allow (give permission) to write,” but “I arrange for something to be written; I have someone else write (something) for me”; a close Latin expression would be facio scribi¹³ or facio ut scribatur¹⁴, while perhaps the best expression for this meaning would be scribendum curo¹⁵. Although in certain rare cases a Latin translation with permitto might be suitable (in some contexts the Latin word permittere means “to transfer,” “to hand over,” and the like), it nevertheless fails to convey the precise meaning of the Lithuanian word. One suspects that before translating the Lithuanian words into Latin, the translator first rendered them mentally into German: that is, rašydinti was first conceived as schreiben lassen, which was then translated into Latin¹⁶.

Let us compare how Klein translates causative verbs: rafzydinu, id eft, dūmi rafzyti, ich laffe fchreiben, jūkinnu ridere facio, ich mache lachen, puldinu facio labi, ich mache fallen KG 179 / 85 “83”. Although Klein, of course, also compared these words with German constructions, the Latin translations are exact equivalents of the Lithuanian words: juokinu

¹² The original edition printed Kafžidinu; this was corrected in the 1997 edition (SC 143: note 2).

¹³ Cf., for example, Cicero’s usage in chapter 142 of Brutus.

¹⁴ Cf., for example, Ovid’s usage in Metamorphoses, I.545.

¹⁵ Cf., for example, the 1st-century BC inscription Post[umus] Mimesius (and the names of 5 other officials) murum <...> faciundum coiravere (=faciendum curaverunt) “Postumus Mimesius (and 5 other officials) had [a defensive] wall <...> built,” and many other similar inscriptions.

¹⁶ German constructions with the verb lassen, as the sources show, were the most widespread means of translating Lithuanian causative verbs; cf. Nesselmann (Raszydinu <...> fchreiben laffen N 429), Kurschat (rafžydinu <...> schreiben lassen K 346; pykinu erzürnen, pykin(d)inu erzürnen lassen KrG § 1277), and so on, numerous times, although other verbs are sometimes used as well.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 14

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

“I make [someone] laugh,” puldinu “I make [something] collapse.” Although we observe that Klein uses the Latin word facere only where the German equivalents have machen, nevertheless lassen is not translated into Latin with the word permittere, apparently because it was felt that this would not quite fit. In an example where German uses lassen, it is “translated” only into Lithuanian, that is, expressed in other Lithuanian words: rašydinu “I give [someone] to write.” It can also be observed that Klein called causative verbs transitiva, whereas in Compendium they are called permissiva (“permissive”; translated this way also in SC 143), as though they expressed permission. It seems that the creators of the current term curativa (used in LKŽe; “causatives”) knew of the Classical Latin construction faciendum curo.

Imperative forms.

Translation of Lithuanian imperative forms raises similar doubts: Tevadinna jo permitte ut vocet illum 39 “let him call him”; wadinkem, permitte ut vocemus 39 “let us call”; Dūkem, permitte ut demus 39 “let us give.” In Latin, the coniunctivus iussivus or coniunctivus hortativus forms without additional words would have suited all these cases: vocet, vocemus, demus (cf. the well-known Gaudeamus). There is reason to suspect that here, too, the translator had in mind German constructions with the verb lassen (that is, in his mind he translated vadinkim as lass uns nennen, and then rendered that into Latin as permitte ut vocemus, and so on)¹⁷. Comparing this with Klein’s grammar, we see that there these forms are translated accurately and in elegant Latin, using the coniunctivus hortativus: Izwęskem 100 / 6 “let us bless,” wadinti bukime vocati fimus 199 / 105 “103” “let us be called”¹⁸.

¹⁷ As for translating forms with te- into German, one may also compare Kurschat’s (KrG § 1369) remarks on the permissive (the genuine Lithuanian permissive, not the aforementioned SC “verba permissiva” = verba curativa).

¹⁸ In Klein’s grammar (KG 251 / 157 “155”), the form gélbėkim is mentioned as a shortened form of gelbėkimi (“save me”), and its Latin translation juva me is entirely accurate.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 15

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

1.3. Unclear cases

Several translations of Lithuanian words into Latin in the SC grammar remain unclear. Page 48 states: Besfigerriu Bibens bibo, Befigerejau. The Latin words mean “drinking, I drink” (more literally, “being a drinker, I drink”). Such a construction is not characteristic of Latin, and it is unclear exactly what it should mean, but it resembles the so-called sacred tautologies, that is, tautological expressions in the Bible that are translated literally in the Latin Vulgate. One such case occurs in Jeremiah 46:12: ecce quibus non erat iudicium ut biberent calicem, bibentes bibent et tu quasi innocens relinqueris? non eris innocens, sed bibens bibes VUL (punctuation differs somewhat among editions). In the current Lithuanian Bible (the 1998 translation by A. Rubšys and Č. Kavaliauskas), it is rendered as follows: Even those who did not deserve to drink the cup will have to drink it! Will you really remain unpunished? You will not remain unpunished; you must drink it! SNT. In the Latin text of the Vulgate, which is much more literal, instead of will have to drink it says “drinking, they will drink,” while you must drink it corresponds to “drinking, you will drink.” Only specialists in Hebrew could explain the meaning of these constructions more precisely (perhaps something like you will drink it by drinking, much as he ran by running?¹⁹), but biblical scholars have long known about these constructions. For example, eighteenth-century commentaries state in German that the Hebrew text says literally “werden trinkend trinken, oder haben trinkend getrunken” (Dietelmair 1760: 719).

It is possible that the translator of the Lithuanian word had that biblical passage in mind, but another, much greater doubt arises here: could the Lithuanian word Besfigerriu, Befigerejau perhaps be besigėrėti rather than besigerti? In that case, the Latin translation would be entirely wrong. Donelaitis also used the word gėrėtis (“to admire”) (Gėrėjos didei dukters sulaukusiu svodbą DM RG 138), while the word gertis (unless its

¹⁹ It may be noted that Hebrew tautologies are compared with Lithuanian converbs in Klein’s grammar (though rendered literally in Latin by Latin gerunds): girdėte girdėjau audiendo audivi f. rectiffimē audivi, literally “hearing, I heard, or most correctly, I heard”; fakyte fakiau, dicendo dixi, feu diligenter dixi “saying, I said, or carefully (clearly) I said” KG 259 / 165 “163”.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 16

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

It is generally difficult to find the meaning “to soak in, absorberi” attested in written sources. Some doubt may arise from the fact that Besfigerriu is written with two -rr-, as though the vowel before them were short; but on that same page the word žerriu, žerrejau is likewise written this way, and it is certainly žėrėti (not žerti; the translation Scintillo confirms this).

Another unclear case is Perriu Lavo, Perrejau 48. The Latin translation is “I washed,” as though the Lithuanian word were perti, that is, to wash in a bathhouse. There is considerable reason to suspect that the word actually used here is perėti (for which the Latin incubo “to sit, to brood” would have been appropriate; it is used to translate the word tupėti 52). The Neselman dictionary²⁰ does not show that perti and perėti were confused, so it is possible that they were confused by the translator of the Lithuanian words in Compendium.

The uncertainty is compounded by the fact that, on the same page, the word that is certainly sėti has the past-tense form Sejeiau. This doubling of the letters -ej- is probably a printing error, since, as far as we know, the past-tense form *sėjėjau is unattested not only in Lithuania Minor²¹ but anywhere at all.

A highly questionable case is Swellu Glifco, Swillau 54, which, incidentally, was not discussed in the 1997 edition.

The Lithuanian word forms are probably svilti, svela, svilo, so it would be identical to the word familiar today, svilti, svyla, svilo, although it could also be svelti, svela, svile (used in the meaning “to singe” or “to scorch” in LKŽ.; incidentally, the verb svelti is attested mainly in sources from Lithuania Minor). The Latin translation means “to expand, swell, puff up, increase.” This peculiar case can be explained in several ways, but there is insufficient evidence to choose any one of them.

Perhaps the choice of this word was prompted by the fact that the word glisco is also used in Latin literature with reference to fire, for example, in line 474 of Book I of Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things: ignis gliscens, “a fire expanding = glowing more fiercely = catching fire”? Based on such uses

²⁰ Pēru, perējau, ēsu, ēti, to brood, of birds. Ant pautū perēti, to sit on eggs 285. Peru, pēriau, persu, perti, to bathe someone; to beat someone with a bath whisk; then also generally, to hit, thrash someone <...> N 286.

²¹ In the Neselman dictionary: Sėju, sėjau, sėsu, sėti, to sow. Ropes sėti, to plant turnips or potatoes N 459. In Hako’s dictionary: Sėti to sow, prf. ju, prt. jau, fut. fu H 115.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 17

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

With the examples, it may perhaps be possible to discern here a similarity to the meaning “to smolder, scorch.” The likelihood that the translator somehow confused the German words schwelen “to smolder, scorch” and schwellen “to swell, puff up” seems small, since such confusion is possible only with words in a foreign language, not one’s native language. Perhaps the word svelti (a borrowing from German?²²), meaning “to swell,” really did exist in seventeenth-century dialects of Lithuania Minor, though it is not recorded elsewhere? Although dictionaries²³ do not confirm this, one line by Donelaitis gives some food for thought: Tūls nusvilęs ponpal laikis, rods, juokiasi būrams DM VD 278. What exactly does “nusvilęs” mean here? It seems this passage has raised doubts for many: LKŽ_e gives the explanation (citing this very passage by Donelaitis) “impoverished, wretched,” but Rėza (who may have been best placed to understand Donelaitis’s dialect, and thus its vivid expressions) translated it quite literally: Manches Herrlein, verfengst am Ofen, verlacht zwar den Bauer “scorched by the stove” (R 47). Could nusvilęs really have meant “fat, bloated” here? Another line by Donelaitis can also be compared, where a very similar phrase (and the same position in the hexameter) uses the word pilvotas: Kad pilvots koks ponpal laikis taipo prasikeikia DM VD 126. Summa summarum, without new evidence it remains unclear why the word Compendium svelti (or svilti) is translated as glisco, but it does not seem to be a good translation.

Another case that raises uncertainties is Sellu Saliwam emitto, Sellejau 57. The Latin translation means “I secrete saliva.” If the Lithuanian word really is seleti, sela (seli, seleja), selejo, then it means “to creep, sneak.” This is also indicated by LKŽ_e, citing various sources, especially from Lithuania Minor. LKŽ_e also lists this particular passage (SC 57) among them, which means it silently

²² Etymological dictionaries agree (https://www.dwds.de/wb/etymwb/schwellen), that this root, meaning “to swell,” is attested only in Germanic languages (cf. English swell “to swell”; incidentally, for the other word schwelen “to smolder, scorch,” cf. modern English swelter “to suffer from the heat”). Thus, the likelihood that a Baltic word *svelti “to swell” existed (as a word of Indo-European inheritance shared with Germanic) seems small. Nevertheless, a borrowing from German would probably be phonologically possible; cf. svėlis from German Schwelle “threshold” K 417, LKŽ.

²³ Dictionaries record only the meanings of the verbs svilti and svelti that we know today: Swelù, swélti, f. u. Swylu N 508; Swylu, swillau, swilsu, swilti, glimmen, fchwelen. Swelù, sweliàu, swélsu, swélti, daff. N 509; [fwelu, fweliau, fweltiu, fwelti = fwylù, schwelen.] K 417 (square brackets in this Kurschat dictionary indicate that he did not know the word in his native dialect, but only from written sources).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 18

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

It is acknowledged that the Latin translation in SC is incorrect, but the 1997 edition treats both the form selėti and the meaning “to secrete saliva” as correct, SC 313. Two explanations are possible: either this is the word selėti, meaning “to rampage,” or a typographical error was made in the original 1673 edition of Compendium (the letters -ell- instead of -eil-). Donelaitis also uses the word seilėti: Taip kad jam daugsyk seiledams jo liežuvėlis DM PV 519.

Another doubtful case is Kibždu Submoveo, Moto, Kibždejau 57. Kibždeti means “to move, stir,” whereas the Latin translation says “to push, move,” so perhaps “to set in motion” was intended. Whether the word kibždeti could once have had a transitive meaning, or whether this is a translator’s error, is unknown (probably the latter).

It is worth recalling once again that we find no such dubious translations in Klein’s grammar.

All the Lithuanian words translated into Latin in it, despite their seventeenth-century spelling and archaic forms, are clear to a modern Lithuanian speaker and fit smoothly with their Latin translations. Apart from the already mentioned somewhat approximate names for plants or seventeenth-century garments, the only doubtful material in Klein’s grammar consists of a few cases—or, more precisely, one cluster of cases—in which the Lithuanian present tense parašau is translated by the Latin perfect (as if the Lithuanian had been parašiau ar esu parašęs): afz fawa warda parafzau, ego meum nomen fcripfi; tu fawa warda parafzai, tu tuum nomen fcripfifti; jis fawa warda parafza, ille fuum nomen fcripfit; afz tawa warda parafzau, ego tuum nomen fcripfi; tu tawa warda parafzai, tu tuum nomen fcripfifti KG 243 / 149 “147”²⁴. All things considered, this was an accidental oversight. Whatever Daniel Klein’s ethnic origin, it is clear that his command of Lithuanian was that of a native speaker.

These are the cases of questionable translations of Lithuanian words into Latin in the Compendium. Nevertheless, one should not get the impression that the work is teeming with errors.

²⁴ These are definitely present-tense forms, not some phonetic or orthographic variants of the past tense; compare genuine past-tense forms, translated accordingly: mufze verberavit KG 195 / 101 “99,” atnefze... attulit KG 241 / 147 “145,” etc.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 19

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

As mentioned, there are 1,380 translations of Lithuanian words and expressions into Latin, and only those discussed in this article are questionable. All the other translations are accurate and apt. Among them is a case that, it seems, was misunderstood by the compilers of LKŽ: the second meaning of the word paskr̄isti 2 (paskrinda, paskrito) in LKŽₑ is based on the sole passage from the grammar discussed here (cited as SC 55), and is given as “to bore out, hollow out.” Checking this case in the text of Compendium, we find: Pajkrindu Cavus fio, Pajkrittau 55. The Latin translation would be “I become hollow (or concave)”; thus the word means not “to hollow out” something so that it becomes hollow (that would be cavum facio), but to become hollow oneself, that is, “to become porous” or “to cave in.”

2. VALUABLE DATA IN THE GLOSSARY

The glossary under discussion also contains many interesting and valuable items that are not the direct subject of this article, but are nevertheless worth mentioning. It includes attested names of ancient Lithuanian deities (Kaukas, Gabv̄artas, Gab̄aujis, Velinas, Žemyna 24–25; Klein attests the form Žemynė KG 157 / 63 “61”), place names and demonyms (prūsas, Prūsa; Klein attests the form Prūsija KG 158 / 64 “62”), Karaliaučius, karaliaučionis, Danckas [Danzig or Gdańsk], danckionis, Tilžė, tilžėnas, Įsrutis, įsrutenas, Katenava [Katniava], katenaūviškis [Katniaviškis], Lietuva, lietuvininkas 19, 25; a similar list is found in Klein’s grammar, though only some of these names appear in both lists). The Compendium glossary also attests the old meaning of the word kunigaikštis, mirabile dictu, which is absent from LKŽ: Kunigaik[f]štis Principis filius 19 “the son of a ruler, monarch (‘duke’ in the modern sense)”; compare Kunigas Princeps 19 (“ruler, monarch,” i.e. “duke” in the modern sense; this latter meaning of kunigas is included in LKŽ). That this is no mere coincidence

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 20

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

or mistake is clear from the context, where on the same page of the same section, page 19, the titles of various rulers and their sons are mentioned: Karalius Rex, Karalunas Regis filius; Ercikis Princeps, Ercikaitis Principis filius, and also Klebonas Paftor, Klebonaitis Paftoris filius (the reference is, of course, to Lutheran pastors, who were married and had children). We can also compare Klein’s attestations: Kunigas Dominus “master, ruler,” Kunige Domina “mistress, female ruler” KG 118 / 24 and Kunigaikštis Principis filius, Princeps “son of a ruler; ruler” KG 161 / 67 “65” (compare also the other words given there by Klein).

2.1. Quotations from classical Roman authors

Among the various sentences illustrating Lithuanian syntax in the Compendium glossary are also several quotations from classical Roman authors. Though brief, they are nevertheless the earliest known translations of these works into Lithuanian. Three of them are attributed to their authors; some others are given without attribution and remained unidentified in the 1997 edition²⁵. Here are the quotations with named authors:

Ipač[ę] Lieko rytę tur, ant ataũžimo Ligg[o]fą kuno karščius. Sing[u]lare remedium habent ad refrigerandum in morbis corporis ardores. Plinius 86–87 (printed as Ipačė, Liggũfą, Singnlare). This is a quotation from Pliny the Elder²⁶, meaning “it has a special healing property for cooling the fevers of the body in illnesses” (of wild grapes).

Neigi viena ręčiž kuri ant jednojimo Deiwių pareitis’ nera užlikta. Neq[ue] ulla res quae ad placand[os] De[o]s pertinet, praeteroifa eft. Cic. 86 (printed as placandum Deus, which demonstrates that typographical errors may be expected not only in Lithuanian but also in Latin

The preface to the 1997 edition (SC 19) mentions only two quotations, by Pliny and Cicero, overlooking the quotation by Horace, identified in SC 223, which will be discussed shortly.²⁵

²⁶ Naturalis historia, XIV. 99 (chapter numbering differs in some editions, but this is approximately at the beginning of the last third of Book XIV). Pliny’s entire work has not yet been translated into Lithuanian.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 21

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

in the words; moreover, in some copies of Cicero’s text (and in modern editions), praetervisa is replaced by praetermissa, with almost the same meaning. This is a sentence by Cicero from the Third Speech Against Catiline²⁷ (In Catilinam, III.20), meaning “Nothing that pertains to appeasing the gods has been [=not been] omitted.” Deiwjų literally means of goddesses, but the feminine form goddesses was used to refer to ancient Lithuanian (and thus also Roman) deities in general; therefore, one could say that one of the old meanings of the word goddesses (plural) is simply “deities” (not only female deities), cf. the feminine gender of the plural people in old writings. The LKŽ_e, incidentally, does not list this meaning for the word goddess, although the word in the Mažvydas sentence given there, Those goddesses cannot give you anything good, has precisely this meaning (“deities”; the deities mentioned by Mažvydas in that context are in fact male).

You are already becoming an old woman, yet wish to look beautiful. Fis anus & tamen vis formofa videri

Horat. 4. Carm. Od. 13 81. As indicated, this is a quotation from Horace’s Odes (Carmina, IV.13.2–3). The original is the end of the second line and the third line of the so-called fourth Asclepiad stanza, while the Lithuanian translation is very close to the meter of the original²⁸.

Some quotations from Roman authors are left without attribution. Here they are:

Why you are worthy or unworthy of that name, I shall say. Digna tuo cur fis indignaq[ue] nomine, dicam 76.

This is the first line of Martial’s epigram III.34 (a hexameter). The Lithuanian translation is also a hexameter (when reciting it, one should elide vert’ argu, as in Latin hexameters); thus, it is an early (though not the earliest) Lithuanian hexameter line. Martial’s entire epigram is as follows:

²⁷ A modern translation can be read in this book: Marcus Tullius Cicero. Speeches, translated by E. Ulčinaitė, Vilnius: Pradai, 1997. P. 118–169.

²⁸ A modern translation can be found here: Horace. Lyrics, translated by H. Zabulis, Vilnius: Vaga, 1977. P. 183.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 22

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

I shall tell why you are worthy and unworthy of your name.

You are cold and black: you are not Chione, and yet you are.

The epigram is addressed to a girl named Chione. The Greek name Chionē (Χιόνη) means roughly “Snow-white” or “Snowy,” and the whole epigram means “Why you are worthy and [at the same time] unworthy of your name, I shall tell you: you are cold [=unpassionate] and black [=dark-complexioned, which the Romans did not consider an ideal of beauty]: [thus] you are and [at the same time] are not Snow-white.” A modern translation of this text, like that of almost all other epigrams by Martial (except the most obscene ones), also exists²⁹. The choice of this epigram to illustrate syntax suggests that the authors of Compendium, although they were Lutheran pastors, appreciated the pleasures of life and Roman wit³⁰. It may be noted that on page 84 the phrase mylu mergą ‘I love a girl’ was chosen to illustrate the government of cases; but the expression pareimi mylėjęs ‘I return having loved’ probably means “I return having done a favor for a friend,” or something similar (cf. Donelaitis’s use of pamyleti =to treat [someone] DM RG 116), since otherwise the question would arise as to exactly what kind of establishment the speaker returns from (returns).

What good is it? Cui bono? 79. Although brief, the expression is known from Cicero’s speech For Roscius (Pro Roscio 84, 86 etc.): “Who benefited from this [the murder of Roscius’s father]?”³¹ Cf. the modern expression (probably ultimately derived from this speech by Cicero), “Who benefits from this?”

²⁹ See Marcus Valerius Martialis. Epigrams, translated by A. T. Veličkienė, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1998. P. 74.

³⁰ Incidentally, as mentioned, Šulcas’s son Jonas published Lithuanian translations of Aesop’s fables in 1706 (including fable plots known from the works of Phaedrus and Horace). Perhaps he inherited his interest in classical literature from his father.

³¹ Žr.: Markas Tulijus Ciceronas. Kalbos, vertė A. Kučinskienė, Vilnius: Pradai, 1997, 35–88.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 23

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

I return having eaten. Redeo obfonatu 85. Although brief, the expression is a quotation from Plautus’s comedy The Twins ³² (Menaechmi 277, 288). The literal meaning of this expression is “I return having obtained food (e.g. after shopping at the market),” but this is not a translation error; it may instead be a figurative meaning.

2.2. Biblical quotations

The text of Compendium also contains about 90 Lithuanian and corresponding Latin quotations from the Old and New Testaments, usually with precise references. The Latin version of many of them agrees with the text of the Vulgate (or differs only slightly) and corresponds to the Lithuanian text. There are, however, cases that suggest an incorrect Vulgate equivalent was selected for a Lithuanian text: Girriafi Piktybe, five ifž Piktybės fawo. Gloriatur Peccator in desideriis an[im]æ fuæ. Pf. 10, 3 79 (printed as anmiæ). The Psalm reference is given correctly, but its Latin text means “the sinner boasts of the desires of his soul” (in A. Rubšys and Č. Kavaliauskas’s 1998 translation: “For the wicked boast of the schemes of their hearts”). It seems that the Lithuanian text would be better matched by the passage from Ps 52:3 (51:3 in the Vulgate) gloriatur in malitia (“boasts in wickedness”; the full sentence: quid gloriatur in malitia qui potens est in iniquitate? “Why does he boast in wickedness, who is mighty in iniquity?”; A. Rubšys and Č. Kavaliauskas’s version: “Why do you boast of evil, you mighty man, of your misdeeds?”). This ultimately confirms the suspicion that in the original manuscript of the grammar all or nearly all Lithuanian words and sentences were left without translations, and that the Latin translations were added later by someone else, namely Teofilis Šulcas.

³² A modern translation of the comedy (by Aleksys Churginas) can be found in this book: Ancient Comedies, ed. D. Dilytė, Vilnius: Vaga, 1989, 445–504.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 24

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

3. INACCURACIES IN MODERN TRANSLATIONS

Finally, it is necessary to mention inaccuracies found in modern translations of the Latin prefaces to Compendium (written, as is generally agreed, by Šulcas), as presented in the 1997 edition. They vary in nature; many are minor or resemble poetic paraphrases, but a few somewhat hinder understanding of the facts set out in the prefaces. If a new edition of this work were ever to be prepared, these would be worth correcting.

In the original preface, on unnumbered pages (SC 48, 50), there is the following sentence: Many and perhaps nearly six hundred (if you consider the origin of the Lithuanian people, the objections of certain people who reject the precepts of grammar and contend that language must be learned through usage) things will arise to be noted, were it not that fear, lest they appear like monsters, would place an obstacle in their way and almost tug at one’s ear with that well-worn and most truthful saying: “Good wine needs no hanging ivy.” It means (translated almost literally): “Many and nearly six hundred [a Latin expression meaning approximately ‘a great many’] perhaps (if one took into account the origin of the Lithuanian people [and] the objections of [those] who scorn certain rules of grammar and maintain that the language is to be learned through practice) doubts [monenda: remarks, warnings] would arise, were it not that apprehension lest they become an ill omen [or a ‘monster’] set up [for them] a barrier and that the well-worn and very truthful saying did not come to mind [literally, ‘tickle the ear’]: a good product needs no advertising [literally, ‘wine for sale (=that sells well) needs no hanging ivy’ [which, according to Erasmus’s Adagia 589C, was used as an advertising sign in Roman taverns]].

This shows that the sentence alludes to the preface to Klein’s grammar, which presented possible objections by opponents to the idea of writing a Lithuanian grammar and then refuted them point by point. The objections were essentially as follows: 1) Lithuanian originated from a mixture of languages and also has many dialects, so it is impossible to write a grammar; 2) one can learn a language better through practice than from a grammar. Šulcas, unwilling to engage in such discussions, here merely

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 25

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

says that objections of this kind (monenda) could arise in vast numbers, but that they are not worth heeding. The words “if you considered the origin of the Lithuanian people” allude to the objection, already refuted by Klein, that Lithuanian originated from a mixture of languages; but the fact that the text says not “the origin of the Lithuanian language” but “the origin of the Lithuanian people (gentis Litvanicæ)” may mean that Sapūnas and Šulcas were also familiar with the theory of the Lithuanian people’s descent from the Romans. Otherwise, why would passages from works by Roman authors have been chosen to illustrate Lithuanian syntax, and poetic fragments translated with their metre in mind? Klein’s grammar, moreover, makes no use of quotations from classical authors.

Among the reasons given on the unnumbered pages of the preface (SC 50, 52) for publishing this grammar is the following: ex tam crebrâ descriptione ortus timor, ne citra tum Inventoris, tum Autoris Gratiam typis concederentur “the concern arising from such frequent copying that, against the interests both of the Inventor and of the Author, [these Elements of the Lithuanian Language] might be consigned to the press [=handed over for printing]”. From this we see that in the seventeenth century, as might be expected, copyright was treated more loosely than it is today: many people made copies of this work (probably after borrowing the original from Šulcas), until Šulcas eventually began to worry that someone might print it and profit from its sale. This also explains why Šulcas calls himself the “author”: the Latin word auctor (here used in the later form autor) can also mean a rightful owner entitled to sell his property. Thus, having inherited Sapūnas’s manuscript, Šulcas considers himself, in modern terms, the holder of the author’s economic rights, and implies that this was Sapūnas’s own wish (in the preface, he is called the Inventor, Inventor). There is no reason to doubt this. By the way, although the title page calls the work Compendium grammaticæ Lithvanicæ (“A Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar”), it is repeatedly referred to in the prefaces

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351-7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 26

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

as if its title had been Elementa linguæ Lithuanicæ (“Elements of the Lithuanian Language”)³³.

As we know, Šulcas died in the same year, 1673, in which this work was printed, so this discrepancy probably indicates that Šulcas did not have time to complete the final preparation of the edition before his death. This would also explain such typographical errors, especially in Latin words, which someone with an excellent command of Latin would not have left uncorrected.

One more inaccuracy in the 1997 edition should be mentioned. The epilogue (SC 254) says: Et tu fortean L[ector] C[uriofe] fi hos octerniores [sic] perlegeris <...>. The 1997 edition translates this as follows: “And you, careful reader, if you <...> read this work written over eight years <...>” SC 255. In fact, the original does not say how many years it took to write this work. The original word octerniores is not some variant of the word octennium (“a period of eight years”); it is an obvious misprint for octerniones. The word octernio (literally something like “an eight”) is a New Latin coinage (formed on the model of the classical ternio, “a three”), and is therefore absent from dictionaries of classical and medieval Latin (even Forcellini or Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, or DuCange); but an internet search immediately shows that it was used in the seventeenth century in connection with printing presses and printed works. For example, the preface to Comenius’s Latin dictionary, Lexicon atriale latino–latinum (1657)³⁴, states: Habet n. [=enim] Lexicon hoc Octerniones 40, h. e. foliola 320 “For this dictionary has 40 octerniones, that is, 320 sheets.” From this we see that one octernio consists of 8 leaves, hence 16 pages. Thus, an octernio is a 16-page or eight-leaf (in octavo) printing signature. That the Sapūnas and Šulcas grammar was printed in in octavo format is stated in the preface to the 1997 edition (Stundžia 1997: 5). Thus, fi hos octernio[n]es

³³ Some sources also mention that Sapūnas’s grammar was called Nomenclatorium (Biržiška 1960: 264), but this title (a New Latin coinage that would mean roughly “a nomenclature”) would be more apt for a dictionary than for a grammar.

³⁴ Online access: http://comlex.pbworks.com/w/page/9977075/Jan_0.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 27

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

perlegeris means “if you read these sheets of print” or “this in octavo format publication.” We do not know how long it actually took to write this work.

The word octerniones (this time without a printing error) is also mentioned in the dedication of the publication to Charles Emil, son of the Duke of Prussia³⁵, on an unnumbered page: hi octerniones numerum fanctum vix attingentes, ad SERENISSIMÆ CELSITUDINIS TUÆ pedes devoluti <...> SC 42.

This means: “these sheets of print, having barely reached the sacred number, laid at the feet of YOUR MOST SERENE HIGHNESS <...>.” In Latin literature,³⁶ the number 7 was called the sacred number. As stated in the 1997 preface (Stundžia 1997: 6), the complete original Compendium edition consists of 113 pages, which amounts to 7 sheets of print plus a fraction. From this we see that the dedication was written (or at least revised) only after the main text of the book had been typeset at the press and the number of sheets of print had become clear.

The preface written by Šulcas (SC 40) also provides some clarification about his biography.

Sources indicate that in 1675 Teofilis Šulcas’s widow Ona Blumaitė (Anna Bluhmin), with seven children who were still minors, had fallen into great poverty because of two fires (ŽM 2014: 1651). This may give the impression that the two fires occurred only after Šulcas’s death, but from the preface we learn that there were three fires and that they occurred while Šulcas was still alive: I honestly confess that my poverty, now in its twentieth year and beyond, as if lulled to sleep amid Lithuanian dust, meanwhile[and] hindered for the third time by Vulcan, buried beneath ashes and deprived of every means, can scarcely express how much the Ornament, the PRINCE <...> can speak in his native tongue with each of his subjects <...> “I openly confess that my poverty, now in its twentieth year and beyond, as if lulled to sleep amid Lithuanian dust, and meanwhile hindered for the third time by Vulcan, covered with ashes and deprived of all publicity [public recognition, means of making oneself publicly known], can scarcely

³⁵ At the time SC was published, he was 18 years old; a year later, in 1674, he died.

³⁶ Cf. Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius, section 90.6 (Lithuanian translation: Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Letters to Lucilius, translated by D. Dilytė, Vilnius: Pradai, 1999, 299).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 28

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

hardly able to express how great an Ornament it is when a RULER <...> can speak in his native tongue with each of his subjects <...>.” The expression “poverty lulled by Lithuanian dust for twenty years” probably refers here to the period when Šulcas served as pastor of Lithuanian parishes—from 1650 in Išdagai and from 1662 in Katniava. From this, we may infer that the preface was perhaps written around 1670, that is, about three years before the printed edition appeared.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers agree that the Lithuanian grammar abbreviated as Compendium was written by Kristupas Sapūnas, while Teofilis Šulcas published it, adding some material and writing the prefaces. The question is what exactly Šulcas added to Sapūnas’s original manuscript. Šulcas’s authorship is evident in the prefaces, but what was added to the grammar text itself? As mentioned at the outset, some excerpts from Klein’s grammar were inserted into the original text of Compendium. Is that all?

A comparison of the Latin translations of the Lithuanian words mentioned in this grammar (a de facto Lithuanian–Latin glossary) reveals several suspicious features not found in Klein’s grammar: 1) some words are mistranslated, especially where similar-sounding Lithuanian words have been confused (likti and lėkti, sirgti and sergėti, and so on); 2) some Lithuanian reflexive verbs are translated somewhat vaguely, as if their meaning were not fully understood; 3) the meanings of homonyms are confused in cases where they would be obvious to a native speaker of Lithuanian; 4) Lithuanian verbs of causing or providing, as well as some imperative forms, are translated as though the translator had first rendered them mentally into German; 5) a similar, but not identical, quotation from the Latin Vulgate Bible was chosen as the equivalent for one Lithuanian biblical quotation—a mistake that could not have occurred had the author himself supplied the Latin equivalents while writing the work (it could only have happened if the manuscript’s Lithuanian quotations had been left without Latin equivalents and someone else had later had to find them in the Latin text of the Vulgate).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 29

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

quotations had been left without Latin equivalents and someone else had later had to find them in the Latin text of the Vulgate).

Can either of the co-authors be accused of having an imperfect command of Latin? Certainly not, since both had received a Latin education at the University of Königsberg and had written works in flawless Latin. What about their command of Lithuanian? The author who wrote the grammar knew Lithuanian as a native speaker (his Lithuanian is flawless), whereas the other man, as the translations show, knew Lithuanian well but was not a native speaker. Certain features of the translations indicate that his mother tongue was German. The conclusion is clear: in Sapūnas’s manuscript, Lithuanian words and expressions (at least most of them) were left without Latin translations, and the Latin equivalents were added by a man who knew Lithuanian well but whose mother tongue was German—namely, Teofilis Šulcas. He was probably prompted to do this by the fact that nearly all Lithuanian words had been translated into Latin in Klein’s grammar, which Šulcas, as we know, also used. This is consistent with the fact that in the preface Šulcas calls Sapūnas his Teacher (Praeceptor). What could Sapūnas have taught Šulcas, if both had received the same education at the University of Königsberg? The answer is clear: Lithuanian, a knowledge of which Šulcas needed to improve after becoming the pastor of a Lithuanian parish.

Nevertheless, none of this should give the impression that Sapūnas’s grammar, supplemented and published by Šulcas, is in any way defective. The Latin translations of some words discussed in this article should be treated with caution if they contradict what we know about the meanings of Lithuanian words from native-speaker competence and historical sources. Still, it must be acknowledged that by publishing Sapūnas’s grammar, Šulcas preserved this valuable monument of the Lithuanian language for us and, by adding Latin translations of Lithuanian words and expressions, de facto created a Lithuanian–Latin glossary of 1,380 entries, thereby also preserving Lithuanian linguistic facts from the seventeenth century that were certainly worth including in LKŽ.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 30

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

Šulcas’s translation inaccuracies would have been unavoidable for any non-native speaker (especially one without modern means of checking information). We, modern native speakers equipped with databases, can only thank that seventeenth-century Prussian who spoke German for his work. Had the author of this article been given the task of explaining German words in Latin from a German grammar, the results would have been much, much worse (as would an attempt to find the required passage in the Latin Bible without databases). Finally, Šulcas’s last words at the end of the published grammar are these: si quæ per Sphalmata irrepsisse videantur ac observari potuēre, placidè corrige “if any [errors] seem to have crept in by mistake and can be noticed, kindly correct them” SC 254. This article is a respectful attempt to do just that.

ŠALTINIAI

Cn – R. P. Gregorii Cnapij Societatis Iesu Theologi Thesauri Polonolatinogræci Tomus I. Cracoviæ: Typis & Sumptu Francisci Cæfarij, 1643.

DD – Dicionarium Latinogermanicum, et vice versa Germanicolatinum ex optimis Latinæ linguæ scriptoribus concinnatum. Autore Petro Dasypodio. Argentorati: per Wendelinum Rihelium, 1537.

DM – Donelaičio „Metų“ tekstas šiuolaikine rašyba. Prieiga internete: http://www.xn--altiniai-4wb.info/files/literatura/LF00/Kristijonas_Donelaitis._Metai.LF0900.pdf.

(Giesmės žymimos santrumpomis: PV = Pavasario linksmybės, VD = Vasaros darbai, RG = Rudenio gėrybės; tada nurodomas eilutės numeris).

EDCS – Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby (Lotynų įrašai). Prieiga internete: www.manfredclauss.de.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 31

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

H – Vocabularium Litthuanico-Germanicum, et Germanico-Litthuanicum, Darin alle im Neuen Testament und Psalter befindliche Wörter nach dem Alphabet enthalten sind; Nebst Einem Anhang einer kurtzgefaßten Litthauischen Grammatic. Ausgefertiget von Friederich Wilhelm Haack, S. S. Theol. Cultore, zur Zeit Docente im Litthauischen Seminario zu Halle, Halle: Druckts Stephanus Orban, Univers. Buchdr., 1730.

KG – Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, fotograf. leidimas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1957.

KrG – Kuršaitis F. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika (1876), par. B. Kabašinskaitė, iš vok. k. vertė A. Tekorius. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2013.

KrG – Kurschat Friedrich. Grammatik der littauischen Sprache, Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1876.

LKŽ_e – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, t. 1–20, 1941–2002 (elektroninis variantas), vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

N – Nesselmann G. H. F. 1850: Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache von G. H. F. Nesselmann, Königsberg: Verlag der Gebrüder Bornträger.

R – Rhesa L. J. Das Jahr in vier Gesängen, ein ländliches Epos aus dem Litthauischen des Christian Donaleitis, genannt Donalitius, in gleichem Versmaaß ins Deutsche übertragen von D. L. J. Rhesa, Prof. d. Theol., Königsberg: in der Königl. Hartungischen Hofbuchdruckerei, 1818.

SC – Sapūno ir Šulco gramatika, fotograf. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1997.

SD³ – Dictionarium trium linguarum, In ufum Studiofæ Iuventutis, auctore Constantino Szyrwid è Societate Jesu. Tertia editio recognita & aucta. Vilnae: Typis Academicis Societatis Jesu. MDCXLII [1642]. Prieiga internete: www.thesaurus.flf.vu.lt (paieška pagal lotynišką žodį; originalaus leidinio puslapių numeriai faksimilėse).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 32

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

SNT – Šventasis Raštas: Senasis ir Naujasis Testamentai. Senąjį Testamentą iš hebrajų, aramejų ir graikų kalbų vertė, pratarmę, įvadus ir ST sąvokų žodyną bei paaiškinimus parašė prel. prof. Antanas Rubšys. Naująjį Testamentą iš graikų kalbos vertė, įvadus ir NT sąvokų žodyną parašė kun. Česlovas Kavaliauskas, Vilnius: Katalikų pasaulis. Prieiga internete: biblija.lt.

VUL – The Latin Vulgate. Prieiga internete: www.biblestudytools.com/vul.

LITERATŪRA

Biržiška Vaclovas 1960: Aleksandrynas: senųjų lietuvių rašytojų, rašiusių prieš 1865 m., biografijos, bibliografijos ir biobibliografijos. I: XVI–XVII amžiai, Čikaga: Kultūros fondas.

Buchienė Tamara, Palionis Jonas 1957. Pirmosios spausdintos lietuvių kalbos gramatikos. – Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 9–63.

Dietelmair Johann Augustin 1760: Die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments, nebst einer vollständigen Erklärung derselben, welche aus den auserlesensten Anmerkungen verschiedener Engländischen Schriftsteller zusammengetragen, und in der holländischen Sprache an das Licht gestellet, nunmehr aber in dieser deutschen Uebersetzung aufs neue durchgesehen, und mit vielen Anmerkungen und einem Vorberichte begleitet worden von D. Johann Augustin Dietelmair, der heil. Schrift Prof. ord. zu Altorf, und Archidiac. der Stadtkirche. Der neunte Theil, welcher die Weißagungen und Klaglieder Jeremiä enthält, Leipzig: Verlegts Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 33

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

Eigminas Kazimieras 1997: Kristupo Sapūno ir Teofilio Šulco „Compendium Grammaticae Lithvanicae“. – Sapūno ir Šulco gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 9–32.

Hanzíková Ludmila 1988: Názvy kalhot v češtině z hlediska principů sémantické motivace. – Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity. Studia minora Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Brunensis A 36, Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, 95–101.

Koženiauskienė Regina 1990: XVI–XII amžiaus prakalbos ir dedikacijos, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Strockis Mindaugas 2007: Klasikinių kalbų kirčio žymėjimo įtaka lietuvių kirčio žymėjimui: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Stundžia Bonifacas 1997: Pratarmė. – Sapūno ir Šulco gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 5–7.

ZM 2014: Das „Zwischenmanuskript“ zum Altpreußischen evangelischen Pfarrerbuch 6. Saalfeld bis Szypulowski. Auf der Grundlage der Sammlungen von Friedwald Moeller bearbeitet von Walther Müller-Dultz, Reinhold Heling und Wilhelm Kranz, Hamburg: Im Selbstverlag des Vereins [für Familienforschung in Ost- und Westpreußen e. V. Quellen, Materialien und Sammlungen zur altpreußischen Familienforschung (QMS)].

Gauta 2020 12 09

Priimta 2020 12 30

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 34

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

LATIN-LITHUANIAN GLOSSARY IN THE 1673 LITHUANIAN GRAMMAR

BY SAPŪNAS AND SCHULTZ

Summary

A short grammar of Lithuanian, written in Latin and published in 1673 in Koenigsberg, referred to as the Compendium, was written by Kristupas Sapūnas (in German known as Christoph Sappuhn) and published by Theophilus Schultz (in Lithuanian known as Teofilis Šulcas). It has been a consensus among scholars that Schultz, to whom Sapūnas had bequeathed his unpublished manuscript, published it, years after the death of the original author, with his own additions; yet, in the absence of the original manuscript, it is not always clear what exactly these additions are.

Almost all Lithuanian words mentioned in the Compendium are accompanied with Latin translations; thus we have a de facto Lithuanian–Latin glossary consisting of 1380 entries.

Most of the words are translated well, but the peculiarities of the translation of certain Lithuanian grammatical forms suggest that the translator had to mentally translate them into German first before producing the Latin version; also, certain similar-sounding or homonymous Lithuanian words, which could not have presented any difficulty for a native speaker, seem to have confused the translator. From this a conclusion can be drawn that in the original manuscript by Sapūnas (who was beyond doubt a native speaker of Lithuanian) the Lithuanian words had no accompanying Latin translations, and that these were added by Schultz (who was a Germanophone Prussian). Yet, despite these minor shortcomings inevitable with a non-native speaker, Schultz must be commended for his work in preserving for the posterity this interesting document on Lithuanian as it was spoken in Lithuania Minor in the 17th century.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynėlis Sapūno ir Šulco gramatikoje | 35

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.13

KEYWORDS: Sapūnas, Šulcas (Schultz), Compendium, glossary, translation, Latin.

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020)

http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba

ISSN 2351–7204