Iš A. Dambrausko kalbos ir terminologijos veiklos

The Lithuanian enlightenment born in the middle and second half of the 19th century had the sacred duty of initiating and/or developing the national revival movement, which in the course of a third of a century fundamentally changed the situation in Lithuania. Along with this movement, the work of creating, educating and teaching a common exemplary language for all Lithuanians began and continued to develop, allowing in the first decades of the 20th century, for the first time in its entire history, this language to encompass all spheres of life of the country and its people. This was a period of unification and rapid maturation of the Lithuanian nation for a new independent life. At the same time, these were times of unprecedented growth of the Lithuanian language, expansion of its role and formation of the current common language. Without doubt, the greatest layer of the foundations of the present common language, its educator and teacher was Jonas Jablonskis (1860—1930). However, along with him, some in agreement and constant support, some arguing fiercely, but nevertheless taking into account his opinion, worked a large group of workers from various fields of science, technology, culture and religion. These people, often in consultation with each other, sometimes even sitting together for longer or shorter periods of time, laid the foundations of the current technical and artistic language, renewed the language of faith, created and developed terminology for state life, economy, secondary, higher and pure science and other fields. Looking back at those times, one cannot ignore or even less not notice the very active, varied, writer, editor and teacher of J. Jablonski’s contemporaries, the professor prelate Aleksandrs Dambrauskas, better known in our cultural history as the most frequently mentioned name Adam Jakštas, although he has also signed under Druskiaus and other pseudonyms. ir 32 A. Dambrauskas ir J. Jablonski were only ne contemporaries, but the ir same-yea- — r-olds both born in the same year, only 1860 A. Dambrauskas three months older (born on September 20, 8 o J. Jablonski — December). 30 Abudu became prominent men of science and culture of ir the nation's rebirth, the times of forbidden press, both of whom were už persecuted and even punished by the tsarist authorities. The paths of blacks, especially in ir language bars, often connected, ir ne 1 time iš tų sparks were formed at the contact points. Normally J. Jablonski- 's works did not like A. Dambrauskui. Vien In the double book “Our New Literature” J. Jablonskis (Rygiškių John) is encountered more than half a hundred times directly and at least half as often in ir generalized, sometimes mockingly used philologists' names. A. Dambrauskas looked bad J. Jablonski's spelling, lacking a number of introduced jo terms, was always hindered by the different Suvalkianness of grammar, ir even the dusetity of Žemaitija ar (pats A. Dambrauskas was iš It is located in the north-central part of the city, in the former t. y. East High Street (East High Street). It must be said that in a few decades A. Dambrausko hooked up J. Jablonski remained dignified — only on one other point, disagreeing with his critic, only mo answering more extensively several times after ir briefly explaining. ką O same A. Dambrauskas, ir after a hundred ar almost as many years from the days, appears tų partial, neighborly love be J. In relation to Jablonski, the trailer was ir incorrect in many cases, especially that it happened that, in one place cursing even mocking ir some ar J. He used the Jablonskiir 's jį proposition, elsewhere. A. Dambrauskas' activities were very branched. Authors of the article in the Lithuanian encyclopedia jį Ms. Dovydaitis ir Quiet. Biržiška wrote about it: ‘D. that he was ir inclined to become a cabinet scientist a specialist scientist. [= — St. K.], could not develop in one job, but he had to become an encyclopedist. He was a ir churchman, theologian, ir theoretician, mathematician, philosopher, satirical poet, politician, ir publicist, linguist, ir historian, literary critic ir and perhaps the first Lithuanian Esperanto speaker. Working ir in these branches for years, he was everywhere, leaving his own, Jagiellonian imprint on Lithuanian public life everywhere." Of course, this is 50 true. A. Dambrauskas has been a very productive rė collaborator of the Lithuanian press since the days of „Aušra“, besides being the founder and editor of several periodicals himself. He has 33 «1 published more than 50 books and booklets. Most of his writings are written and published in Lithuanian, but there are also notices in Polish, Latin, French, Russian and Esperanto. Without worrying about whether it is appropriate to call him a linguist (he has called himself an amateur philologist*), A. Dambrauskas has entered into the history of Lithuanian linguistics. It can be said that throughout his activity and creative time he was very interested in the issues of the common Lithuanian language, took care of the education of that language, directly contributing to its creation and development. By preparing textbooks on logic, geometry, trigonometry, writing works on philosophy, theology, mathematics and other fields, he was one of the creators of the current technical language and terminology of those fields. At the beginning of the 20th century, together with J. Laukaitis, J. Jablonskis, K. Būga and other priests and linguists, he discussed the issues of the renewal of religious rites, pottery and the language and terminology of the church in general* and prepared prayer books and hymnals himself. Later he was a member of the Terminology Commission for State and Scientific Affairs, which was established at the Ministry of Education in the early 1920s, and in the mid-1930s he was interested in the general terms of philosophy discussed by the Terminology Section of the Lithuanian Language Society*. A. Dambrauskas responded lively to almost all fields of Lithuanian fiction, art, scientific literature or journalism books and other publications, for many of them writing longer or shorter articles, reviews or at least annotations, and important here is that,'Pr. D. and Vc. B-ka. "Alexander Dambrauskas" (in Lithuanian). Kaunas, [1937]. T. 5. Page 1399. * Jakštas A. Our New Literature (1904-1923). T. 2: Our New Prose Literature (1904-1923). Kaunas, 1923. P. 39. *Piročkinas A. J. Jablonskis — common language promoter: 1904—1930. Vilnius, 1978. P. 62. *Šalkauskis, St. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 1991. T. 2. P 127. 34 that he almost never forgot, if broader, then at least another word ne to say about language. jų Who has read both A. Jakšto "Our New Literature" books — "Our new poetry (1904—1923)“ ir "Our new prose literature released (1904—1923)“, 1923 m. In Kaunas, he has seen it with his own eyes. Iš remarks on the language of various publications clearly show that A. Dambrauskas was concerned about the commonality of the ir Lithuanian written language. He often pointed out to authors, writers, scientists — ir and ir publicists that they should avoid alienation. — That's what happened. ir Maironis’ poems of “Spring Voices” are — very harmful to them because of syntax polonisms (t. 1, p. 34)*. He was also known for his use of dialects, which he often called provincialisms, which also fed the public writer. ir to ne ną This is about L. Giros play „Beauštanti aušrelė“ (Vilnius, Lithuania) 1913) A. Dambrauskas the same 1913 m. In „Draugija“ he wrote: the „<...> language is full of all kinds of local provincialisms: loc, butau, niaugi, porinti, uogela, širdela, kumula, ledokas ir k. Instead of mine, yours, yours is used ma, ta, sa. Iš ty of three abbreviations Lithuanians in Kaunas only use one, but it sa is only used when ir addressing a dog į (sa, sa, sa), o ne į people. Brutti panaThe provincialisms in the written language are — simply spoiling. ji We have already protested before and we will continue to protest.” ir (t. 1, p. 140). O summarized his comments to on the author’s own collection of poems “The Ways of the Fatherland” in the following words: ‘L. We consider ne Giras only as a Vilnius and Dzūk, but all ir Lithuanian song, so we have the right to demand that he sing in Vilnius, but purely Lithuanian” ne (t. 1, p. 139). Putin was advised to beware of the "unfortunate Suvalkian abbreviation of past tense verbs" (skambė', spindė' skambėjo, = spindėjo) which is — "disgusting spoilage of the language", neither in Žemaitija, In the highlands nothing is so short (t. 1, p. 209), o V. Krėvė ‘when ir ne Baron, but has a really baronial fantasy to squeeze our grammar personificati- — on", because he used common ir Lithuanian forms would beAlongside quotes, ne recounted statements and examples are 5 presented "Our New Literature" volume page. Nothing is changed in the quotes (corrections for larger errors are given in ir square brackets). 35 čiau, būtumei, būtumėt, o dzūkiškas been, been, been, ir been, been, been, been, been, been, been such things (t. 1, p. 385). Like a ir summary of to all can be considered hot remarks about jo ‘Šarūno’ ir The language of the "old folk tales of the country of Dainava". The latter article reads: “Love your country, your dialect, but do not make gods not to force others — to worship them” and continues: jų ir ir ‘V. The Krėva dialect is a fact, but the ir written Lithuanian language is another fact. First to cherish, second to despise would mean introducing into our writing — harmful separatism, clumsy provincialism. Dialects have the full right to dominate, but only in the field of folklore and fine literature.” o ne (t. 2, p. 56). Now, as then, ir many things would give more freedom to writers, creators of artistic language (what else would be business language), even knowing that A. Dambrauskas meant primarily phonological grammatical words ir ir jų use of compound variants. Ne once he blasphemed "canticling", "accent distortions". In reviewing the teacher's manual for the second ir third P. A book compiled by a joint venturer "The Children's Star" (Vilnius, 1909) ir quoting iš her couple of verses (e.g.: Žiogas linksmas dieną varė, Giedodamas pavasarį), / Dambrauskas correctly A. wrote that „a child of iš tų verses will have to learn either to do his language, or to break the laws of poetry“ (t. 2, p. 479). Those thoughts are very relevant today. As an active press worker, Dambrauskas A. had a lot of writing problems. Late 19th a. century ir XX a. The spelling of the early publications ba was mixed, both linguists and editors of various publications disagreed about it. A. Dambrauskas had established his own spelling principles (they are set out in 1914 m. a booklet “The Question of Our Alphabet”), those things were ir discussed much earlier (for example, 1900 m. In an article published in „Vaterlands sarge“ "Do we already have a good spelling?- ") and later. Especially he was dissatisfied J. Jablonski's spelling, and, when the opportunity arose, all because of this ar to ją cursed. Apparently, jį he was annoyed by the introduction of unacceptable spelling, but, being disciplined, he nevertheless iš adhered to its essence. By the way, some A. Dambrauskas's spelling issues will be very trustworthy to the post-Jablonski spelling reformers, especially the foundation laid jo that each sound requires one separate sign, 36 ir ta occasion, seemingly, be of a stronger foundation J. Jablonski even attributed „ortografinis konservatyvumas ir neryžtingumas“”. Both The volumes of “Our New Literature” are full of comments on the terms used in the reviewed publications. Especially jų much in the second volume, entitled “Our new prose literature”, which is į composed of prose in the broad sense (not only fiction, but also books on science, religion, ir education, state life, periodicals, etc. ir publications) reviews and annotations published during the first du XX a. decades of po printing recovery. The issues of internationality, consistency, uniformity, variantity, and ir Lithuanianization jų of borrowed term sources ir are raised here. ir Be reservations A. Dambrauskas opposed the foreignness of the terminology of the time, which is ir usually called barbarisms. 1907 m. Reviewing a two-volume iš work translated from Polish in „Drużyna” “Meditations or Spiritual Smokes”, which, in the opinion of the reviewer, will be accepted in seminaries as a meditation textbook that will become “spiritual guide of the majority of Lithuanian ir priests”, praising the language as beautifully correct ir (said that valueis corrected mą "well-known our young philologist K. In addition, the word is often used in the context of Polish-speaking countries, such as Poland, to refer to the Polish language. / (now womb), grace, death, o ne živatas, loska, smertis ir etc., also mentions that left polonisms asaba, apiera, griekas, pasiklonioti, Traicė etc., adds: ir ir “The corrector apparently ne considered correcting — theological terms to be his business. In fact, for a civilian man, that thing is insurmountable. ir The priests themselves must contribute to this.” (t. 2, p. 212). The review concludes with a note that the new edition „it would be ir worth providing more Lithuanian theological terminology“ (same). XX a. At the beginning of the 20th century, the language of religious publications was revised, liturgical books, ir catechisms, poetry, hymns and other texts were edited. There were ir inconsistencieir s, resistance tų to amendments to established texts. Presenting the 1916 m. issued by the Diocese of Žemaitija "The first of faith- ‘Salys A. ATA. A. Dambrauskas-Jakštas (1860-1938) // Mother tongue. 1938. Sas. 2 (52). P. 18. The same thing: Country A. Writings. Rome, 1985. T. 3. P. 126. 37 science” (p. „Nauji tikėjimo vadovėliai”. —„Ateitis- ”, 1917, No. 2), about the new edition of the poetry, A. Dambrauskas wrote: “It is true that another critic, you will find, will not like the newly corrected poetry, which has been placed in the first place here. Some, not being able to find what the new terms and expressions have changed, may regret that the old text was not followed. We remind them that there are two things in the poetry: 1) the thought of God revealed in it and 2) the form expressing that thought of God in human words. The thought of God is left untouched in the new pots; if anything has been changed, it is one more word and the structure of the sentence, i.e. their external form. This, like everything that is Zmogiska, is not static. Anyone who doubts this, just listen to the history: from there you will learn that the text of the poetry in the 16th and 17th centuries was different than in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a fact, it may be unpleasant for some, but there is nothing you can do about it. Changing Siaipjau live people's language, cannot not change and potter text, live language speakmassai. It is not in our power to stop this change. What is new today, tomorrow will be quite simple, the day after tomorrow already old. The critics will calm down and the youth will accept the new text with gratitude. For God, who has not despised the old, will equally gladly listen to the new, because he cares for the mind and love, not the letter and the word. We know this from his own teaching that “the letter kills, the spirit revives” (vol. 2, pp. 241-242). That is right and very persuasive. In addition, on several other occasions, A. Dambrauskas has stated that Lithuanian terms should be used. In his review of „Paskaitos iš biologijos ir bacteriologijos“ (Bruklinas, 1912), he adds to the author A. Garmas, that he „apparently blindly followed Russian sources- “, because it seemed that the terms ličinkos, probirkas, etc. (vol. 2, p. 432) were wrong, while in the textbook „Sveikata arba tiesus ir trumpas kelias į sveikatą“ prepared by A. L. Graičiūnas and published in Chicago in the beginning of 1911 for schools and the public, the words „ličinkos“ and „probirkos“ were wrong. In his book "Anatomy, Physiology, and Hygiene" he writes: "The names of parasites are all left in Latin. The author, apparently, did not know how to name them in Lithuanian. In a textbook for schools, this should not be the case” (vol. 2, p. 429). He maintained this opinion even ten years later, discussing S. Garbačauskas’ booklet “Futbolas” (Kaunas, 1921), which, in the reviewe38 r’s opinion, “will be difficult to understand because of the many foreign words. Fig., who will understand such sentences as “The centre forward must be a good player,” or „Havbeki - running players have to contribute to the forwards, then to the backs“ (16). According to our knowledge, all those backs, insider, goalkeepers, cornerbacks had to be lithuanized, because they, being English, are just as unsuitable for Lithuaniair ns as for other nations.” (t. 2, p. 572). Later, as everyone now knows, football terms were perfectly lithuanized, only the name of the game of English origin remained. Probably at the hike to to ir A. Dambrauskas will have contributed with his timely remark. Overall, a good variety of borrowed terms A. Dambrauskas has suggested replacing Lithuanian ar words with other, more common, borrowed ones, or has agreed to proposed tų substitutions, e.g. (all examples here are of the iš second Volume of sų "My New Literature"- ): attack attack = (p. 544), distance = distance, distance, distance (p. 544), kielik cup = (p. 138), lens lens = (p. 338), nervus = gyrus (p. 339 ir kt ; now spelled irritation), object thing = (p. 249), regiment = regiment (p. 138), sauce = sauce (p. 141; or 1910 m. !), Spicy = chard (p. 338), sketch = sketch (p. 178) ir etc., did not suit him in the booklet "Terms of Infantry Combat ir Combat" (Kaunas, m.) 1919 "no need" be left "Russian French iš borrowed" march, so offered the commands run run, step step (p. 543; by the way, in the teams bėgte marš, žengte marš very unusually used characteristics, ir because it to is really strange, exceptional). On the Statutes and Bylaws of the Lithuanian Army A. Dambrauskas made a number of interesting ir and accurate comments and suggestions (see section 4.4). t. 2, p. 541—553), į part of the jų new tų documents were taken se into account. A. Dambrauskas reviewed almost all Lithuanian dictionaries of terms published in the late 1920s. Particularly many reproaches made to the M. Trash “Aritmetic ir algebra terms dictionary” (Vilnius, beijo prepared “Project of 1919) mathematical terms” (“Lietuvos mokykla”, No. 1918, 11) ir Z. Žemaičio Acknowledging ir that a larger part of the terms in the dictionaries are good and 1920). suitable, the reviewer here fiercely tų proved the inadequacy of a good fibre of the terms composed in ir those dictionaries, starting with, according to him, the unsuccessful names of all four į arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division). Here, 39 as ir ne in another place, the superficial, external understanding of the critic's language, the stubborn, even blind defense of be what he himself has ir assumed ar (as mentionir ed, the same A. He has written a number of mathematics textbooks. ir Here, for example, how the uncertainty tų of the names of arithmetic actions is explained: "Composition already has its meaning in — sostav, subtraction will be more likely to vychet, o ne deduction; division in Russian will be dielez, multiplication pomnožka. Nouns made of — infinitives of verbs denote the results of iš action; while arithmetic operations are real operations and processes, so they were much better called by Vilnius mathematicians: teaching, taking, multiplying, dividing” ir (t. 2, p. 332). Neither the possible Russian equivalents of Lithuanian words, nor the unknownly based assertion that communicative nouns cannot denote iš action names, proves that the pejorative terms have failed. In this, as in some other ir writings, Dambrauskas very much wants to link A. Lithuanian terms with Russian ones, which, unlike in the previously mentioned su case, already be stubbornly defends the so-called international terms, considering Lithuanianization to be Polish influence. ir jų This being a mistake, because “Science is an international thing, so terms must remain ir international. Such terms as perpendicular, parallel, cateth, hypotenuse, diameter, perimeter, diagonal, median, bisectrix, ellipse, parabola, hyperbole do not need any national baptism at all. ir k. By nationalizing them, we will only make it more difficult for future generations of Lithuanians to use foreign mathematical literature and for foreigners to read our future ir mathematical works.” (t. 2, p. 335-336). Apparently, this argument is eternal, albeit naive, and still alive in the minds of the current ir proponents of international words. By the way, it is interesting that some physicists even ir now, firmly established the term radius, as ir A. Dambrauskas, I prefer to be a stipin. For this term A. Dambrauskas wrote as follows: "The — radium beam is pure polonism (slg. left. radium). Like a Krug's gonna be alone. [= — St. K.] let. circle circle, ar so there is no better ir term for radius than radius" (t. 2, p. 348-349). Much attention is paid to ir mathematics textbooks at — jų least 15 discussed. Ir here a lot of things added to some textbootų ks, especially P. Ma40 FROM A. DAMBRAUSKAS’ LINGUISTIC AND TERMINOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES Summary This paper deals with the linguistic and especially terminological activities of A. Dambrauskas (1860-1938) who was writer, a priest, man a religion and a science, of worker culture and press. a of The analysis first all of based the is collection on his articles and of reviews two volumes in “Our New Literature which (1904— 1923)”, was published in Kaunas in 1923 under the well-known pen-name of A. You're a fool. In almost every article of that collection A. Dambrauskas gave his evaluation the language scientific and of religious literature, of textbooks and fiction. Quite frequently he discussed questions of correctness of language and terminoloand their gy acceptability. Some his of corrections and suggestions were accepted the modern in language, though quite large part them did not take a root, because of they were not well enough grounded and too subjective. His works were damaged continuous by dispute with the works and suggestions the linguist of J. Jablonskis (1860-1930) who represented the main trend creation of modern of standard Lithuanian the time. at The wide and manifold activities of A. Dambrauskas allow the assertion that was eminent man he the times an creation modern in standard Lithuanian of and active of participant that process. an of Stasys CHANGE Received 2000 11 17 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnio g. 6 LT-2055, Vilnius 47