Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba

J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis and the language of the people 9 LANGUAGE JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS John and the Language of the Nations KEY WORDS: Jablonski, jablonskiana, language, nation, language of the nation, national language function. 1. JaBlOnsKiaNOs KEliai, ŠaliKElĖs iR BEKElĖs Jonas Jablonskis (30 December 1860 – 23 February 1930) – linguist, pedagogue, gymnasium teacher and university professor, public educator, fighter for Lithuanianness and independence, translator, editor. He was a pioneer in many things, a founder and authority in more than one field. An unrivalled seeker and fighter for truth, both in science and in life. He is still alive and is called the father of the (written) language, but in fact he laid the foundations and built the walls of the modern general illustrative language. Jablonskiana begins at his live head. Arnoldas Piročkinas (2010: 1) mentions about 500 of its positions. The 60th anniversary was marked by Juozas Balčikonis’ article Jablonskis and our language today. J. Jablonskis is described here as a “great researcher of language” and a “language teacher” (Balčikonis 1919–1920*: 155), but the lack of results is noted: “in schools, as well as in other public institutions and the press, the same corrupted language prevails, some sort of jargon, very far removed from the living language” (Balčikonis 1919–1920: 156). An article published shortly after his death explains the meaning of Jablonski’s constant concern for the language of newspapers: “its irregularities can infect the whole nation and damage its language” (Balčikonis 1930: 167). here again the general assessment is repeated: "Jablonskis was not only a great teacher, but also a great * The references to the chronology of the subject in literature give the year of first publication and the pages of the reprint. 10 KalBOs KulTūRa | 86 mokslininkas" (Balčikonis 1930: 168). A year later he was described as "dear both as a man of society and as a scientist" (Balčikonis 1931: 170). His death, as a still active worker after leaving the body, was unexpected and perceived as a real loss of science. However, the diverse – scientific, pedagogical, cultural, social – activities were already clearly understood as the most valuable legacy. J. Jablonski’s “recently conceived and dreamed” organ of language – the general language magazine Kalba, inserting in volume 1 of the 1936 edition of the journal Rygiškiai Jono article Laikraštinės kalbos dalykai (31–36), also announces on behalf of editor Pranas skardės the death of “this great man of language”. In the same year, "2. a. Jonui Jablonskiui, the creator of the common language and its long-term (= ~iam) perfectionist“. The greater part of it is devoted to Jablonski himself: a review article by Aleksandrs Merkelis, the memoirs of the Presidents Atsiminimų bruožai, Prano mašioto, Petro avižonio, motiejaus Pečiulionio of the Republic Antanas Smetona and Viktoras Vaičiūnas, the remarks of Juozas Bagdonas and Zigmantas Kuzmickis, and finally a short but objective characteristic of Jablonski’s study of language – the error of “explaining from the facts (laws) of our language” (Jonikas 1930: 63). The young linguist is honoured by the clarification in the brackets – it is not a primitive method of analogy that has been touched on, but the essential principle of the system (the principles). However, those brackets also reveal uncertainty, and the understanding of language research as an explanation of error (only?!) is unreasonably and fatefully narrow. However, probably under his own pseudonym – P. J. signed a concise Let’s honor the great linguist with work! significant in several respects. In the first place, it is emphasized that J. Jablonskis “worked for the culture of the whole nation, organized a certain area of that culture and developed it. He raised and lifted those forces by which the nation grows” (J. P. 1930: 64). And the nation is reminded of the words of J. Jablonski, the “incarnation of the spirit of work”, in the last days: “there is no future for a nation that cannot work” (J. P. 1930: 65). The vital significance of language improvement and education (or, in modern times, language culture) is further demonstrated: “Language is a great factor of cultural life, without which the rise and progress of a nation is impossible” (J. P. 1930: 65). and that the front line of this work and struggle, as J. Jablonskis believed, is the newspaper: “The influence of the newspaper on the readers is the greatest. from him the youth learns phraseology, stylization, language. all this the newspaper, read constantly, puts guilt in the head of a person" (J. P. 1930: 65). and it ends with the words of a footnote of painful regret: "I had given this article to the editorial office of a newspaper for printing. <...> replied that Article 10 is in J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis and the language of the people 11 but it is appropriate – not universally either! – only for corrections and the creation of new works, but not for grammar, and here he correctly notes: “His greatest merit is the creation of the Lithuanian s i n t a k s ė s (referred to by me as J. K.) <...>” (Jonikas 1940: 19). Although not entirely clear, but still significant scientificity – and the concreted theory of writing (Jonikas 1940: 18). There is no doubt that the representative of the younger generation, P. Jonikas, tried to give more specific and detailed assessments (although they lacked consistency). P. skardžius, who mentioned the anniversary of his death much negu J. Balčikonis. more extensively in the journal Archivum Philologiam, begins his assessment with labels: “Jaunius and Būga have been universalists, and J-skis – an eclectic” (skardžius 1931: 325). This is unheard of in the history of the circus. The eclecticism of the TŽŽ 1936 – 1. „a philosopher who does not adhere to one system, <...>“ (eclecticism – also only philosophy), 2. „non-original artist, poet, publicist without his own creative foundations“, eclectic „picked, selected, various systems“. It is quite striking what konk1901 taught in this way: „He (i.e. rečiai P. skardžius eklektišku vadina: „savo eklektišką pažiūrą J. J-skis jau the compiler of the Lithuanian language textbook) must base all his knowledge on the laws of the human language, – – – (...)“ (skardžius 1931: 325). What and from what has J. Jablonski’s theory of common language gathered, broken up, that is not his own? P. skardžius himself calls this “a clear program of common language” in another place, and after listing the works of J. Jablonski’s grammar (and several others) he says that they “formed the basis of common language” (skardžius 1931: 329). Having stated that “he has not studied anything by the historically comparative method” (skardžius 1931: 329–330), he does not say why the grammar of the bend rines language, or even the theory of the general language, would have needed this method. But again the turn of events: "J. Jablonskis' work <...> has, however, considerable significance for the general language science" (skardžius 1931: 331). It's not possible to be more contradictory... effect; <...>“ (J. P. 1930: 65). Admittedly, 10 years later in Gimt oj o j e kalboje (!), P. Jonikas speaks about J. Jablonski’s method of analogy, J. Balčikonis, J. Jablonski’s most faithful pupil and associate, especially in the last five years, and the most consistent implementer of his concept (he did what he did or did not, without public statements, even without critics) quite quickly prepared and edited and published a five-volume of Jablonski’s writings: 1 – Social Articles (1932), 2 – Educational Affairs (1933), 3 – Writing Matters (1934), 4 and 5 – Language Matters (1935 and 1936). These are articles published over 47 years under various pseudonyms and pseudonyms, even without name, collected from various newspapers, as well as prefaces to grammar and reading books, unprinted textbook reviews. The editor’s speech ends with a firm hope: “Therefore, the importance of Jablonski for our nation will not decrease, but will constantly grow through his writings” (Balčikonis 1932a: X). 12 Language Culture | 86 The short biography (XI–XXviii) signed by J. B. ends with the most concise description of man: “All the children went out to the people. "Nothing to lose" (1932) 2. At the end of the fifth volume there is an index of the names mentioned (249–258) and a list of language errors corrected by J. Jablonski (259–280). There was also a sort of over-the-top attempt. It was on the basis of this quintet, as the author P. skardžius himself states, that in the journal Archivum Philologicum, which he himself edited, in 1937 appeared a review but research and evaluation article J. Jablonskis and the current Lithuanian common language. As the title suggests, the focus is not only on J. Jablonski’s linguistic legacy, but also on its actual, living part – the heritage, and thus on the overall balance, while in it the passive criticism is somewhat oversalted, with accents sometimes illogically being changed: “his current path must not only be corrected, but also continued” (skardžius 1937: 246). The duplicity or contradiction of the assumptions and, of course, of the conclusions is expressed in the general concept itself: it begins with Eduard Hermann’s significance of the Lithuanian common language for the general linguistics – referring to his 1929 study Die litauische Gemeinsprache als Problem der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft (skardžius 1937: 245), expects a naturally deductively expanded statement, but... the principles of the theoretician of the living foundation of the Lithuanian common language (first of all!), not to mention his grammar, especially syntax, and the whole work as well as the vitality, coherence („a healthy, not floppy creature, like one dialect of language (...)“ iii 109)“ as a necessity (skardžius 1937: 248), is unable to understand as a theory of common (plural!) languages (but not one model!) and its consistent implementation. Another strange contradiction: “J. Jablonskis, the first learned linguist, appeared in time”, besides, “duly acquainted with the order of written languages of other neighbouring nations and their work of improvement”, rejects “deductive aprioristic view of written language”, begins “to be guided by inductive aposterioristic view” (skardžius 1937: 250), from the most honourable of the dawners of the native (with all the barbarisms and the most unsuccessful abundant innovations!) loose balls according to science-theory takes to create (the tongue does not force to say – continue) a living, unified, pure common language and suddenly – “J. Jablonskis, being a classical philologist, has not studied a single linguistic problem in his lifetime (?! – J. K.)” (skardžius 1937: 266). Is it not clear that for P. skardžius linguistics is only an internal, structural description?.. But grammar is a description of structure! The true limitation and regrettable contradictions: “having taken away the whole further fate of the Lithuanian common language” (skardžius 1937: 267) – not a scientist... In an article written on the occasion of the tenth anniversary, P. skardžius again juggles with labels, as if they should determine J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba 13 everything by themselves: “a classical philologist, not a pure linguist”, “he did not follow the path of an abstract scientist, but of a real practitioner” (skardžius 1940: 303), but... he began to “base the subjects of language on <...> concrete linguistic data and on the laws of language derived from those data”, “deserving <...> our pure linguistic science itself” (skardžius 1940: 305). This was the foundation of the jablonskiana in the times of the Republic of Lithuania (aTR – not only Lithuania). The first Soviet period, the German-war period and the Stalinist first decade of the second Soviet period – an empty space, fortunately not called a buržuaziniu nacionalistu. sukaktuviniame straipsnyje amerikoje, tiražuoreactionary or giving his own labelling assessments, P. skardžius says one more recent one: “in pursuit of regularity and clarity, he first sought for common language v i s u t i n i i (referred to by me as J. K.), i.e. the most used and understood words or phrases” (skardžius 1950: 375). In 1956, the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature began publishing the continuing publication of scientific works Literatūra ir kalba (Literature and Language) (a different sequence of subjects than the name of the institute!), which begins with the article of the director Kostas Korsakas Two famous Lithuanian linguists. A few memories about J. Jablonskis – J. Balčikonis’s tribute to the teacher. Their first post. – Jablonski a man of society! The last one is the abundance of words released by Jablonski, but it shows only a fraction of that abundance. Bronė vosylytė’s extensive article on J. Jablonski’s role in the history of the Lithuanian literary language is of serious ambition and the necessary academic scale, although not everything is covered and there are few generalizations. Contentful and objective memoirs of Zigmantas Žemaitis. This is like an introduction to an important stage of Jablonskianism – J. Jablonski’s Selected Writings (vol. 1, 1957; vol. 2, 1959), compiled by Jon Palionis. The Pratarme signed by the Department of Lithuanian Language of Vilnius University states that „J. Jablonski’s linguistic legacy is of great significance for the history of Lithuanian language, literature and the culture of the Lithuanian nation in general” (JablRR i 1957: 5). Volume i consists of “the most important textbooks of Lithuanian language by J. Jablonski in terms of science and practice” (5), although in the strict didactic sense even the grammar of Lithuanian language by Rygiškiai John of 1922. Etymology, although intended (by the author or the publisher?) for “secondary educational institutions”, will be used “first and foremost by language teachers themselves”, as the author hopes, adding: “Language m e t o d i co s I ask you not to demand of me” (JablRR i 1957: 183). Volume 1 begins with J. Palionis’s study of J. Jablonskis and his Lithuanian language textbooks (Palionis 1957: 7–56). the scientificity and scientific significance of these “textbooks” is clearly stated: “The 1901 “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” is of great significance 14 KalBOs KulTūRa | 86 because for the first time the Lithuanian language is used as a medium (hereinafter quote ratio, <...>), “even in our days not requiring substantial adjustments to the literary language and to the se ret. mano – J. K.) buvo teisingai nušviestas literatūrinės kalbos ir tarmių standardization program” (Palionis 1957: 23). The novelty of J. Jablonski’s syntax science is particularly highlighted: “by successfully selecting examples from the living folk language, folklore and the works of more prominent writers, by using those examples to derive the d e n s i o ns of Lithuanian syntax, as well as by establishing many new good terms, Jablonski made a good start to the up to then almost completely neglected study of Lithuanian syntax, and also made a significant contribution to the establishment and introduction of Lithuanian literary language syntax n o r m s, to its purification from unnecessary borrowing constructions” (Palionis 1957: 49). In volume II, J. Palionis introduces a review and assessment article J. Jablonskio kalbiniai pataisymai (Palionis 1959: 5–54). J. Jablonskis “at first did not differ in almost nothing in the language of his writings”, but later he “rises up as a great Lithuanian s p ec ia li s ta s, as a great a ut o r it et as” (Palionis 1959: 47, 49), having the basis for corrections “m e t od ą i t eo r i n i u s” – “rely on the “general d ė s n i a s of people’s language” resulting from numerous examples” (Palionis 1959: 52, 50). At the end of the volume are J. Palionis’ 83 Notes (519–532) and an index of corrective language subjects (533–553). The paper read by Kazis Ulvydas at the scientific conference organized by the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences on December 24, 1960, was published in abbreviated form in Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics, Vol. IV (1961) under the title J. Jablonskis – Lithuanian literary language educator (5–15 and a broad Russian summary – 15–18). At the beginning it is said that “d a ž n a i was called the t ė v of the Lithuanian literary language, its greatest u g d y t o j u “ (ulvydas 1961: 5), but later – “u g dy t o j u i r even its t ė v u, as k a r t a i s was told” (ulvydas 1961: 10). The positive and most positive assessments, which were widely supported, lack somewhat clearer definition – they refer to “nu e p e l nu s for the culture of the Lithuanian language and the Lithuanian language m o k s l u i” (5), articles “on various issues of language culture, language mo k s l o u, and social life” (8), about J. Jablonski’s “work on the Lithuanian literary language and the Lithuanian language m o k s l o u g d y m o” (9), “creative activity <...>” aimed at “the revitalization and development of the Lithuanian literary language, the Lithuanian language mo k sl u i k el t i” (5), about “a perfectly prepared linguist” (10), whose grammar “has preserved, if not always the practical, then at least the t e or i n ę and historical ver tę to our days” (11), although most importantly – the syntax of the Lithuanian language is described as “extremely significant for the development of the Lithuanian language” (12). J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba 15 mintis gramatikos darbas” (7), and its author – “unsurpassed by syntaxinographic research” (5), was said 16 years late and waited for its implementation another 16 years. kas“, „sintaksininkas t e o r et i k as “ (11). mintis, kad „reikėtų išsamių moAlthough late, the 100th anniversary of J. Jablonski was marked significantly by the volume V of the publication of higher school research papers Kalbotyra (1962). The Pratarmė of the Lithuanian Language Department of Vilnius University says that J. Jablonskis “published a method of language education, revealed its sources” (5), but it is conjuncturally excluded that his criterion for language education and enrichment was “the folk language undamaged by negative foreign influences”, which at his time was the only correct one, perhaps too narrow (5). In addition to J. Palionis’ editorial article J. Jablonskis and our present literary language (7–12), J. Jablonskis is widely presented as a translator and translation specialist (Dominykas Urbas), educator and evaluator of children’s literature (vincas auryla), and renowned pedagogue (magdalena Karčiauskienė). aldonas Pupkis discusses the manuscript legacy. memories by Juozas Balčikonis (new), markelis Račkauskas, Bronius Pranskus-Žalionis, Zigmas Kuzmickis, marcelinas Šikšnys, Napalys Grigas, Juozas lazauskas, Juozas senkus. John Palionis publishes several letters. The 1990 edition of the Soviet Jablonskiana by L. Lukauskaite includes 48 positions (including the vPi Soviet Student or Telšių Communism Dawn), 7 of them by J. Palionis, 3 – diploma works. In 1961, the language was officially recognized. J. Jablonski was not given any attention, but in K. Ulvydo’s book Tasks of Language Culture Education Lenin is mentioned 4 times and this is the only name. The phase of initial insights followed by various reviews – both study, academic and serious commemorative evaluations – is ending with quite clear guidelines. In 1970, Arnold Pirochkine began his ambitious project of a jablonskian. He was the main speaker at the theoretical seminar held by the Vilnius Lithuanian language section of the Society for the Protection of Monuments and Local History on September 22-23, 1969, on the theme “The foundations and principles of the standardization of the language of J. Jablonskis”, where the conclusion is drawn: “in creating and forming the Lithuanian national literary language, he turned its development in the direction of a theoretically and practically based darbo. Pirmiausia – 1970 m. – buvo mokymo priemonė studentams lituasystem” (Piročkinas 1970: 11). Then he began a sequential research for the students of J. Jablonski’s seminar (beginning with a detailed chronology of J. Jablonski’s life facts – 6–40) and mainly for teachers – outlines of J. Jablonski’s lexical corrections (1970) and J. Jablonski’s grammatical corrections 16 Language Culture | 86 (1976). Then it rises to the level of a two-volume monograph – At the Origins of the Common Language. J. Jablonski's life and work. 1860–1904 (1977) and J. Jablonskis – promoter of common language. 1904–1930 (1978). Note the frequent J. Palionio išplėstinė recenzija (Baltistica Xv (2), 1979, 159–163), kurioje evaluative words first, innovative, comprehensive, generalized and synthesized, but, of course, also problematic, controversial and disputed. Stasys Keinys added and highlighted something from both sides in his review J. Jablonskio palikimo tyrinėjimai (Kalbos kultūra 39, 1980, 61–67). a. Piročkinas compiled and prepared a comprehensive collection of documentary jablonskiana – Jono Jablonskio laiškai (1985). based on his sketches for teachers prepared a more detailed book Jablonskio kalbos pataisymai (1986). everything was crowned with a doctoral dissertation in 1987 (the second one at the time). In the years of his liberation, he hastily published a collection of articles, studies and unpublished letters not included in Jablonski’s writings – J. Jablonskis. Letters and Letters (1991). Alex Girdenis’ contribution expanded the already diverse scientific picture of J. Jablonskis: “the first of Lithuanian linguists to have comprehensively studied the strictly defined and localized s is t em of the vi e no s. This can be explained <...> by a certain “innate” sense of language systemicity, which is clearly noticeable in practical codification activities. The systematicity of language was perhaps the most important, albeit explicitly and unformulated, criterion for the selection of norms” (Girdenis, Piročkinas 1978: 28). the introduction of the systematic criterion is particularly significant. In 1982, Language Culture (vol. 42) expanded the theme of Jablonskianism – this is Kazis Ulvydas’s On J. Jablonski’s Views on Language (3–16) (about him – II vol.), Antanas Lyberis’s J. Jablonski as a Lexicographer (16–20), Kazimieras Gaivenis’s J. Jablonski’s Activities in the Terminology Commission (20–24). and the author of this review has sideways interfered with his own conception of J. Jablonski (and his old predecessors) and with the reminder of his program to the public (J. Klimavičius, Amžinas bendrinės kalbos pamatas, – Bibliotekų darbas, 1984 10 33–35). In the years of the II Republic, Pirochkin remained the most prolific author of jablonskaya. Undoubtedly the most significant is his study Jonas Jablonskis – creator of new words. The result of J. Jablonski’s reworking is extremely impressive: “in the present common Lithuanian language (...) 610 words of J. Jablonski are used. In addition to these, there are 470 words that make up it, but they have not settled in the language: some of them have not really happened, more recent ones have appeared” (Piročkin 2000, 10: 6). a. Pirochkin properly – scientifically! – marked the 140th anniversary of the great linguist. Keinys in the journal Terminologija (No. 8, 2001, 50–64) with an article J. Klimavičius. 1901: Jonas Jablonskis and the language of the people 17 niu 1901: Peter Kriaušaitis' "Lithuanian language grammar" language science terms. Robertas Gedrimas presented a new topic – Jonas Jablonskis and Lithuanian natural history terminology (Gimtoji kalba 2000, 12, 4–8). The author of this article was also involved in the writing of the article (J. Klimavičius, Ką Jablonskis padarė geografijai ir kas su tuo daroma, – Terminologija 8, 2001, 7–27). Language Culture (Vol. 74, 2001, 3–8) presented only J. Palionis’s article J. Jablonskis and the present common language, which repeats the thought he had already expressed in 1979 – “to think about an academic edition of all Jablonskis’ writings” (Palionis 2001: 8). The 150th anniversary has received a lot of different responses. 83 (2010) not less than 4 authors write about J. Jablonski’s life and social activities (Eglė lukėnaitė-Griciuvienė, vytautas landsbergis, vitas labutis, Giedrė čepaitienė). 2 quite detailed articles on linguistics – the lexicographical activities of Jon Jablonski by Vilija Sakalauskienė (30–43) and the attention of Jon Jablonski to style by Regina Koženiauskienė (66–83). There are also smaller themes. R. Koženiauskienė’s article The love, ethics and present of the language of John Jablonski (Gimtoji kalba 2010, 12, 3–12) translates another important page of Jablonskiana. Mainly from the point of view of terminology, J. Jablonskis is shown in S. Keinis’s article Mintys apie didžiulį lingvistą ir terminologą Joną Jablonskį. 150th anniversary of his birth (Terminologija 17, 2010, 80–92). A very significant non-commemorative publication is the dissertation book of the young generation linguist Arvydas Vidžiūnas, “Jono Jablonskio akcentologija” (1997) – a detailed study of the subject of written language that was not the most important for J. Jablonskis. The most abundant at the moment is again A. Pirochkin. His extensive article On a Thorn-lined Road accompanied the speech to the Lithuanian school and strongly slammed the bar of J. Jablonski – a teacher čia – lietuvių kalbos teisių atsikovojimas ir jų įgyvendinimas per mokyklą, and educator. The main objective was to improve the Lithuanian language – purification, J. Jablonski’s difficult entry into the Lithuanian school, the introduction of the general variant, the preparation of his textbooks, dictionary, reading books. J. Jablonskis “understood very well that school is the main institution that introduces the mother tongue to future generations. Language education is part of the great task of language for the nation” (Piročkinas 2010–2011, 2: 11). a. In Pirochkin’s article Dėl kai kurių sammąstymų apie Jono Jablonskio lingvistinę veiklą (About some reasoning about the linguistic activity of John Jablonski), it is stated, perhaps unnecessarily, although in fact not įtėvis ar auklė“ (Piročkinas 2010: 10). ir neatrodo „kur kas keblesnis ir insistently, that “Jablonskis was not the father of the Lithuanian bk (–common language), but a more important thing in terms of evaluating J. Jablonski’s linguistic activity – whether it was 24 KalBOs KulTūRa | 86 Šiauliai – is also the tongue of the peoples of Skuodas, Mosėdis, Salantai, Kalnalis, Tverai, Gegrėnai (i. e., Žemaičiai), etc. F. Kuršaitis (lKŽ iv 1957). And the aim is K. Jaunius, a. Juška, 2. ‘sieksnis’ m. barley, 3. „aim by hand“ a. Juška, i.e. crane aim, cannon aim (lKŽ Xii 1981) – aim irreplaceable! There is a tree (: driekti) Gegrėnai (lKŽ ii2 1969), a steel (: pliekti) Grūžiai, a clear (lKŽ X 1976). from threading we have both srygis and thread (norm), only thread (people's language), also sraigė / snaigė / varžtas and K. Jauniaus made screw (lKŽ Xiii 1984). from sieti – and beam, and wall, soul, binding, and bond (lKŽ Xii 1981). very briefly it is still necessary to mention: grow – and height, and growth, and shoot, and tumor (these two differ in meanings); weave – and weave, weave, weave, weave, and ùlė "flat chimney" (syn. bota 3.); obstacle and curse – (and curse / curse / curse), and obstacle; break – both scrap, and fracture, fracture (and fracture rather from break, not break); mow – and cut, harvest, hay, and saw / saws, and saw / saw / saw, haymower; skliausti – both bracket, arch, and arch; squeeze – and squeeze, squeeze, and press; shout – and shout, shout, shout, and shout, and shouts, and shout(s), and Shuklys, Šukliaas, and Šauklys; crawl – both snail and crawler; traukti – and the break „train“, and train, traukimas, traukimas, traukimas. In live language, the change of vowels sometimes goes beyond the semantic – comprehensibility – boundaries (ulė, sprais), there is a danger of strange homonymy: maigūnas (: sleep), šaattas (: shusti), sodyba (: sit), incomprehensibility: paūdėti (: paausti), ūdė (: austi), ūdis (: austi). In common language this is unacceptable and no longer tolerated: linus brukti – bruktuvė, bruktuvas, priebrukas, outgrown flax fiber or head stryking – braukčiai, brauklys, brauktuvai, brauktuvas, although there remains a more usual stryking (: braukti), rather than stryking, there remains (even etymology is needed) bruknė (: braukti) – as well as sodyba, because the variant sėdyba (arch. simply sitting) is not much clearer – of this sit “permanently living, being (where)” in common language there are only remnants – (in prison, at home, for the second year in the same class, without work, without purpose) sit. The vocalized variant of Jablonski's own 1915 work, žymėdavosi kalba (JablR i 1932: 188), has long since become anachronistic in common language. long-exposed dissatisfaction with the unchanged Vedic: “as near to feel is sensation, so near to grow should be growth” (Piročkinas 1970: 10). The increase is already justified, because there is also growth, in addition, you have to look at the meaning – the increase would be “the increase in weight – like the excess weight “the weight increase”, and the increase is “the size of the excess weight”. Sense is from feel (with the senses!). True, K. sirvydo sense – 2. “feeling, sensation”: five senses, five senses (Clavis Germa- J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba 25 nico-lithuana (~1673–1701) i 729), the sense of hearing lRKŽ (lKŽ iX 1973) linked the sense with (pa)jausti, cf. jausmas ir nuojauta, priejauuta, atjautas, empatija. The long-used senses niekada nebuvo bendrinės kalbos faktas. Teisingai pasuko a. Baranauskas – have given way to the senses, so the sensations are more comfortable than the sensations. Do we not distinguish the physical sensations of cold, hunger from the senses of the spirit – beauty, freedom, the brotherhood of all people, identity, sacred, deep? !. distinguish long ago – pajauta „feeling, feeling“ lKv 1950, kn. „what is felt, feeling“ DŽ1 1954, knyg. „feeling“: The heart freezes, thousands of feelings awaken DŽ2 1972 (and later editions). there is a difference between experience and experience, attitude and attitude, inclination and inclination, need and application, impetus and impetus. and not too much. But it is not necessary to identify the feeling with the feeling – e.g. action and effect, overcoming, interaction, laughter and mockery, mockery, flow and flood, outflow, overthrow and violence… Someone dreamed of a strong man, but then maybe not in a dream someone can find a strong man (especially strong). a. Piročkinas agrees with J. Jablonski without any consideration – the refusal (or absence) of vowel change would disrupt the system, but he considers the “absolute lawfulness of young grammar” (Piročkinas 2011–2012 22: 4), based on J. Palionis (and the Latvian encyclopedia), as an error, and then shows with examples – mokytojauti and others – that the “absolutization of laws” (Piročkinas 2011–2012 1: 4) also harmed J. Jablonski. Such contradictions might not have remained in me if I had remembered that J. Balčikonis, an otherwise faithful student of J. Jablonski, had made the necessary correction here – he had constantly emphasized the essential fidelity to the true facts of living language (he had said most resolutely in one lively discussion: “Against facts, the laws of metatonia must be silent!”). Mr. Būga already knew this. By the way, the ear and the heart are sharpened by the frequent occurrence of such exceptional language facts – unfamiliar! – blind rejection (or just attempting to reject). with students – not difficult, but loyal users of common language – overwhelming. It is not sufficient for J. Jablonski’s statement in 1922 that the suffix -ingas indicates a characteristic “usually of the object, often or occasionally going out into the field” (Piročkinas 2011–2012 22: 4). Too vague – “usually, often, sometimes” – to strictly distinguish -ingas from -ėtas, -otas, -uotas. Where does fleshy (≠ fleshy!), stoomeningas, liemeningas, krūtingas, petingas, šlauningas, balzdingas come from? But belly! Why stormy, rainy, but sunny, windy? lKG i 1965: § 966, pp. 556-558 gives a more detailed and significantly different interpretation. Tactfulness pushes from the stick – e.g. ethical, discreet, ironic, melancholic, logical... 26 Language Culture | 86 A lot, but certainly not in vain, wasted time from side roads (with pathways) to return to the jablonskiana road. here is near and present his end. has seniai buvo žinoma, kad nemažai žymių Europos kalbininkų „nemaža used and still uses J. Jablonski’s more notable works” (skardžius 1950: 379). Now Pirochkin’s work has been extensively explained and supplemented in the article Jonas Jablonskis in the eyes of prominent foreign linguists (Mokslo Lietuva, 2010: 19, 1, 12; 20 12, 15). There (Mokslo Lietuva, 2011: 3, 12) in the article of Giedrė Čepaitienė and Algirdas Malakauskas Where was Jonas Jablonskis actually born, the exact name of his birthplace is established. In 1992, J. Jablonskis’ brother-in-law, his sister’s husband, the lawyer Motiejus Čepas, published a part of his memoirs – About the famous linguist Jonas Jablonskis and his relatives (80 pages). In 2009, the Lithuanian National Museum published a book of memories and letters compiled by Eglė Lukienė-Griciuvienė with illustrations of the family of Konstancija and Jonas Jablonski (248 pages). A review of Juozas Vytautas Uzdila’s book From shelves and boxes to a new life (Mokslo Lietuva, 2010 11 12). In 2010, “Gimtasis žodis” published a compilation – Atsiminimai apie Joną Jablonskį (compiled by Giedrė čepaitienė, lionė lapinskienė, 472 pp.), G. čepaitienės and described – as J. Jablonskis’s painting’s bright remaining or, unfortunately, paler, shaded features; with illustrations, e.g. Glossary, authors' biographies, bibliography of sources, descriptions of photographs and indexes of place names. Various history and encyclopedias describe Jonas Jablonskis as “the standardiser and scholar of the Lithuanian language” (sabaliauskas 1979: 193), who “was the first <...> to demand that the core of the common language and the basis for its further growth should be the folk language”, “theoretically established <...> common language”, “formulated the principles of standardization of the common language” (Zinkevičius 1992: 146, 152, 153), “made a great service to the Lithuanian language science, especially syntax” (lKEnc 1999: 272; 2008: 234). The further, the more emphasis is placed on his syntax studies: “the phonetic and grammatical structure of the Lithuanian language was described quite accurately, the foundations of syntax science were helped” (lTE iv 1978), “the works on syntax are also very important for the study and practice of the Lithuanian language” (TlE ii 1986), “he had a great influence on the study and practice of the Lithuanian language, especially syntax” (vlE viii 2005). In the end, what remains is... almost a trifle – “to merge the Lesser Lithuanian 1930 m. J. Balčikonis priskyrė J. Jablonskį prie „tautos didvyrių“ – jo language and the Suvalkian dialect in a peculiar way, to harmonize them both” (Zinkevičius 2013: 379). the merits prophetically compared with the merits of “such people as Vytautas the Great” (Balčikonis 1930: 169). 1999 Lithuanian Radio and Television J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis and the language of the people 27 In the 100 i t a k i g i a u s i s of the 20th century Lithuanian people elections, J. Jablonskis came in 12th place. This shows a certain understanding of the v i s u m e n ė s, so it is incorrect to raise it much in comparison with K. Bugas’s 61-th (Piročkinas 2000 10: 2) – it is easier to understand for the m o k s l in i n ka m s themselves. Beje, J. Jablonsros s pe c i al i s ta s. <...>. With K. Būga, our linguistic science ceases kis K. Būgos vertę labai suprato: „K. Būga buvo vienintelis mūsų kalbotyto have its main s u l l o, its great t y r ė j o (J. Jablonski – J. K.). This jump, <...>, stops and all comparative Indo-European language science, which has drawn much from our language” (JablR i 1932: 263). In the list of the 100 most eminent people of Lithuania, compiled for the 1000th anniversary of the mention of Lithuania (the scientific editorial board and consultants of the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia submitted the list of 300 to the Academy of Sciences, which completed and selected 100) c hro n o log i š k a i include both Jonas Jablonskis – “linguist, standardizer of the Lithuanian common language”, and Kazimieras Būga – “creator of Lithuanian linguistics and language researcher, one of the most prominent Baltists”, and Juozas Balčikonis – “linguist, the most faithful successor of the traditions of Jono Jablonskio, editor of the Lithuanian language dictionary” (100 most eminent people of Lithuania, 2009). Conclusions Jablonskiana’s path is divided into three stages of uneven length, great variety, quantity and quality of thematic research and the dissemination of her legacy: i – five volumes of writings, first evaluations and summaries, after an almost empty break – two volumes of writings (with numerous interpretations and evaluations of specific corrections), a study of her life and works, several review and evaluation articles (the greatest workers – J. Balčikonis and J. Palionis) – i k i m o n og r af i n is; ii – Pirochkine’s works – counting from the period 1970–1977–1978–1987 – not without the significant, but rare appearance of other authors (including J. Palionis) who diversified the themes, sometimes taking up concepts and evaluations; iii – p o m o n og r a f i n i s, going in width, diversity, i.e. additions – not without reproduction, fragmentation and signification, even opposition, but without fundamentally new evaluations or a more serious ambition to fundamentally overestimate (and in a more positive direction). J. Palionis is almost completely withdrawn, A. Piročkinas is active and productive, the number of aspectual authors is increasing, a new (or updated) monograph does not appear, perhaps it is not even ripe. Political periodization would not be appropriate, but a look back at it would show the relationship of the results with the conditions and possibilities of freedom and imprisonment – political and academic. The last period, which almost coincides with the years of liberty and the twentieth 28 KalBOs KulTūRa | 86 century, the relationship between academic freedom and project funding so far determines the low significance of the many results of jablonskiana. Not every publication (and the author of the article) is mentioned here – for the sake of abundance and purpose – to make it easier to see what is already visible, and what is becoming deadly lacking and what – not only gaps, but also flaws – begins to distort the image of J. Jablonski. Another necessary division, not explained here, would be thematic. The study of J. Jablonski’s language science and scientific practical bars, and especially their proportionate evaluation, or rather – still insufficient evaluation even of the most important ones, and sometimes even very contradictory – not without dilettanticism and even nihilism, has gone beyond the bounds of common sense and decency: J. Jablonski is not a scientist... society, on the contrary, is convinced: only a linguist (he is one of the hundred). Half-scholars picture him only as a corrector of language... one of the reasons for this diversity of evaluations is that the works of J. Jablonski’s linguist are mostly only classified, rarely hierarchized, and if syntax is raised to the top, it is almost never the theory of general language. The hierarchy would be true only if it encompassed the entire J. Jablonski as an integral personality and a man of his time. For him, of course, the hierarchy was as clear as day, and it was every day. However, in Jablonskiana, if it is somewhat clear, it is not emphasized and not made its key. This is the direction in which the evaluation of a statesman by a linguist is heading: “he is also one of the leaders of our national revival, the founders of the state”. “Jablonskis regarded language normative activity as one of the most important forms of Lithuanianness and the creation of the Lithuanian state” (vidžiūnas 2000: 1, 2). here the stretch is not short, but fun, and the leg rises. 2. JaBlOnsKiO Roadmarks at the Crossroads of the Nation Jablonski did not start with the study of language, but with the defence and support of its vitality, with the awakening of love for the homeland. In 1883 he wrote in the newspaper Aušra: “Young Lithuanians returning from the middle and high school returned with a true love of their kindred and timoje dvasēje ira gavę. Pagirtinas ira jų iszsilaikimas ir neuźszaldimas ir language, wanting all their education in a foreign language and the least part of their love for their mother tongue” (JablR i 1932: 3). As a baby rejoiced at the return of the letters and under more free conditions as a bee clung to the work of the nation and language in the Vilnius news: “we will have a whole year of labyrinth holes in the roofs of our nation and revive its twigs that have not yet dried up” (JablR i 1932: 74). Wide J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis and the language of the people concludes Article 29 of the Lithuanian Farmer’s Enlightenment in 1906 with a clear guideline for the people – “that people could work on the field not only with their hands and feet, but also with their heads. Work is the source of people's treasure. Enlightenment and science bring not only treasure to the nation, but snake and happiness: a nation that fears enlightenment, the visuomet skursta, nyksta ir miršta“ (JablR i 1932: 122). Didžiojo vilniaus 10th anniversary of the congress in the year of the great war, when “we do not know what we are destined to receive further” (JablR i 1932: 193) remembers first of all with pity for the victims of that congress and the painful matter of the language of the people: “I remember, it was just sad to see that my compatriots, in search of happiness for themselves, talking about all kinds of equality, as if pushed their brothers who wanted to work with us in one job, but could no longer speak Lithuanian with us” (JablR i 1932: 194). The fact that J. Jablonskis greeted the new century for writers and readers with this gift (Lithuanian schools did not exist yet!) – a grammar of written language with a peculiar – original foundation of its creation – the language of people, was a happy coincidence of two things – the intention of American Lithuanians and J. Jablonskis’s accomplishment. Undoubtedly, the work of J. Jablonski is the most important – decisive. And most of the time he acted alone – he both created and set guidelines – for himself and for the language. In 1892, under the pseudonym K. Obelaitis, the future father of the written language published the first article on language correction and development entitled „Language matters“. There were dozens of them under the same title until the 1930 issue of the journal, which was published in Kalba after the author's death. However, in 1915, when the evil gods of war were roaring, who knows what would happen to Lithuanians, he wrote in a tough vèliže his language credo, which he had been practicing for many years. He called it – Language things in place and signed it R. J. (i.e. Rygiškių Jonas). It was first published in Vaira – with the footnote in parentheses From one language textbook, then – in 1916 – in his own compiled language learning reading book for Vargo school – here already called Kalba (A few loose thoughts). It has been reprinted many times. In 1960, the author of this article quoted points 3 in the children’s magazine Žvaigždutė, accompanied by the following words: “in the midst of the storms of the First World War, living far from Lithuania, already almost completely ill, depressed by longing for his homeland, J. Jablonskis sang an inspired anthem to his mother tongue” (Klimavičius 1975: 8). Based on the first subheading, Pirochkin stated without going into detail: “These thoughts, apparently, are not original, but they are broken, as the subheading shows” (Pirochkin 1978: 74). But J. Jablonskis, whatever he translated or used, honestly indicated the original or the source. and carefully read J. Jablonski: "That our 30 KalBOs KulTūRa | 86 peoples would not be songs, songs, tales, riddles, proverbs, proverbs written, teacher, priest and writer” (JablR iv 1935: 191). After all, this clearly refers to the soon-to-be textbook of our language – a tuokart tenebūtų m ū s ų k a l b o s va d ov ė l i o – šių dienų studentui, textbook of language reading, where languages are learned alive – from example texts, and not from grammar (although it is also called a textbook by J. Jablonski in 1901, according to didactics it is certainly not a textbook). In a letter dated October 16, 1915 (old style) to his son Konstantin from Voronezh, J. Jablonski asks: “Are there no such things as fairy tales, all-in-houses, whispering, etc., in Petrograd?” (Jabll 1985: 144). Pirochkine notes that at that time in Jablonski’s speech articles “more journalistic elements appeared” – an example of this is precisely “the article “Language in Place of Things”, composed of fiber aphorisms” (Pirochkine 1978: 74). and much later for him it is only a “set of sentences named Language” (Piročkinas 2010–2011 1: 11). He believed that this Language “Jablonskis hoped to arouse in society the desire to learn a proper, common language based on the laws of folk language” (Piročkinas 1978: 75), but unfortunately he does not see any connection with the aforementioned school reading book, nor the author’s intention, the specificity of the genre, the spirit of the time. Kazys ulvydas also did not dare to look at this “publication” of J. Jablonski as his own – original, not translated, although by signing “he takes responsibility for the ideas set forth therein, <...> as if considering them his own” (ulvydas 1982: 4, also 15). Not understanding or ignoring what J. Jablonskis felt at the crossroads of the nation, his heart’s voice, concerns, even genre, stylistics, he looks at this manifest of the language of the nation in the opposite way – coldly, as to “every researcher’s” “views on the chosen subject of research, solving problems and their individual aspects”, which is determined by the years of study – teachers and literature (ulvydas 1982: 3). It is true that K. ulvydas distinguishes between “general views on language”, “special goals and tasks of his life and work” and “the very main direction of his work”, but this attempt at a hierarchy of views and goals and the direction – although unspoken (in the language of the people!) – is emphasized – it is immediately left indefinite – abstract: “So we are mainly interested here in J. Jablonski’s views on language as the greatest achievement in the history of mankind” (ulvydas 1982: 3). But it is incorrect to describe J. Jablonskis as “every researcher” – he was the first, the path-blazer, his ambition, determination, goal – not from his studies, but from Jon Basanavičius’s Aušra and from the Kudirka Bell he awakened. First of all, he was not a promoter of a common language, but of the vitality of the language of his native nation, its distinctiveness, its Lithuanianness, its purity. from this came scientific foundations and corners, walls. and researcher, and creator. your own ke- J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis and the language of the people in 31 litai had many obstacles – some were just incomprehensible or courageous, and there were fewer non-conformists – the scholarly K. Būga would support them manėliai, kiti – net atžagarūs neigėjai, pikti niekintojai. sumanių pagalbistrongly and argumentatively, sometimes even on request, but most of them were far from equal in knowledge and perseverance, only J. Balčikonis – almost. In 1915, J. Jablonski presented to the enlightenment and to the school in 1916 the guidelines he had already published in his grammar of 1901 in a beautiful, powerful and simple way. In Her Discourse, as soon as he has said what grammar is, he immediately begins to explain the basis of the language of y p a t i n g a l i et u v i ų: The laws and characteristics of language are derived by science from human language: "... Where <...> there are a number of writers who have understood the spirit of the language of men <...>, these writings can be used for the purpose of grammar. <...>. The author of a Lithuanian language textbook should be treated differently. They must base all their knowledge on the laws of the language of men, for our writers themselves have often based the language of their writings [...] on the laws of foreign languages. <...>. <...>. And when using human language for the purpose of grammar, one must be careful: <...>. <...>: from foreign languages not only many foreign words have invaded our language, but also a number of phenomena that pollute the language of our people. <...>. This garbage must be able to be separated from the grain, <...> (JablRR i 1957: 59-60). This fundamental idea of his whole life’s work and creation – the greatest guideline – J. Jablonskis has briefly set out even earlier – in 1890 in K. Ob. In order to establish a language teaching and thus teach others to speak and write, one must, of course, understand well the rules of the language imposed on others simply from people and from those writings, in which industrious men collected a lot of our songs, riddles, proverbs, proverbs and tales. From other works, we can only draw the basis for grammar if their authors themselves have based their works on the language of men (JablR iv 1935: 3). In 1915, J. Jablonskis does not start from the language of people, but from man and nation: Language is a reflection of human life. In the language, the people express who they are, what they are worth. In the language of a nation is set out its whole nature – history, characteristics of manner, soul, spirit (JablR iv 1935: 190). Skipping 12 paragraphs, we get two references to the normative matter: The mixture of neither this nor that, and this and that in speech – disorder, weakness, darkness in the head. Disorder, (JablR iv 1935: 191). 32 Language Culture | 86 As in 1890 and 1901 – so also in 1915 he repeats at the end of his credo: To learn one’s language and to follow – with one’s feather – in people, one must first be able to understand people’s songs, tales, proverbs and to admire their language rich in treasures. weakness, darkness in the head – a mixture of neither this nor that, and this and that in speech For this purpose, it is necessary to read often and the works of great writers, writers, artists, those of their works, in which the real, great features of human language are emerged (JablR iv 1935: 191). The authorship of J. Jablonski’s full text in the place of Language Things is clearly evidenced by the triple identity of thoughts and the partial identity of the text, as well as the peculiar spirit (our nation, the spirit of the nation, the language of the nation, the songs of the nation, the children of the nation and the mother of the nation) and the peculiar lexicon (the nature and wisdom of language, the soul of language, the characteristics of i s k i l u s i o s), phraseology (heart-warming, going into people), the folk lexical dichotomies characteristic of his style (treasures, jewels, tools, songs), and finally the moody, powerful repetitions of an experienced dictionary: The mixture of neither this nor that, and this and that in language – a disorder <...> in the head. Disorder <...> in the mind – a mixture <...> in speech. Here is how two prominent linguists (and with them a whole bunch of humanists) fell into the trap of stereotypes. His name is worn out worn out – Jablonski – language corrector / promoter / father. And he did not see the work guidelines. In 1990, a. Piročkinas published the important Prakalba of mikalojus Daukša, long-famed by Varpas and most recently by Jurgis Lebedis, in a separate publication (mikalojus Daukša, Postilės prakalbos, vilnius: mintis) with his accompanying article (38–46). There was no precedent for raising J. Jablonski’s credo… K. ulvydas, having taken the text from the reading book divided into 12 points, added the longest – sometimes banal, gray, sometimes ugly – comments – “his own remarks and some such explanations” (ulvydas 1982: 4) – “in fact”, “described in these words” (4), “raised here” (10), “described in this way”, “in fact”, “confirms that thought” (11), “confirms it”, “of course, no one doubts it today” (13), “here again (only in other words) emphasized”, “here the meaning is raised” (14), “thinking emphasizes the meaning” (15). In point ii, “the accurately and beautifully described relationship between language and nation (4) leads the commentator to the expression of Lithuanians’ respect for their home – namus, even with their adverbs (the subject of K. Ulvydo study!) ‘power of action’ (9), but not to the house of language – the nation and not to the house of the nation – the state... This credo of J. Jablonskis, numbered by points, changed title – Jono Jablonskio mintys apie kalbą (John Jablonski’s Thoughts on Language) was J. Klimavičius. 33 Jablonski family (229). Its most universal, accessible dissemination is necessary, showing the historical and giving the current significance. it is time to say clearly that J. Jablonski was not just a man of his time – allegedly limited, constrained by that time, but on the contrary – a man of the m o d e r n u s nation, who understood very well the issue of liberation and who hit the right foot of the march of his mid-century – then rather Eastern – Europe, according to Milan Kundera, the homeland of small nations. That march of nations was wide-ranging and comprehensive. National liberation is not only the reconquest of lost freedom, but also new creative horizons of nationalism, modernization of the nation’s creative program. published in the book Konstancijos ir Jono (Constantine and John) by J. Jablonskis (he first!) – programmatically – in Vilnius žinios in 1908 mikalojus Konstantinas čiurlionis wrote: „Lithuanian folk art <...> must be the foundation of our art, from it must arise a kind of Lithuanian style, it is our pride, because the beauty that it has is pure, distinctive and exclusively Lithuanian“ (čiurlionis 1960: 279–280). A year later, in Viltis, he writes about music, which is man’s “most important and primordial language” (čiurlionis 1960: 295), still with heartache, but also with hope: “there is no such thing as music yet, and what is is as if an enchanted wealth, and to use it, one must know the magic word, one must be called. That wealth lies in our songs, <...>“ (Čiurlionis 1960: 286), only in Česlovo Sasnausko’s Kur bėga Šešupė and Jau slaviai sukilo the magic word was found: „is rising into the field that truly Lithuanian string – such a strange, old, elusive chord, which dominates in our songs, made centuries ago“ (Čiurlionis 1960: 287). But just like J. Jablonski’s – language, so also M. K. Čiurlionis, Č. Sasnauskas – music path was bound by the most stupid obstacles: “our musical evenings not only with Lithuanian music, but with music in general have nothing in common. But even worse, in Lithuanian villages so-called new songs are beginning to be distributed, whose words are very “poetic”, but the melody is so despicable and international that it is disgusting to listen to. <...>, by only new, and old songs go to the corner and forgotten disappear, <...>. and so it happens in the days of our nation’s modernizmo modelis, <...> atgręžtas į lietuvių tautosaką“ (vytautas Kubiresurrection!” (čiurlionis 1960: 288). In the 1910 book by Sofija Čiurlionienė-Kymantaitė, Lithuania, where “the common European lius – llEnc 2001: 340), inserted in K. Čiurlionis’ musicological article About Music, there is also talk of the rentine: “The music of each nation, while developing and growing, does not cease to have its distinctive characteristics, because it is further enriched by composers who, being sons of their Homeland, receive from their parents, along with their blood, the love of their songs and often, without feeling it themselves, love them. 40 Language Culture | 86 Language as a means of bringing together a collective of speakers from different ethnicities (de Sossur 1977: 260), but unilaterally and by mistakes – first of all the ethnicity or nation is naturally inherent in the language, and finally – the people (ethnic or so expression and means of communication – are different – there are two (Irish people), but the loss of the politinės) sutelkimas ir įvalstybinimas. Tik labai retais atvejais kalba – etnoformer is the danger of losing the nationality, the first stage or the last – the end. very rare cases – Swiss or Belgian political nations consisting of multilingual ethnic groups, and the second – the incoherent. the Spanish (Castilian) ethnicity within the Spanish political nation is experiencing strong autonomy claims from the Catalans (peacefully) and Basques (and terrorists). The political nation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania lost its state when it became Polish-speaking (only the people remained almost Lithuanian-speaking). The regional patriotism of the Žemaičių sub-group is mostly linguistic, ethnic, cultural, but sometimes exploited by party leaders... lKEnc 1999 and 2008 neither language nor language functions, even Lithuanian language is not... There is a very serious article by Adela Valeckienė common language – one paragraph definition and 3.5 p. history of common Lithuanian language. The theory (or theories) of common languages, the European or at least neighboring situation, the basis and interaction with dialects have not been taken. vlE iii 2003 Vytautas Ambrazos brief article on common language – Greek coine, the foundations of German and Russian common languages, but to completeness and relevance for us – far, our uniqueness is not highlighted. a. Piročkin pointed to the dialectal basis of the common language of the Serbs and Slovaks, the book (16th century!) of the Czech common language (Piročkin 2010: 10), but left aside the very peculiar – bilingual – of the nearby Russians: “The common language of the Russians was formed by gradually russifying and adapting to the Russian dialects the old church Slavic language based on the Macedonian Bulgarian dialects” (v. ambrazas – vlE iii 2003). It should be added that the common Russian language (литературный язык) of the pre-national era was only literary, and the common language of the nation grew on the basis of the spoken language – the folk language (KPP 2003: 307). When the first academic dictionary of the common Russian language was published, the vocabulary of the simple people (простонародье) was strictly separated from the vocabulary of the nobility (which was also French-speaking at that time). and now the common Russian language, although not a bajor language, is regarded as the opposite of the folk language: territorial and social dialects and prastalok – uncodified super-dialectal (of various social strata) speech of limited topics (KPP 2003: 303–304). Boris Larin’s attitude to poor speech, expressed in 1928, is somewhat milder – “low” bend rin (общий) speech (KPP 2003: 517). pushing from the edge to the inside – to the common J. Klimavičius. The statement that the common language is constantly enriched and updated from the folk language and that the interaction with it is the national distinctiveness of the common Russian language (KPP 2003: 304), nevaržomu, priešingu apdorotam – aukštajam, knyginiam (KPP 2003: 518). is quite close (perhaps even somewhat assimilated by us), only ours is not a secondary interaction, but an inherent basis. However, upgrading has long been more of a declaration (and Russian!..), on the contrary, both sides, although unequally, and significantly gain – in that they are only similar, otherwise separated! F. de Saussure spoke about the sharp collision of common language and dialects – as the product of culture’s separation from the sphere of nature (de Saussure 1977: 60). F. de Saussure's Introduction to the Course The object of the glossary, after performing the language-speech dichotomy, establishing the place of language in speech, summarizes the main features of language in 4 short points (de Sossur 1977: 52-53). Neither here nor in further developing his theory, he gives any concise definition of language. vlE iX 2006 begins, although without mentioning, with F. de Saussure (mention at the end, but no reference to literature). The following are the functions of language according to Karl Bühler and Roman Jakobson. There is no national function here, although Mr. Karaliūnas raised it already in 1997. The great Danish linguist and glossematician Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965) in the book Language. The introduction (Danish 1963; French translation 1966, Lithuanian 1995), which also speaks not of the language of the nation or the nation of the language, but only of the linguistic community, the linguistic communities (Hjelmslev 1995: 52, 75), of course cannot reach the national function. And the function for him is “the relationships of objects revealed by scientific description” (Hjelmslev 1995: 8), the function of the elements is what classical linguistics calls phonetic laws (Hjelmslev 1995: 103), and thus language he defines succinctly as “a structure in which all the elements of each category are connected by mutual commutation relations” and further specifies: “in order for a structure whose content and expression plans are connected by a two-way presuppositional relationship to be called language, it is necessary that no pair of units of these two plans is connected by this relationship”. (Helmslev 1995: 119, 122). This astonishingly one-sided definition is quite quickly described by Hjelmslev himself as dimensional – “necessary for the creation of a general theory of s t r u k t ū r o s (referred to by me as J. K.) of language” (Hjelmslev 1995: 123). This is already aside from the ambition of this article, but the insightful author (l. H.) turns again unexpectedly from this statement to the topic of the article: “the structure is based on its own laws and changes not because of the The organizers of 42 KalBOs KulTūRa | 86 breaks heard: “the structure of language tends to move only in certain directions to another type. kryptimis“ (Hjelmslev 1995: 154). Kitaip judėdama (ar judinama!) ji sietendencies characteristic of the language community, but because of the changing tendencies of the system itself” (Hjelmslev 1995: 154). More importantly, the common language of all this – a lot of multi-faceted clarity. Another important insight from F. de Saussure is to be added: in linguistics, the object does not determine the point of view, but it is the point of view that creates the object (de Saussure 1977: 46). And from those sciences, whose subject matter is self-evident, there is a warning – if the subject is completely clear, then it is poorly investigated. Language is not a completely clear thing, because there is neither a comprehensive investigation nor a single key. one side – language only as a means – has become clearly wrong and stubbornly obtrusive. Already Tertullian knew: “Different peoples call the same person differently. one soul – different words, one spirit – different sounds. Every nation has its own language, <...>" (Tertullian 1988: 194). The paths of the languages of nations are diverse – there are similar, many different. and even l. Hjelmslev turns around and declares in surprise: “everything – from the character of a nation to personality traits – belongs to the field of linguistics” (Hjelmslev 1995: 160). and our old European Algirdas Julius Greimas can teach some of those who are concerned about European identity: “the homeland is language, it is culture” (Greimas 1991: 93). This is not finished, but it must be finished. and the one with whom it was started – Jon Jablonski. The continuation of his path is, almost never broken, sometimes obstructed, denied. a new way was devised – to silence J. Jablonski. Here is an eloquent parallel – on the occasion of the honourable anniversary, the weekly Veidas, aimed at the wider public, published a rather extensive article (with 6 photos), although not by a linguist (which is also symptomatic), which ends as follows: „J. Jablonski’s lessons and example could help us today, because globalization poses many new threats to the Lithuanian language” (Rudokas 2010: 55). For the magazine of religion, culture and social life Naujasis židinys–Aidai, the name of J. Jablonskis – terra incognita, or the unreachable Rubicon, or a trap, or aut nihil?.. alternative linguistics – Loreta Vaicekauskienė, mostly – non-linguists (Algirdas Patackas, Guoda Azguridienė, Tomas Daugirdas, Nerijus Šepetis)’s wanderings on the plough and the dog trails, leipcige ir daug – ir istorinėje kalbotyroje, dialektologijoje, ir norminimo, with angry teasing and absurd jokes. Lietuvos jablonskiada them nothing, because nothing for them J. Jablonskis. Therefore, we will save ourselves with the unmentioned jablonskian, who worked his greatest works in America, although he defended his doctorate in spelling bars – still in his homeland – antanas salius (1902–1972). J. Klimavičius. 43 In 1937, in the New Romuva, Jonas Jablonskis begins his article Language and Society precisely in Jablonskian: “The concept of language is defined very differently, regardless of the perspective from which we look at it. Many say: language is a means of expressing thoughts, concepts and desires. Thule also emphasizes: only a means, nothing more. thus, paradoxically, the language we could put tines languages, of course, should replace t or p ta ut in is jargon <...>“ (salys 1979: 3). But “it is not its very essence” – “K a l b at i v i en a n e vienon grutėn kad ir su zenitine patranka. <...> Taip į dalyką žiūrint, taug y vena, is not an organism, but only its function” – “in all its forms, it is a s t a t i o n” (salys 1979: 3). Languages differ not so much in phonetics as in “their profound essence, linked to the soul of the nation”, “language is the basic law of the concept of the nation”, “k al bo s y ra t au ti š ko s <...> v is u s avo vi du ji ni u m ą s to mu o j u t u r i ni u” (salys 1979: 4). A year later, the school opened a full-time school. Native language and thinking. 1935 in English. School and sense of language begins with J. Jablonski: “In language the nation expresses what it is, what it is worth” and continues: “language makes the nation” (salys 1979: 13). Like J. Jablonskis, he sees two different worlds: “People of large nations, growing up in their own, purely national environment, and in their language, receive significantly less foreign influences than small nations that have flourished among the great ones. The common languages of those peoples have long been established, all use is more usual, the norm is firm and every speaker or writer easily distinguishes his own from foreign, regular from unusual” (salys 1979: 13). It also happened to P. skardžius to say this (about J. Jablonskis): “And since our mother tongue is not only a simple everyday means of communication, but also an expression of our national consciousness and culture, he <...> took up the work of our common written language culture, <...>” (skardžius 1940: 303–304). Never this topic will be all, but this time quite. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Jan Jablonski should be seen (and shown to the public) as a coherent integral personality and a modern man of his time – the spring of nations, his place – the homeland of small nations in Eastern Europe, his nation, his extensive activities should not be classified flatly, but rather hierarchized and highlighted his life paths, guidelines of activity. The most important thing in J. Jablonski’s path is the foundation, i.e. the vitality of the language and the nation, the nation’s education, independence, then – the language 44 KalBOs KulTūRa | 86 guidelines, i.e. the guideline of the common language – the national foundation (the language of people), based on the principle of vocabulary and syntax purity, implemented by numerous successful (about 600 words) new creations and a syntax description of the most authentic data. The grammar outline has passed the test of the century. The assessments of some specific subjects – grammar and writing – without the necessary detailed study, too much relied on a strict continuous systematic, as shown by current sources (lKŽ and others), not evidenced by language data. long, constant, persistent practice of extensive corrections (Language matters, etc.) mostly correct, sometimes self-corrected, rarely unreasonable, but not always abandoned. It could and should have been more fruitful, especially in the decades of free press, most of all in the university and high school decades of independence, but it is often, especially by newspapers, even by some writers, met with disregard, even with angry hostility, even now, by the way. and its unfounded occurrences, and its blind approvals of them, and its unfounded rejections require the most detailed specific investigations, the most reasoned conclusions. The repetition of commonplace things repulses both J. Jablonski and the speech. Not every step of his foot should be followed blindly – first of all the guidelines must be watched. The path of the jablonskiana, which began while he was alive, is marked by his writings (articles) in volumes 5 and 2 with grammars, and in volume 2 by a monograph, studies, numerous articles, but also by a lot of, unfortunately, mostly intrusive, empty, even nihilistic polemics. J. Jablonski is better studied, described than understood and properly accepted. The greatest misunderstanding is also a theoretical misunderstanding! – attempting to drag our unique path of nation and language on the shoe of the great Western languages. ŠalTiNiai DŽ1 1954 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. ats. red. J. Kruopas, vilnius: valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. DŽ2 1972 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. ats. red. J. Kruopas, vilnius: Mintis. DŽ3 1993 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. vyr. red. st. Keinys, vilnius: mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. DŽ4 2000 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. vyr. red. s. Keinys, vilnius: mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. LKV 1950 – Lietuvių kalbos vadovas. sudarė Pr. skardžius, st. Barzdukas, J. m. laurinaitis. lietuvių tremtinių bendruomenė. – Antroji dalis [žodynas]. lKŽ i1 1941 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1. i leid. Red. J. Balčikonis, vilnius. lKŽ i2 1968 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1. ii leid. ats. red. J. Kruopas, vilnius: Mintis. J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis ir tautos kalba 45 lKŽ ii2 1969 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 2. ii leid. ats. red. J. Kruopas, vilnius: Mintis. lKŽ iv 1957 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 4. ats. red. K. ulvydas, vilnius: valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. lKŽ v 1959 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 5. ats. red. K. ulvydas, vilnius: valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. lKŽ iX 1973 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 9. vyr. red. J. Kruopas, vilnius: mintis. lKŽ X 1976 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 10. vyr. red. J. Kruopas, vilnius: mokslas. lKŽ Xii 1981 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 12. vyr. red. K. ulvydas, vilnius: Mokslas. lKŽ Xiii 1984 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 13. vyr. red. K. ulvydas, vilnius: Mokslas. TŽŽ 1936 – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. sudarė K. Boruta, Pr. čepėnas, a. sirutytė-čepėnienė, Kaunas: sakalas. liTERaTūRa a i s t i s J. 1991: Milfordo gatvės elegijos, vilnius: lietuvos rašytojų sąjunga. Ambrazas s. 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida, vilnius: mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Ambrazas s. 2000: Daiktavardžių darybos raida 2, vilnius: mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Balčikonis J. 1919–1920: Jablonskis ir mūsų šių dienų kalba. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1982, vilnius: mokslas, 155–158. Balčikonis J. 1930: Jablonskio nuopelnai. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1982, vilnius: Mokslas, 166–168. Balčikonis J. 1931: Kuo mums brangus Jablonskis. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1982, vilnius: mokslas, 169–172. Balčikonis J. 1932a: Prakalba. – Jablonskio raštai 1, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerija, vii–X. Balčikonis J. 1932b: Trumpas gyvenimo aprašymas. – Jablonskio raštai 1, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerija, Xi–XXviii. Basanavičius J. 1970: Rinktiniai raštai, vilnius: vaga. Būga K. 1913: Kalbų mokslas bei mūsų senovė. – Rinktiniai raštai 1, 1958, vilnius: valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 401–418. Būga K. 1922: Kalba ir senovė. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, 1959, vilnius: valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 7–328. čiurlionis m. K. 1960: Apie muziką ir dailę, vilnius: valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla. Donskis l. 1993: maironis lietuvių istoriografijos ir istoriosofijos paradigmų kontekste. – Kultūros barai 1, 68–71. 46 Language Culture | 86 Girdenis A., Piročkinas a. 1977; 1978: Jonas Jablonskis – dialectogas. – Kalbotyra 28(1), 29–39; 29(1), 19–28. Greimas a. J. 1991: From near and far, vilnius: vaga. Hjelmslev 1995: Kalba. Introduction, Vilnius: White Bows. Jabll 1985: Jono Jablonskio laiškai, Vilnius: mokslas. 1932. pp. 1. "Jablonskio raštai 1". Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Ministry of Education. 1934: Jablonski's Writings 3. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Ministry of Education. 1935. pp. 4. "Jablonski's Writings". Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Ministry of Education. JablRR i 1957: Jablonskis J. Selected writings, Vilnius: State publishing house of political and scientific literature. J. P. 1930: Let's honor the great linguist with work! – Kalba i 2, 64–65. 1930: A characteristic feature of the study of the Jablonski language. – Kalba i 2, 63–64. 1940: Returning to Jablonski. – Native Language 2, 17–19. Jonikas P. 1979: the main features of the life and scientific activity of antanas salius. – salys a. Writings 1, Common Language, Rome, xiii–xx. 1962, pp. 5. Karaliūnas s. 1997: Language and Society (Psychosociological and Communicative Features of Language Use), Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Kavolis v. 1994: Man in History, Vilnius: Vaga. 1975: All My Life. – Star 3. 1983: Around the World in a Day. – Thought and Sign, vilnius: mokslas, 9–50. 2008. "Friendly, Friendly, Friendly". – Language Culture 81, lKG i 1965: 133–140. Lithuanian Grammar 1, vilnius: mintis. lKEnc 1999: Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. lKEnc 2008: Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. llEnc 2001: Encyclopedia of Lithuanian Literature, Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. lTE iv 1978: Lithuanian Soviet Encyclopedia 4, vilnius: mokslas. Maironis 1987: Raštai 1, vilnius: vaga. Maironis 1988: Raštai 2, Poemos, vilnius: vaga. Maironis 1992: Raštai 3, kn. 2, vilnius: vaga. muzEnc i 2000: Music Encyclopedia 1, vilnius: Lithuanian Academy of Music, mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. J. Klimavičius. 47 Palionis J. 1957: J. Jablonskis and his Lithuanian language textbooks. – Jablonskis J. Selected Writings 1, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishing House, 7–56. Palionis J. 1959: J. Jablonski's language corrections. – Jablonskis J. Selected Writings 2, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature 5–34. Publishers, Palionis J. 2001: Jonas Jablonskis and the present common language. – Language Culture 74, 3–8. Piročkinas A. 1970: Basics and Principles of J. Jablonski's Language Normalization. – Journal of the Lithuanian Language Section 5(18), 5–15. Piročkinas a. 1978: J. Jablonskis – the promoter of common language, vilnius: Science. Piročkinas A. 2000: Jonas Jablonskis – the creator of new words. – The Word of God 10:2-6; 11:14-16; 12:7-12. Piročkinas a. 2010: Some reflections on the linguistic activity of Jonas Jablonskis. – Science Lithuania 17 1, 10–11. 2010–2011: A thorny path led the language to the Lithuanian school. – Mokslo Lietuva 2010 22, 6–7; 2011 1, 10–11; 2, 10–11. 2011–2012: It is never too late to talk about Jonas Jablonskis. – Mokslo Lietuva 2011 22 4; 2012 1, 4; 31, 4. Rudokas J. 2010: The father of the Lithuanian written language. – Veidas 52, 54–55. sabaliauskas a. 1979: The history of Lithuanian language research until 1940, vilnius: Science. salys a. 1979: Writings 1. 2001. 1999. 2000. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011. 2012. 2013. 2014. 2015. 2016. 2017. 2018. samulionis a. 1986: Balys Sruoga, Vilnius: vaga. sinŽ 1980: Lyberis A. Thesaurus of Synonyms, Vilnius: mokslas. skardžius P. 1926: General observations. – Language minors. – Selected papers 3, 1998, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing, 25–31. 1927: The 1927 Autumn War. Language minors. – Selected papers 3, 1998, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing, 46–49. tai 5, 1999, vilnius: institute of skardžius P. 1928: Del prof. J. Jablonskio „neklaidingumo“. – Rinktiniai rašscience and encyclopedia publishing, 578–579. P. 1931: J. Jablonskis. – Selected papers 4, 1998, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing, 323–331. skardžius P. 1937: J. Jablonskis and the present Lithuanian common language. – Selected Writings 2, 1997, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing, skardžius P. 1940: Jonas Jablonskis. – Selected 245–267. Writings 2, 1997, vilnius: skardžius P. 1943: Lithuanian Language Wordmaking, mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 301–306. Vilnius. 48 KalBOs KulTūRa | 86 skardžius P. 1950: J. Jablonskis lingvistas. – Selected papers 2, 1997, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing, 368–380. 1973: J. Jablonski's corrections. – Selected papers 2, 1997, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing, 546–562. 1988: The Testimony of the Soul. – Catholic calendar guide, Kaunas–vilnius: Lithuanian Bishops’ Conference publication, 190–194. TlE ii 1986: Soviet Encyclopedia of Lithuania 2, Vilnius: the chief editor of encyclopedias. ulvydas K. 1961: J. Jablonskis – educator of Lithuanian literary language. – Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 4, 5–18. ulvydas K. 1982: On J. Jablonski's Attitudes to Language. – Language Culture 42, vaicekauskienė L. 2013. – 3–16. Native Language 8, 24–28. vidžiūnas a. 2000: Jonas Jablonskis – a man of society. – Mother tongue vlE iii 2003: Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia 3, 12, 1–3. vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing. vlE viii 2005: Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia 8, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing. vlE iX 2006: Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia 9, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing. Zinkevičius Z. 1978: Lithuanian language dialectology, vilnius: mokslas. Zinkevičius Z. 1992: History of Lithuanian Language 5. The Rise of Common Language, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopedias Publishers. Zinkevičius Z. 2013: Lithuania. The Greatness and Decline of the Past, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopedia Publishing Center. KPP 2003: Culture of Russian speech. Encyclopedia Dictionary-Reference, Моска: Наука. Соссюр де Ф. 1977: Труды по языкознанию, Моска: Прогресс. 1977: Ferdinand de Saussure. – Saussure de F. Works по языкознанию, Моска: Прогресс, 650–671. Received 04/11/2013 Adopted on 20 December 2013 J. Klimavičius. Jonas Jablonskis and the language of the people 49 JONas JaBlONsKis aND THE laNGuaGE OF THE NaTiON Summary Jonas Jablonskis should first be seen as a solid integral personality and a modern man of his time, known as the spring of Nations, his place, Eastern Europe, known as the homeland of the small nations, and his nation. instead of being classified flatwise, his abundant activities should be organised in a hierarchical order by highlighting the landmarks of his life and the milestones of his activities. The road of Jablonskis primarily relied on the very foundations, i.e. the existence of the language and the nation, national education, independence, followed by the landmarks of language, i.e. the standard language as the national foundation (people’s language), a well-founded principle of dictionary and syntax purity implemented by the fruitful formation of new words and the description of syntax based on pure authentic data. an outline of grammar withstood the trials of the century. The evaluations of certain specific aspects – grammar and word-formation – are lacking a thorough study; a simple and strict systemization which is not testified by language data, as contemporary sources show (Dictionary of Lithuanian, etc.), was unduly relied upon. a long, continuous and persistent practice of numerous corrections (Gimtoji kalba – Language Matters, etc.) is to the most part correct; self-corrections are occasional; in some cases, they are ill-founded but not always refused. Though it could and should have been more fruitful, in particular in the free press, mostly during the decades of independence of universities and gymnasiums, it was often approached without due attention, even with bitter hostility, in particular by the press and even by certain writers, which, by the way, is still apparent today. Occasional invalidities and their blind acceptance as well as unreasonable rejections require the most thorough targeted studies and the most valid conclusions. Blunt repetitions of long-established matters push away from lowed – landmarks should first be observed. The road of the jablonskiana both Jablonskis and the language. Not every step he had taken should be blindly folwhich had begun during his lifetime was marked by 5 volumes of his writings (articles), 2 volumes of grammars as well as a 2-volume monograph, studies, numerous articles and rather rich, though mostly insistent, empty, even nihilistic, polemic. Jablonskis has been better studied and described than fully understood and duly acknowledged. The greatest theoretical misunderstanding is the attempt to address our peculiar road of the nation and the language according the pattern of the great Western languages. KEYWORDS: Jablonskis, jablonskiana, language, nation, language of the nation, national function of the language. JONas Klimavičius Erfurto g. 56-14, lT-10308 vilnius