Antanas Salys ir žodynas

KALBA ALDONAS PUPKIS Institute of the Lithuanian Language ANTANAS SALYS AND THE DICTIONARY1 ON THE 110TH ANNIVERSARY OF HIS BIRTH KEYWORDS: lexicon, lexicography, standardization, neologisms. One of the most prominent Lithuanian linguists of the twentieth century, Antanas Salys (born July 21, 1902, in Reketė, now in Kretinga District – died July 31, 1972, in Philadelphia, USA), made significant contributions to many fields of Lithuanian linguistics. He is remembered first and foremost as one of the most productive researchers of synchronic and diachronic Lithuanian dialectology, who raised the entire discipline of dialectology to a qualitatively new level. In the prewar years, Salys was especially productive in the field of Lithuanian onomastics: he organized the collection of place names from spoken language, studied the origins of place names, personal names, and other proper names, established their standard forms, contributed substantially to the standardization of the names of settlements and surnames in the Vilnius region, and, together with others, compiled dictionaries in this field and various lists of proper names. 1 This article was prepared as part of the project “Juozas Balčikonis the Lexicographer” (No. LTI-5-14), funded by the Lithuanian Research Council. A. PUPKIS. Antanas Salys ir žodynas 9 Survey and encyclopedic articles devoted to Antanas Salys emphasize his contributions to other areas of linguistic scholarship and practice as well: lexicology and lexicography, terminology, phonetics and pronunciation, general linguistics, language culture, and so forth. He is described as a scholar with exceptionally broad interests and great ambition, who had mastered the research methods of the linguistics of his time and skillfully connected studies of contemporary language with a historical perspective in his work. This linguist’s ability to support his claims with historical language data makes many of his works especially appealing to readers. Moreover, readers are also drawn to the highly distinctive style of Salys’s writing, which sets him apart from almost all linguists of his time as a refined stylist. Antanas Salys can be discussed as a lexicographer from several perspectives: on the one hand, from the standpoint of lexicology—as a historian of individual words (a researcher of their origins), an interpreter and standardizer of word meanings, a researcher of the possibilities and prospects for word formation, and a master of coining new words. On the other hand, Salys’s lexicographical work should not be overlooked: as a practitioner, he was one of the many compilers and editors of dictionaries and glossaries; as a theoretician, one of the creators of the theoretical foundations of the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, as well as a historian of general and Lithuanian lexicography. Antanas Salys’s relationship with the dictionary—with lexicology and lexicography—varied at different stages of the linguist’s life. Apparently, owing to the circumstances and the differing linguistic needs of society, he worked sometimes in the field of dictionary preparation, sometimes in the arenas of explaining and standardizing words. His first encounter was with Kazimieras Būga’s lexicographical work. As a gifted student who had only just begun his higher studies at the University of Lithuania, Salys was invited to assist Būga with the preparation of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language that Būga had begun, working as secretary of the Dictionary editorial office. After Būga’s death, he was assigned to examine and describe the linguist’s archive. This led to the article “Prof. K. Būga’s Written Legacy,” which was published in the scholarly collection Tauta ir žodis (vol. III, 1925, pp. 564–577; see Salys 1985: 136–154). This publication became an important source not only for Būga’s scholarly biography, but also for the history of the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Later, Salys’s engagement with lexicography was interrupted for several years while he pursued studies at the University of Lithuania and abroad. Upon returning from his studies in Germany, he had to devote himself to teaching; besides, vast, untouched fields of practical language work awaited him. He began with work on the orthography commission, then became involved in organized efforts to foster standard-language culture; without Salys’s articles, shorter pieces, and various reports, it would be hard to imagine the contents of the journal Native Language at the time, or the activities of the Lithuanian Language Society. He was a member of the State 10 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 an adviser on language to the council, a member and consultant of various language commissions, and a contributor to many periodicals. From the latter area, one can single out the “Language Column,” published in the daily Lietuvos aidas in 1938. From January 24 to November 12 of that year (except for July–September and half of October), the newspaper published, almost every day, longer or shorter articles by Salys on topical questions of language usage (see Salys 1979: 290–366). A considerable number of them also examined various matters of vocabulary. In these articles, as well as in the “Question Basket” published in Gimtoji kalba (see Salys 1979: 209–289), and in other writings published in periodicals, Salys’s key principles for standardizing and cultivating the language, as well as the theoretical foundations and principles of this work, came into view. Here he emerged as a strong advocate of Lithuanianizing the Lithuanian vocabulary and of introducing the principles of living speech throughout the practice of language. One of the methodological principles of his work was a constant attention to the origins of words, a firm link between word structure (formation) and semantics, and also exceptionally rigorous argumentation for the facts and recommendations under consideration. In this respect, Lithuanian language practice took a major step forward compared with the superficial correction of vocabulary in the press and in publishing houses that was popular at the time. It should also be noted that Antanas Salys, like the other linguists of the Gimtoji kalba school, offered recommendations not as binding rules but as advice; thus, the approach was less one of correcting language practice than of cultivating it. It should not be forgotten that Antanas Salys was also editor of Kalbos patarėjas (1939), an important language-practice publication of the time (together with Pranas Skardžius; Salys “edited the main part” of pages 28–46 of the booklet; see Salys 1979: 371). Matters of vocabulary were not foreign to him after his departure to the West, either: he also published a considerable number of valuable works in the Lithuanian-American press. Among these, an article preserved in manuscript, “Neologisms of Contemporary Lithuanian” (in English), is important for understanding the linguist’s views; it was published in volume I of his Raštai (1979: 165–169). Drawing on the claims in this article, as well as his other corrections and recommendations in the press, an attempt has already been made to assess Antanas Salys’s work in this field to some extent (Pupkis 2010: 201–208), but, in general, Salys’s legacy in the history of language practice has been little studied and awaits more comprehensive and systematic research. It is also regrettable that this legacy is almost entirely absent from present-day discourse on language practice. Antanas Salys also left a distinctive mark on the history of Lithuanian lexicography. He first encountered this field while completing his studies in Germany. Antanas Salys’s fellow student Pranas Skardžius, hoping to become the director and editor of the renewed work on the major Lietuvių kalbos žodynas A. PUPKIS. Antanas Salys ir žodynas 11 (see Pupkis 2012:106), had divided up the work with Salys and planned that Salys might undertake the preparation of a small2 dictionary, as well as serve as one of the editors of the major dictionary. When the Ministry of Education appointed Juozas Balčikonis as editor, these plans fell through, but soon both men had to contribute to the discussion of theoretical questions concerning the major dictionary then being prepared. Various sources indicate that, at the beginning of the Dictionary editorial office’s work (around 1932–1933), the editor Juozas Balčikonis and the young Vytautas Magnus University lecturers Pranas Skardžius and Antanas Salys discussed theoretical and practical questions concerning the dictionary. There is no precise information about what exactly was discussed or decided there—the minutes were apparently not kept, and we have few recollections from contemporaries. Scattered facts indicate that they “contributed to the preparation of the dictionary template” (Napalys Grigas. – Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 194), discussed the structure of the dictionary, the inclusion of older loanwords (Skardžius 1997: 601), and the presentation of verbs by nesting and in alphabetical order (Aleksandras Žirgulys. – Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 209–210). He became connected with the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas again when the Institute of Lithuanian Studies was established in Kaunas in 1939 and the Dictionary editorial office came under its authority. Antanas Salys, first as head of the Institute’s language department and, from December 3, 1941, as the Institute’s director, became the direct superior of the dictionary’s editor, Juozas Balčikonis. At first, the two linguists’ relations were normal, but later they turned confrontational and became wholly antagonistic. Here it is necessary to recall Balčikonis’s longstanding disagreements with Pranas Skardžius over the dictionary (for more, see Pupkis 2012: 108 ff.). Skardžius, perhaps feeling aggrieved at not having been appointed dictionary editor, had repeatedly criticized certain (though unspecified) shortcomings in Balčikonis’s dictionary project in the press since the prewar years, constantly stressing that the dictionary should be published in a standardized (reformed) orthography, of which he himself was one of the authors. These orthographic matters began to be discussed as soon as the Institute of Lithuanian Studies was established. But the discussions dragged on, and disagreements even led to calls for Balčikonis to be dismissed from his editorial position3. Somehow, amid the difficult circumstances of historical upheaval, volume I of the dictionary was published in the old orthography chosen by Balčikonis 2 While Kazimieras Būga was still alive, plans were made to prepare, alongside the major dictionary, a small Lithuanian dictionary intended for practical purposes. For a long time, this practical lexicographical work conceived by linguists was referred to by that name in the press and in various documents. When it was prepared several decades later, it was given the title Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (1954). 3 This was indeed done in the final weeks of the first Soviet occupation, but when the Germans arrived, Balčikonis was reinstated in that position. 12 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 Jablonskis-style spelling. While the second volume was being prepared, the institute’s directors repeatedly announced plans to improve the dictionary’s editing and introduce the new spelling. These plans began to be implemented in the summer of 1942: at the proposal of director Antanas Salys, because the workload was supposedly too great for one chief editor to handle, a Scientific Advisory Commission was formed (its members were Juozas Balčikonis, Antanas Salys, Pranas Skardžius, Janas Otrembskis (Otrębski), and Petras Jonikas). It was to resolve questions concerning the dictionary’s structure and spelling. The commission members divided up the work: Salys, for example, was to review the presentation (transposition) of dialect forms (Lyberis 2009: 268), stress marking and transitive and intransitive verbs (ibid., p. 272), the identification of loanwords and homonyms, the presentation of substantivized adjectives, and so on (Kruopas 1973: 259). 4 As Antanas Lyberis notes, “J. Balčikonis expected truly scholarly assistance from the commission” (Lyberis 2009: 272), but when the question of spelling reform was raised at the second meeting, the editor expressed a dissenting opinion at the third meeting, on October 14, 1942, and no longer attended them. When the new spelling was very quickly considered and adopted by the commission, approved by the Academy of Sciences, and signed by the education adviser (minister) of the time, Balčikonis refused to use it and left the institute.5 It may be thought that these disagreements arose mainly from the long-standing antagonism between Pranas Skardžius and Juozas Balčikonis, and were intensified by both linguists’ stubbornness and ambitions. In the end, all this turned into an almost pointless dispute over whether to write the consonant j in the roots of three familiar words (bjaurus, pjauti, spjauti). Antanas Salys was drawn into the whole commotion as the head of the administration and sided not with Balčikonis but with Skardžius, though he conducted himself relatively fairly within that camp. This friction could not contribute to the smooth preparation of the dictionary. Above all, the editorial staff were set against one another. Ordered by the institute’s directors to revise the spelling of dictionary texts already prepared, they split into two camps: one side supported Skardžius and Salys, while the others did not want to publicly oppose 4 From September 28, 1942, to July 2, 1943, the Scientific Advisory Commission held a total of 44 meetings. At these meetings, the most important principles for compiling the dictionary, established by Balčikonis, were first approved; certain cases from Volume I, already published, and, primarily, the texts of the Volume II then being edited were subsequently considered. Many inaccuracies and other assorted errors were identified, especially matters in the Volume II under editing that needed correction. The editors of Volume II and subsequent volumes later made successful use of these findings. 5 All these vicissitudes between the Scientific Advisory Commission and the dictionary’s editor lasted a long time. All or almost all of the commission’s documents are in the archives, so it is to be hoped that a detailed account of their contents and publication of the documents themselves will help us better understand the atmosphere that prevailed at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language at the time and fill a gap that persists to this day in the history of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. A. PURKIS. Antanas Salys ir žodynas 13 editors. In wartime, this was an excessive luxury. Including the period when, by Salys’s decision, dictionary printing was temporarily suspended, these needless ambitions cost the dictionary’s preparation and publication many precious years. In addition to this internal division within the institute, the conflict also spilled into print. Without mentioning Skardžius’s and Balčikonis’s prewar and wartime debates in periodicals, it should be said that Antanas Salys published only one article on these matters. It was a response to former editorial secretary Napalys Grigas, addressing the criticisms of the Scientific Advisory Commission made in Grigas’s article (Grigas 1944). Salys was apparently offended by Grigas’s accusation that the commission did nothing but correct the dictionary text, and by his assertion that he saw no evidence that the commission had justified its existence. Salys responded quickly, publishing an article entitled “An Explanation of the Affairs of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (Salys 1944). In it, the author attempted to justify the commission’s necessity, arguing that Balčikonis had not been removed from editorial work but had himself failed to perform his duties, and that the commission was therefore now taking care of editing and printing the dictionary. Among other things, he also angrily retorted that the editorial staff had dispersed much like Grigas, who, while receiving a very good salary, had been the first to leave his job and go somewhere with better prospects; and that, as an outsider, he had no business concerning himself with the whereabouts of the dictionary’s card file. To sum up this whole series of disagreements between the two groups of linguists, it should be said that both sides were partly right. The establishment of the Scientific Advisory Commission was a positive development in the work of preparing the dictionary, and its work later helped improve certain aspects of the dictionary’s editing. However, because the commission was intent on reforming spelling during the war and applying the reform to the dictionary, prioritizing this task yielded no positive results: the stubbornness and ambitions of both sides only delayed the dictionary’s preparation and publication. Here, without mentioning other matters, we could quote an excerpt from Balčikonis’s response to Salys concerning the claims in his article: “I was of the opinion that changing spelling during wartime was, generally speaking, nonsense. I said on many occasions that during the war it would almost be better to publish the dictionary even with proofreading errors; such errors could be corrected later, but if the slips of paper with the words were lost, they could not be recovered for any amount of money. But the scholarly institutions took a different path” (Balčikonis 1978: 188). Juozas Balčikonis proved considerably more perceptive in this matter. Apart from the fact that other people supported him in the press and in letters to the editorial office, the dictionary’s card file really was in great danger, and the key figure in this was none other than Antanas Salys. 14 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 In March 1943, after the German occupation authorities closed the Academy of Sciences and the institute’s staff dispersed, the institute’s property—and an important part of it, the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language card file—was put at risk. As the front approached and the possibility of the city being bombed loomed, Director Salys realized that the card file had to be removed from the institute and hidden somewhere (and, if necessary, perhaps even taken abroad). In the autumn of 1943, part of the card file was taken to Salantai, to the home of a priest who was an acquaintance, while another part was later hidden in Kaunas, in St. Anthony’s Church. In 1944, Salys himself withdrew to the West without telling anyone where the card file was hidden. After the Soviet reoccupation of Lithuania and the restoration of the Academy of Sciences, efforts began to locate the dictionary card file. Thanks to the efforts of working groups, part of the hidden card file was found in Salantai in the autumn of 1945, while another part was recovered in Kaunas in early 1948 through the efforts of Antanas Lyberis. In this way, an immense treasure was returned to scholarship—the very treasure Balčikonis had earlier feared might be lost. The participants in the search recounted this entire story in detail in their memoirs; documents concerning the transfer of the card file were published (Kniūkšta 2007), and Antanas Balašaitis presented a summary in his article (Balašaitis 2010). One can conclude from this story that Salys felt a responsibility for this treasure accumulated by society, sought to protect it from loss or destruction, and made great efforts to do so. The director may be excused for not informing anyone in Lithuania of the card file’s location because of the urgency of the situation; we can be glad that nothing happened to it. In any case, all these events have now come together to form one of the most intriguing linguistic detective stories in Lithuanian culture. After leaving Lithuania and later pursuing a successful academic career, Salys did not abandon the concerns of Lithuanian language scholarship and practice. In addition to the works already mentioned, three more areas of his activity in this field deserve attention. One was the comprehensive article “Dictionary” (Salys 1985: 213–244), published in volume XV (1968) of the so-called Boston Lithuanian Encyclopedia—a kind of study of the lexicon of the Lithuanian language and the history of lexicography. Alongside general remarks, it first discusses at length changes in the Lithuanian lexicon during the years of Soviet occupation and critically assesses many neologisms of that period. The section on the history of lexicography introduces the various types of dictionaries and surveys the Lithuanian dictionaries published up to that time. Much space is devoted to the history of the Great Dictionary. It includes important facts about its history, mentioned only by Salys, dating from the appearance of volume I. Among other things, he also writes about the two versions of volume II of the dictionary that were in circulation, and points out their differences. The section on lexicography also discusses the 1954 edition of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, A. PURKIS. Antanas Salys ir žodynas 15 whose origins are said to lie in the prewar Institute of Lithuanian Studies, and the publication of the dictionary as a whole is assessed positively. It should be emphasized that in this study Salys nowhere evaluates Balčikonis’s work, mentioning him only as the dictionary’s editor; the text as a whole, however, clearly expresses anti-Soviet views, showing the efforts of the authorities of the time to politicize the preparation of the dictionary and turn it into a servant of ideology. On the other hand, Salys’s work, though not exhaustive, is a substantial first study in Lithuanian linguistics of the Lithuanian lexicon and the history of Lithuanian lexicography. Another area of Antanas Salys’s work was his contribution to the bilingual (Lithuanian–German) Dictionary of the Lithuanian Written Language (1926–1968). Alfredas Senas (Alfred Senn), Maksas Nydermanas (Max Niedermann), and Pranas Brenderis (Franz Brender) began compiling it in 1923. All three compilers prepared the first fascicles; after Brender’s death (1938), the other two continued the work, and Antanas Salys joined them in 1947. After Niedermann’s death (1954), Senas and Salys worked on the dictionary and completed its publication. In addition to their joint work (including Salys’s text marked for stress and the other results of their collaboration), it is worth mentioning the supplement Salys prepared for this dictionary—a list of proper names (volume V, pp. 481–560; see Salys 1983: 185–266). Compilers of the Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and other lexicographic works drew on many of this dictionary’s examples and definitions, while its onomastic supplement provided a good foundation for standardizing the entire Lithuanian name stock. This last area of Antanas Salys’s work, however, has been little studied by historians of linguistics and still awaits researchers and an objective assessment within the broader context of the history of Lithuanian linguistics. Kaip teigia Antano Salio biografas Petras Jonikas (1979: XVII), dirbdamas leksikografo darbą Antanas Salys nuolat jautė istorinės perspektyvos stoką. Todėl dar nebaigus leisti Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos žodyno, Salys pasisakęs norintis parengti trumpą istorinį lietuvių kalbos žodyną. Tuo reikalu 1969 m. lankėsi Lietuvoje, bet žodyno parengti nespėjo. Joniko teigimu, paliko surinktos medžiagos, tačiau daugiau apie ją informacijos neturime. Nėra aišku ir kur dabar ta medžiaga yra. Thus, Antanas Salys’s work in dictionary studies (lexicology) and lexicography demonstrates the breadth of the linguist’s interests and has lost none of its relevance. His methods—relying firmly on data from the living language, examining questions within a broad historical perspective, and taking into account the principle of the appropriateness of the phenomena being standardized—are not outdated even today and offer much food for thought. In general, the heritage of Lithuanian linguistics could play a much wider role in contemporary Lithuanian linguistics than it has so far. We must not for- 16 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 get that Antanas Salys’s linguistic works constitute the gold reserve of our entire linguistic legacy, and that more than one generation of Lithuanian language researchers and standardizers will still be able to draw ideas and insights from them. LITERATŪRA B a l a š a i t i s A. 2010: Iš „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ kartotekos ir jos saugojimo istorijos. – Gimtoji kalba 7, 29–32. B a l č i k o n i s J. 1978: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sudarė Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslas. Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: Dėk žodį prie žodžio – turėsi žodyną. Atsiminimai apie kalbininką Juozą Balčikonį. Sudarė Birutė Goberienė ir Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. G r i g a s N. 1944: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas ir jo redakcija. – Ateitis, kovo 28, 29. J o n i k a s P. 1979: Antano Salio gyvenimo ir mokslinės veiklos pagrindiniai bruožai. – A. Salys. Raštai 1: Bendrinė kalba, XIII–XX. K n i ū k š t a P. 2007: Žodyno kartotekos perėmimo dokumentai. – Gimtoji kalba 11, 27–30. K r u o p a s J. 1973: A. Salio kalbinė veikla. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 14: Baltų kalbų veiksmažodžio tyrinėjimai, 257–259. L y b e r i s A. 2009: Leksikografijos teorija ir praktika. Sudarytoja Zita Šimėnaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. P u p k i s A. 2010: Antano Salio bendrinės kalbos norminimo pagrindai ir kriterijai. – A. Pupkis. Lietuvių kalbos normintojai ir puoselėtojai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 201–208. P u p k i s A. 2012: Pranas Skardžius ir didysis „Lietuvių kalbos žodynas“. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 67, 101–129. S a l y s A. 1944: Paaiškinimas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno reikalu. – Ateitis, balandžio 11. S a l y s A. 1979: Raštai 1: Bendrinė kalba. Redagavo Petras Jonikas. Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija. S a l y s A. 1983: Raštai 2: Tikriniai vardai. Redagavo Petras Jonikas. Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija. S a l y s A. 1985: Raštai 3: Įvairūs straipsniai. Redagavo Petras Jonikas. Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija. S k a r d ž i u s P. 1997: Rinktiniai raštai 2: Bendrinės kalbos dalykai. Sudarė ir parengė Albertas Rosinas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Gauta 2012 11 24 A. PUPKIS. Antanas Salys ir žodynas 17 ANTANAS SALYS AND THE DICTIONARY Summary Antanas Salys was one of the most famous Lithuanian linguists of the middle and second half of the 20th century prominent in the fields of dialectology, onomastics, phonetics, terminology and standard language codification. The article deals with Salys’ activities in the fields of lexicology and lexicography. Salys made a big contribution to the codification of the Lithuanian vocabulary. He wrote many articles about the origin, word-formation and meaning of various words and created quite a few neologisms many of which became widespread in the usage of the standard language. Salys was keen on the Lithuanization of borrowings and wrote a theoretical article about the principles of neologism creation. As a lexicographer Salys had his input in the establishment of theoretical principles of the academic edition of Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of the Lithuanian language). He was also one of editors of Kalbos patarėjas (Language advisor) and from 1947 – one of the compilers of so-called Niedermann’s dictionary (Wörterbuch der litauischen Schriftsprache). In 1939 Salys became head of the Language Department at the Institute of Lithuanian Studies, from 3 December 1941 he was director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Here he took care about the matters of Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Salys had discussions on various issues of editing with the editor of the dictionary Juozas Balčikonis in Mokslinė pagalbinė komisija (Scientific advisory commission) and in the press. This discussion always stayed within the limits of correctness and during the Second world war when the front was approaching he rescued the card files of the dictionary and took them to safety. After exile to the West he spoke positively about the compilation work of the dictionary and heavily criticized attempts to include ideological matters. Salys wrote the first wider study about the history of the Lithuanian lexicography for Lietuvių enciklopedija (Lithuanian encyclopaedia, Boston, USA). KEYWORDS: lexis, lexicography, codification, neologisms. ALDONAS PUPKIS Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] 18 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85