Jono Jablonskio leksikografinė veikla

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language JONAS JABLONSKIS’S LEXICOGRAPHICAL WORK Jonas Jablonskis’s contributions to the creation of the standard Lithuanian language and its codification are indisputable and undeniable. In all areas—spelling, phonetics, morphology, syntax, and lexicon—he achieved very important results: he established spelling rules, formulated language norms on the basis of the living speech of the people, and coined new words that are still in use today. The 150th anniversary of his birth provided an impetus to review Jonas Jablonskis’s works once again and reassess some of them from a lexicographer’s perspective, as well as to take an interest in the little-studied legacy in this field. Individual works of his lexicography have been discussed, and one or two references to the dictionary card file can be found. Antanas Lyberis surveyed the work in this field in greater detail (see Lyberis 1982: 16–20). Mūsų žodynėli—as an important work of lexicography—was discussed by Stasys Keinys (1990: 14–19). J. Jablonskis’s lexicographical legacy has not been examined in depth; accordingly, this article aims to survey the linguist’s work related to lexicography. The article does not seek to provide an exhaustive analysis of J. Jablonskis’s lexicographical activity; rather, it is intended as a starting point for research of this kind. EDITING ANTANAS JUŠKA’S LITHUANIAN–POLISH DICTIONARY1 J. Jablonskis took his first steps in lexicographical work while editing Antanas Juška’s Lithuanian–Polish dictionary2, which was being prepared by Russian sch- 1 Литовский словарь А. Юшкевича съ толкованіемъ словъ на русскомъ и польскомъ языкахъ. Томъ I, вып. 1, СПб, 1897; вып. 2, СПб, 1904; вып. 3, Петроградъ, 1922. 2 Antano Juškos (1819–1880) lietuvių–lenkų kalbų žodynas pradėtas rašyti apie 1860 metus ir vėliau daugelio redaguotas, pildytas, taisytas. Galutinėje redakcijoje žodžiai buvo verčiami į rusų kalbą. Apie šio žodyno redagavimą yra rašiusi Birutė Tolutienė savo disertacijoje (Tolutienė 1961: 110–273). I tomo antra dalis (E–J raidės), kurią redagavo J. Jablonskis, buvo išspausdinta 1904 m. (Palionis 1995: 194–195). 44 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 At the Academy of Sciences. At the beginning of 1897, Aleksejus Šachmatovas invited J. Jablonskis to serve as editor. The linguist was concerned about how the Academy of Sciences would view revisions to the explanations of meanings, which could be made only by checking all the material directly in the dialects. Having spent two summers in Lithuania, J. Jablonskis checked the manuscripts for letters E, G, I, J (see Tolutienė 1961: 237, 238). “Having familiarized himself with the manuscripts of A. Juška’s dictionary, J. Jablonskis noticed quite a few shortcomings: long and short vowels were not distinguished everywhere, dialect forms were presented inconsistently, stress marking was unsatisfactory, pitch accents were not distinguished, and more precise explanations of word meanings were lacking, etc.” (Lyberis 1982: 17). J. Jablonskis prepared a plan for revising the dictionary, which was to substantially change its character. When recording a saying or phrase from people’s speech, A. Juška would polish and expand it, seeking to make it more correct and literary, and in this way completely changed the characteristics of many of them. In the Afterword³ to the second part of volume I of the dictionary, published in 1904, J. Jablonskis pointed this out, warning readers that “...when using this dictionary as material for describing the syntactic and stylistic features of the language, one must, in my opinion, be very cautious. It is possible that specialists in syntax and, more generally, the structure of the language of Lithuanian people will disagree with my opinion in this regard, in view of the material collected by A. Juška. In any case, it seems beyond doubt to me that the dictionary of people’s speech contains a subjective element, and quite a considerable one at that, even in cases where its data could serve as material for studying the syntactic features of the Lithuanian language.” (Piročkinas, ed., 1991: 116). The dictionary contained many unknown words whose authenticity appeared highly doubtful. Therefore, J. Jablonskis set about checking those words in the places where they were used4. In the summer of 1897 he visited Veliuona5, Vilkija, Jurbarkas, and elsewhere, checking and clarifying the words recorded by A. Juška. The following summer he spent some time in Kal tinėnai, Šiluva, Betygala, and Alsėdžiai6. 3 Литовскій словарь А. Юшкевича съ толкованіемъ словъ на русскомъ и польскомъ языкахъ. Вып. второй, Санктпетербургъ, 1904, I–LIX. (Hereafter this dictionary is referred to in the text by the abbreviation LS.) 4 Later, K. Būga, while editing the letters K–L, was also concerned that the dictionary contained many words that had never been heard at all, and went to Žemaitija to check them (Vosyltytė 1956: 93–94). 5 Five notebooks from the 1897 trip have survived. The examples recorded in them show that J. Jablonskis also visited Žagarė, perhaps Subačius and Raseiniai, but spent most of his time in Plokščiai, Veliuona, Vilkija, and Jurbarkas (Piročkinas 1977: 139). 6 In Alsėdžiai, the principal assistant and informant was a local farmer, Feliksas K. Būbelė (Piročkinas 1977: 200). V. SAKALAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio leksikografinė veikla 45 While checking words in these places, J. Jablonskis recorded about 2,000 additional words that were absent from A. Juška’s manuscript. The linguist could not find many of the words recorded by A. Juška in living speech (in the text he edited, he marked such words with a long dash at the end). Among them are quite a few unknown and unheard-of words: grūlis7 “a black laborer; an ordinary worker” (LS 478), įdėtas “hope”: Aš turiù visą įdėtą ant tàvęs (LS 507), įłogas “habit; passion”: Įłogas, kurs įsiłoge būdą (?) (LS 524), ilgioti “to beg,” įkitas “door bar”: Įkitai į dùris įkryžiáuoti, and others, which are absent from the card file of the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, compiled over almost a hundred years. However, some of A. Juška’s words that J. Jablonskis marked as unknown are used today in standard language: įnoringas, –a “capricious, whimsical” (recorded in the LKŽ from written sources and the press), įraijis “an object swallowed by a fish” (DLKŽ), irštvò “a bear’s winter den; a lair” (DLKŽ) (see Lyberis 1982: 17). By editing A. Juška’s dictionary, the linguist was able to become better acquainted with living speech and its dialects. He collected a great deal of material for the study of written Lithuanian. His collaboration with Russian scholars F. Fortunatov, A. Šachmatovas, J. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. Korsh, and others helped him better understand the theory and practice of dictionary editing. JONAS JABLONSKIS’S CARD FILE AND THE DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE J. Jablonskis had a special relationship with the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. In 1921, Kazimieras Būga wrote in “The Report of the Editor of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”: “The editorial office of the dictionary has already received several boxes of words from our linguist Jonas Jablonskis, from which copies are now being made (there will be 25,000–30,000 cards)” (Būga 1959: 380). Thus, J. Jablonskis had already collected a great many words by that time. K. Būga copied about 10,000 slips from his card file, which later became part of the holdings of the great dictionary. There have been few references to J. Jablonskis’s card file. A. Lyberis mentioned it in his article, though not entirely accurately. He noted that “10 boxes of dictionary materials collected by J. Jablonskis, containing more than 14,000 words, remain in the Central Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences. All this material has been copied and included in the great ‘Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language’ 7 LKŽ grūlis ‘worker.’ 46 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 kartotekos fondus“ (Lyberis 1982: 18; tačiau jis nepatikslino, kad J. Jablonskio kartoteka yra Lietuvoje). The existence and location of the card file are clearly specified in the notes to Volume I of Juozas Balčikonis’s works, where it is stated that Jonas Jablonskis’s card file is kept in the Manuscripts Department of the Central Library of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR (Balčikonis 1978: 396). A few remarks about the surviving card file appear in Aldonas Pupkis’s article on J. Jablonskis’s manuscript legacy (see Pupkis 2010: 40). J. Jablonskis’s dictionary card file (more than 14,000 cards, to be exact, 14,455)8 is still kept in the Manuscripts Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. The cards in J. Jablonskis’s collection are marked as materials for the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. The letters A, B (1,210 slips) date from the late 19th century (card size: 7.5 × 12.5 cm). It is noted that words under the other letters were recorded in the 20th century. The card sizes vary somewhat: they are 12.5 cm long, while some are 7.7, 7.8, or 8.0 cm wide; some cards are 11 cm wide and 18 cm long (these are the cards for the letter P)9. On the cards, J. Jablonskis grouped words into word families. For example, the slip with the word taisyti (‘to repair’) lists verbs with the prefixes įtaisyti, sutaisyti and so on: Tas žmogus mane labai įtaisė (‘That person really got me into trouble’ [‘involved, wore out’]); įsitaisiau (bebylinėdamas); Jis mane sutaisė (‘I got myself settled [while litigating]; He tricked me’) (Jokantas). Ką jis veikia? – knygas taiso (‘What does he do? – He repairs books’ [переплетает, ‘binds’]); v. apýtaisąs, knýgtais(is) (Skapiškis). Nouns are also recorded alongside the verbs on the same slip (see Fig. 1). As headwords on the cards, he gave the infinitive form for verbs and the nominative case for nouns and adjectives (for adjectives, both genders are usually provided; see Fig. 2); he marked the stress in headwords and their forms. Perhaps the greatest amount of data was recorded in Alsėdžiai10. Later editorial teams of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language carefully examined J. Jablonskis’s writings and excerpted words for the dictionary from them, adding about 14,000 words (see Lyberis 1982: 19)11. The LKŽ card file contains slips with similar entries. 8 The question arises why J. Jablonskis’s present-day card file contains only 14,500 cards, if K. Būga had received and copied 25,000–30,000 cards. The cards could not have been transferred to the LKŽ card file without being recopied, because they are of a different size. 9 Accordingly, the dimensions of cards for other letters (cm) are: D, E – 8.0 × 12.5; G – 8.0 × 12.5; K – 7.5 × 12.5; L, M – 7.5 × 12.5; N, O, P – 7.7 × 12.5; P – 11.0 × 18.0; R, Š, T – 8.0 × 12.5; S – 7.8 × 12.5; U, V, Ž – 7.5 × 12.5. 10 The Manuscripts Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Academy of Sciences also holds the notes from the Alsėdžiai expedition. On the cover of the first notebook, J. Jablonskis wrote: “A journey to Alsėdžiai, February 1902” (Piročkinas 1977: 200). 11 This does not refer to the 14,000 slips mentioned earlier. V. SAKALAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio leksikografinė veikla 47 FIG. 1. A card for the word taisýti FIG. 2. A card for the word talpùs FIG. 3. A card for the word tálžyti FIG. 4. A card for the word taisýdinti Examples of cards from the card index of Jonas Jablonskis, held in the Manuscripts Department of the Wróblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. 48 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 FIG. 5. A card from the LKŽ card index The linguist also excerpted words from a wide variety of writings, for example: the verb taksénti is recorded from unspecified writings – The heart begins to beat faster12; the sentence He beat him over the hair with a stick, listed on the slip for the verb tályžyti (see Fig. 3), is excerpted from Simonas Daukantas’s Būdas senovės lietuvių, kalnėnų ir žemaičių with a page reference. The LKŽ sentence Having fitted the boat with all kinds of goods, he set off for a foreign land (with the attribution S. Dauk.) appears under the word pritaisydinti; however, it remained entirely unknown that this sentence had been copied from J. Jablonskis’s card index (see Figs. 4 and 5). The LKŽ followed the principle that, when presenting sentences from written language, the original should be checked and illustrative sentences cited according to it. Therefore, a card from the LKŽ card index provides more information than is visible in the dictionary text. The slips recorded by J. Jablonskis show that he began compiling his card index in the late nineteenth century, whereas the card index for K. Būga’s dictionary dates from the early twentieth century.13 J. Jablonskis was always convinced that a dictionary of the living Lithuanian language was needed. Writing about the first fascicle of Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, prepared by K. Būga and published around 1924, he said that it was a “very exceptional” dictionary of its language, the like of which neither Latvians, Poles, nor Russians had yet published for the benefit of society. The dictionary listed all the words that were still in use in writing and speech. Society, which had expected from Professor K. Būga only a dictionary of the written language, would now find in it “a great deal of various material suitable and necessary for studying the etymology, history, and dialects of our language.” 12 This sentence appears in the LKŽ entry for the word taksenti with the attribution J. Jabl. 13 The beginning of K. Būga’s dictionary card index is dated to 1902 (Vosyl yte 1956: 85), when the linguist began writing words on cards (Vitkauskas 2002: 8). V. SAKALAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio leksikografinė veikla 49 (JR 1935: 294–296). And immediately afterward he regretted that “the dictionary in question is intended mainly for people who already know the basic written language quite well and, with sound and unsound linguistic material before them, can orient themselves in it as needed for their own purposes” (ibid., 296). OUR LITTLE DICTIONARY While still editing A. Juška’s dictionary, J. Jablonskis resolved to write a dictionary of his own. He collected words from spoken language and written sources throughout his life and amassed a considerable card file, but never published the dictionary. Only a small portion of these words was included in the short Our Little Dictionary14, published in Voronezh in 1918. The dictionary contained more than 1,500 words of the standard language, with explanations of their meanings in Lithuanian and translations into Russian. All the words were marked for stress (see also Piročkinas 1978: 134–136). The dictionary included words that were not used in all dialects and that pupils might not understand when reading the School of Hardship he had prepared, but more than half of the words did not occur in the School of Hardship. The dictionary’s purpose was purely practical—to help pupils read and understand Lithuanian textbooks. Thus, “the dictionary included mainly dialect words and neologisms that the linguist recommended for use in the standard language” (Gedrimas 2001: 40). According to J. Balčikonis, “it will contain all sorts of words most needed by an educated person, with examples and instructions on how they should be used; especially many school terms. As far as is known, many of these words were taken from the dictionary he himself had compiled over a long period, which still remains in manuscript” (Balčikonis 1978: 44–45). Nevertheless, it is difficult to say which dictionary J. Balčikonis was writing about here. The People’s Commissariat for Education’s resolution15, in which J. Jablonskis is characterized and assessed as a lexicologist, may be connected with this allusion to a dictionary in manuscript. According to A. Piročkinas, “[...] it would follow that in Voronezh he really did intend, or had even begun, to compile a dictionary of the Lithuanian language. It was probably not a continuation of the Juška dictionary, whose value Jablonskis had already doubted at the end of the 19th century. All the more so since the Juška manuscripts were then inaccessible to him” (Piročkinas 1978: 136). The little dictionary could have grown into a dictionary of Lithuanian written- 14 Our Little Dictionary. Supplement to “School of Hardship.” Compiled by Rygiškių Jonas. “Lithuanian Press,” Voronezh, 1918, 64 pp. 15 There is evidence that in 1919 the Commissariat for Education had commissioned J. Jablonskis to compile such a dictionary (see Vosylytė 1955). 50 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 language dictionary. In considering this possibility, it is plausible that J. Jablonskis, with his extensive card file and experience in lexicographic work, could have been writing such a dictionary—especially since his desire to write one himself is mentioned repeatedly. The dictionary’s purpose explains why it contains a considerable amount of specialized vocabulary from various sciences. Drawing on the principles of the folk language, J. Jablonskis also coined words needed for the written language. The dictionary contains newly formed words, for example: kurinýs16 (p. 62), instead of the then-used tverinys, kūryba—instead of tveryba; papėdininkai (p. 63), “those who live (lived, will live) after someone”—instead of potomki; vaizdakalýs (p. 54), “modeler”—instead of skulptorius; vaizdarašýs (p. 54), “painter”; vaizdáraštis (p. 54), “painting,” and so on. In addition, many mathematical terms are presented: subtrahend, subtraction, divisor, dividend, division, quotient, multiplier, multiplicand, multiplication, subtrahend, algebraic expression, product, number, numerator of a fraction, digit, thousandth, thousand, denominator; geographical terms: atšiauris “ice region,” atógrąža “tropic” (of Cancer and Capricorn), ebb, highland, southern, glacier, dry land, strait, shallow, polar circle, north; botanical terms: aspen, aspen, silver fir, trembling poplar, ground elder, willow, juniper, juniper, sedge, violet, hepatica; zoological terms: elk, butterfly, stag beetle, stork, heron, cuckoo, glass lizard, polecat, bear, vendace, vole, water snake; chemical terms: carbonic acid, carbon, carbon combustion product, oxygen, extinguishing agent, pure carbon, non-oxygen, copper, hydrogen, water hydrogen, and so on (for more on the dictionary’s terminology, see Gedrimas 2001: 41–45). The dictionary contains several words marked with the abbreviation žem. [lowland dialect]: krýtis, krýtė, krytėlė and grýtis, grytėlė “a scoop net, a ladle for catching fish”; Jeŕgutalis, Jeŕguts “dear little God”; papū́rti (Várnos papūrusios padirviais soyruoja). Besides Our Little Dictionary and the reading texts for School of Hardship, while living in Voronezh, J. Jablonskis worked intensively with mathematicians17 to create basic terminology for various branches of science. When mathematicians resolved to develop mathematical terminology, J. Jablonskis willingly agreed to assist them (Žemaitis 1966: 195). The linguist set aside a time when specialists could come to him for consultation on terminology development. Our Little Dictionary is important not only as a source of new terms, but also, more generally, as the first prescriptive dictionary of the standard language (see Keinys 1990: 15). 16 Spelling in Our Little Dictionary. 17 At that time, P. Mašiotas, M. Šikšnys, and Z. Žemaitis worked in schools for Lithuanian war refugees. They held meetings at which mathematical terms were discussed. Several Lithuanian chemical terms that found their way into Our Little Dictionary. were also proposed at those meetings. Some of them soon became established in textbooks and in the standard language (Gedrimas 2001: 40). V. SAKALAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio leksikografinė veikla 51 DICTIONARY REVIEWS J. Jablonskis was interested in all the dictionaries published at the time and reviewed many of them. The linguist examined in detail18 and discussed the dictionary by the priest Mykolas Miežinis, Lietuviškai–latviškai–lenkiškai–rusišką žodyną (Lithuanian–Latvian–Polish–Russian Dictionary), published in 1894 in Tilsit. The reviewer noted that it omitted words included in the dictionaries of F. Kurschat and G. H. F. Nesselmann; moreover, it contained no material from the works of M. Daukša, M. Valančius, or S. Daukantas, nor any Lithuanian songs, tales, proverbs, or riddles collected in Kaunas Governorate and already published. It also lacked words recorded in Kaunas Governorate and published in Mitteilungen der litauischen litterarischen Gesellschaft, in separate studies, or in E. Volter’s edition of M. Daukša’s Lithuanian catechism. J. Jablonskis criticizes the dictionary’s author for having a poor command of Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish, and Russian (Piročkinas, ed., 1991: 87–88). These circumstances determined the dictionary’s quality. According to J. Jablonskis, the dictionary contained 15,000 words, but many were forms of the same word that ought to have been excluded, for example: participles alongside their base verbs, plural forms alongside singular ones, pronominal forms of adjectives alongside simple forms, neuter forms, and comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs alongside simple forms. Moreover, M. Miežinis had himself coined words (ašaruvė, beržyninis, beržotinis, brolieninis, eglyninis, gyvuskrosena, granžalas) that are not used in living Lithuanian. Latvian words (skabas, apgerbs, pret) were included in this dictionary needlessly. “In any case, one might wonder how it is possible not to find words such as darbštus, grožis, kelmuotas, kvailas, lokys, purus, pustyti (dalgi) in a dictionary, or to find participle forms apkrikštytas, pasigėręs without the corresponding forms apkrikštyti, pasigerti. It is clear that the carelessness of the author, who took on a task that was not his, was a major factor here.” (Piročkinas, ed., 1991: 89–90). Regarding the translation of Lithuanian words, J. Jablonskis said that “there are sometimes outright oddities here: the Russian translation does not agree with the Polish, while the Polish contradicts the Latvian” (ibid., 90). The words translated more successfully into Latvian and Polish acquired meanings that did not match those in Russian. The reviewer was also dissatisfied with the spelling of Lithuanian words. The author “simply lacks discernment and mixes various Lithuanian dialects” (ibid., 93). Lithuanian words are not marked for stress anywhere. The review also highlighted the work’s merits: 1) the dictionary contains Lithuanian words not found in other dictionaries; 2) it contains many riddles, proverbs, and 18 Recenzija išspausdinta žurnale Живая старина, 1896, вып. II, 249–254. 52 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 all kinds of sayings by real people. However, the linguist emphasizes that the dictionary does not meet the most important requirements (see Piročkinas, ed., 1991: 94). In reviewing M. Miežinis’s dictionary, J. Jablonskis set out the principles for a dictionary needed by the public. He wrote that the dictionary was intended for people who, knowing Polish, Russian, or Latvian, wished to learn Lithuanian as well, or for Lithuanians who wished to learn Latvian, Polish, and Russian. Compiling such a dictionary is no easy task. The compiler should know our living language firsthand, not from just one dialect but from various parts of Lithuania; secondly, such a person should read a great many Lithuanian texts and collect whatever is useful for the dictionary; thirdly, the prospective dictionary’s author should also make use of material found in other Lithuanian dictionaries and in written works generally. The dictionary’s author must be thoroughly familiar with all the words found in songs, tales, and riddles. If all these conditions were met, a Lithuanian dictionary would be truly very useful (JR 1934: 44). J. Jablonskis reviewed19 Jurgis Šlapelis’s Lietuvių ir rusų kalbų žodyną (Lithuanian–Russian Dictionary) (1921). The linguist was pleased that examples of usage accompanied the Lithuanian words, but was very disappointed that so few were provided: “on the first three pages of the dictionary, only five words are given with such examples [...]. I am probably not mistaken in saying that only one in every 50 words is given with an example or examples of usage” (JR 1935: 272). The translation of some words was also questionable. Since the dictionary’s author was an Aukštaitian, he sometimes failed to mark word stress correctly: “The dictionary’s stress marks, generally speaking, are somewhat deficient.” (JR 1935: 274). The linguist understood how difficult it is to collect words for a dictionary. He was therefore forgiving when not all of them had been found. However, he questioned whether rare, almost unused words should be included in the dictionary, and emphasized that J. Šlapelis’s dictionary lacked a clear plan and had no preface, without which the purpose for which the dictionary itself was being written was not entirely clear. He also regretted that the dictionary’s author had not consulted people knowledgeable about the subject and needs of a dictionary (JR 1935: 274). In J. Jablonskis’s view, a Lithuanian dictionary is much in demand, and therefore this dictionary, too, would be used for various purposes. When Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos žodynui (Dictionary of the Lithuanian Literary Language, NdŽ) appeared in 1926, J. Jablonskis immediately set about assessing it20. In this dictionary, the linguist singled out the marking of word stress in particular. It differed from J. Šlapelis’s dictionary in that its authors 19 The review was published in 1922 in Švietimo darbe, no. 1, 2. 20 The review was also published in 1926 in Švietimo darbe, no. 10, 1183–1190. V. SAKALAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio leksikografinė veikla 53 vartojo tų dienų rašomąją kalbą (JR 1936: 100). J. Jablonskis iškėlė nevienodo žodžių pateikimo, reikšmių aiškinimo, žodžių vertimo problemas, neteiktinų rašomajai kalbai žodžių įtraukimą į žodyno tekstą, iliustracinių pavyzdžių stoką. Kirčiai, pasak kalbininko, žymėti gana taisyklingai, tik vietomis ne visai gerai sukirčiuota. Discussing the presentation of deverbal nouns with the suffix -imas / -ymas, J. Jablonskis pointed out the missing nouns. He particularly emphasized that consistency had not been observed in presenting reflexive and non-reflexive verbs, and that illustrative examples were absent from many entries, e.g.: ābaras, abarāuti, agnā, agnùs, -ì, akiplėšýbė, etc. If examples had been added to the entries, their meanings would have been translated into German differently and would have been clearer to the reader, e.g.: akėjimas (jis per akėjimus važiuo); aklùmas, alùdis (jis toks aludis – “he drinks a lot of beer, likes drinking beer”) (JR 1936: 103). The review aptly identifies errors in translating and explaining meanings. CONCLUSIONS 1. Jonas Jablonskis’s statements are always based on facts: examples from living speech and data from other dictionaries. The linguist himself did not have time to write a dictionary, but through his work he contributed greatly to the preparatory work for the Lithuanian dictionary. 2. He was fully prepared to write a dictionary. This is shown not only by the material he carefully collected, but also by his editing of A. Juška’s dictionary and his reviews of published dictionaries, in which he sets out the requirements for dictionaries and their compilers. 3. J. Jablonskis’s card index Lietuvių kalbos žodynui medžiaga contained enough material to write a dictionary. This card index must be made accessible for study and analysis. It would be very useful for supplementing and revising the electronic Lietuvių kalbos žodynui and would help answer many questions that arise. LITERATŪRA Balčikonis J. 1978: Rygiškių Jonas. „Mūsų žodynėlis“. – Juozas Balčikonis. Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sud. Aldonas Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 44–45. Būga K. 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 2. Sud. Zigmas Zinkevičius, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. DLKŽ 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. S. Keinys. 3-ias elektroninis leid., Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. 54 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 Gedიმas R. 2001: Gamtos mokslų terminai Rygiškių Jono „Mūsų žodynėlyje“. – Jono Jablonskio diena Šiauliuose. III knyga. Mokslinės konferencijos medžiaga, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 39–48. JR 1932: Jablonskio raštai 1. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys. JR 1934: Jablonskio raštai 3. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys. JR 1935: Jablonskio raštai 4. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys. JR 1936: Jablonskio raštai 5. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys. Keinys S. 1990: „Mūsų žodynėlio“ reikšmė. – Jono Jablonskio skaitymai. Mokslinės konferencijos medžiaga, Šiauliai: Šiaulių pedagoginis institutas, 14–19. Lyberis A. 1982: J. Jablonskis leksikografas. – Kalbos kultūra 42, 16–20. [Z. Šimėnaitė (sud.), Antanas Lyberis. Leksikografijos teorija ir praktika, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2009, 66–69.] LKŽ 2005: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20. Red. kolegija: G. Naktinienė (vyr. redaktorė), J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, elektroninis leidimas, www.lkz.lt LS 1904: Литовскій словарь А. Юшкевича съ толкованіемъ словъ на русскомъ и польскомъ языкахъ. Томъ I, вып. 2, Санктпетербургъ. NdŽ 1926: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos žodynas. Lietuviškai–vokiška dalis. Sudarė M. Niedermann’as, A. Senn’as ir F. Brender’is. 1-asis sąsiuvinis, Heidelberg. Palionis J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Piročkinas A. 1977: Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų, Vilnius: Mokslas. Piročkinas A. 1978: Jonas Jablonskis – bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Piročkinas A. (sud.) 1991: Jonas Jablonskis. Straipsniai ir laiškai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Pupkis A. 2010: Lietuvių kalbos normintojai ir puoselėtojai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Tolutienė B. 1961: A. Juška leksikografas. – Literatūra ir kalba 5, 87–377. Vitkauskas V. 2002: Didysis akademinis mūsų Žodynas. – Dvidešimt „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ tomų, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Vosylýtė B. 1955: J. Jablonskis ir lietuvių literatūrinė kalba. – Tarybinis mokytojas, vasario 24. [K. Morkūnas, K. Vosylýtė (sud.), Bronė Vosylýtė. Kelias į didįjį žodyną, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2002, 44–46.] V. SAKALAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio leksikografinė veikla 55 Vosyl ytė B. 1956: K. Būga žodynininkas. – Literatūra ir kalba 1, 84–113. [K. Morkūnas, K. Vosyl ytė (sud.), Bronė Vosylytė. Kelias į didįjį žodyną, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2002, 50–80.] Žemaitis Z. 1966: Lietuviškos matematinės terminologijos istorijai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 8, 195–201. Gauta 2010 11 09 JONAS JABLONSKIS’ LEXICOGRAPHIC WORK Summary The 150th anniversary of Jonas Jablonskis encourages to revisit some of his works and review them from a lexicographer’s perspective. The article discusses Jablonskis’ lexicographic heritage: editorship of dictionaries, collection of authentic language samples and lexicographic reviews. His work in lexicography is primarily related to the editing of the Lithuanian-Polish dictionary by Antanas Juška. This work inspired him to start the compilation of his own dictionary. Jablonskis was constantly collecting words and samples of authentic language, both spoken and written, and he prepared material for 14,000 headwords of the future dictionary. Although its publication never became a reality during Jablonskis’ lifetime, the compilation of this material and Jablonskis’ contacts with K. Būga did contribute to the future dictionary of Lithuanian. Jablonskis collected much interesting data and even proposed many new Lithuanian words. Later editors of the dictionary used Jablonskis’ material for suitable examples. J. Jablonskis closely followed the publication of Lithuanian dictionaries and reviewed them. In a review of Mykolas Miežinis’ dictionary, he outlined the principles of a general dictionary. He always gave preference to empirical data: examples of authentic language and data from published dictionaries. Although Jablonskis did not manage to compile a dictionary himself, his work did contribute to the Lithuanian lexicography. VILIJA SAKAŁAUSKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] 56 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83