P. Slavėnas ir žodis „komunizmas“

(Zarasai District) and Apydimai (Telšiai District). In Prof. L. Mulevičius’s view, the word apydėmė now has more than one lexical meaning: not only “a plot of land between village homesteads or on their outskirts,” but also “the site of a former homestead; a homestead site.” This latter meaning is not distinguished even in the comprehensive “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.” In 1979, a public discussion on the names of social estates was held at the Institute of History, because the privileged estate in Lithuania’s feudal period was referred to in two ways: the estate of nobles and szlachta. Summing up this discussion, Prof. L. Mulevičius wrote an article in which he maintained that Lithuania had four main estates during the periods of feudalism and capitalism: the clergy, nobles, townspeople, and peasants. In other words, they should be called by the terms clergy, nobility, townspeople, and peasantry. Prof. L. Mulevičius was also interested in philological matters, but never imposed his opinions on anyone; he was very tolerant, a sunny person, as Vydūnas would have put it. Sadly, we must now speak of his work in the past tense. It has become part of the history of Lithuanian scholarship. Kazimieras GAIVENIS P. Slavėnas and the word communism Prof. P. Slavėnas (1901–1991), žymus Lietuvos astronomas, buvo plačių interesų mokslininkas. Jis domėjosi ne tik astronomija, fizika, gamtos mokslais, bet ir kalbotyra. P. Slavėnas keliolika metų buvo Terminologijos tarybos prie MA prezidiumo narys, nuolat bendravo su kalbininkais. P. Slavėnas was a great polymath. He could spend hours telling linguists not about astronomy, but about his theories of linguistics. Having a good command not only of the classical languages but also of many modern foreign languages, he enjoyed comparing them and drawing far-reaching generalizations. P. Slavėnas particularly liked comparing the Baltic languages not only with the Germanic and Slavic languages, but even with Semitic, Turkic, and other more distant non-Indo-European languages. Even specialists found it hard to distinguish what was rational in his theories and what belonged to the realm of fantasy. Yet the professor, as befits a great scholar, was very tolerant and did not get angry if linguists did not always believe his arguments. He also liked to predict the future of languages. He had written an article on this topic for “Kalbos kultūra,” which, 76 slightly revised and shortened, was published in issue 35. Here is what P. Slavėnas wrote in it, and the analogies on which he based his arguments: “The differences between the old and new languages of Europe can be explained not by their age, but by their proximity to other language families. The Semites and related peoples have used little inflection and articles from time immemorial, while the Finno-Ugric peoples had and still have a dozen or so cases. The Greeks, alongside the Semitic Phoenicians, simplified their inflection early on and became accustomed to the article, while the Balts and Slavs, alongside the Finno-Ugric peoples, still inflect as they did in antiquity. Incidentally, the Swedes, alongside the Finns, did not regain complex inflection, but they often attach an article to the end of a noun as if it were a case ending,” and so on. The future of the Lithuanian language was then predicted: “First of all, the variety of cases will narrow, especially as the genitive gains ground. The use of prepositions will therefore become more frequent. Moreover, some nouns will take on the role of prepositions. Thus, we will hammer in a nail not with a hammer, but with the help of a hammer; the patient will die thanks to cholera,” and so on. Here, genuine developments in languages are also intertwined with scholarly invention, and, to put it in the words of ordinary people, it is hard to tell where the beginning is and where the end. Around 1970, P. Slavėnas began compiling his own dictionary of astronomical terms, using a Polish multilingual dictionary of astronomical terminology as his basis. He worked on it for several years, regularly visiting the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature to consult with terminologists about one matter or another. Once, a scholar known to lexicographer A. Lyberis sent him from abroad Webster’s large English-language dictionary. The post office held up this shipment for a long time (such shipments usually arrived at a special post office branch in Vilnius, next to the railway station). We all gathered around the enormous dictionary he had brought and leafed through it, speculating about what might have “caught their eye” in it. Just then P. Slavėnas walked into our office. He, too, began looking through the dictionary. “Let’s see,” says A. Lyberis, “how it defines the word communism.” In that Webster’s dictionary, some words were given not only synonyms but antonyms as well. The word communism was accompanied by the synonym anarchism. P. Slavėnas laughed: “Anarchism!.. Not anarchism, but authoritarianism, a dreadful and vile autocracy.” More than 20 years have passed since those words were spoken. P. Slavėnas left long ago for the land of Hades. Yet his forthrightness and candor in those “tempus nostrum jubet silentium” times still inspire admiration. K. GAIVENIS 1Our times command silence. 77