Klaidingas kai kurių tikrinių ir bendrinių žodžių (terminų) vartojimas

ZIGMAS ZINKEVIČIUS Emeritus Academician Research fields: Baltic studies, the history of the Lithuanian language, dialectology, onomastics. INCORRECT USE OF CERTAIN PROPER AND COMMON WORDS (TERMS) We will begin our overview with the use of the historical name of our homeland, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, abbreviated as GDL, when we speak of the era of Mindaugas, Gediminas, and Vytautas, when Lithuania was still a fully independent state, rather than subordinate to another state—Poland—as happened later, especially after the Union of Lublin. The state of Mindaugas and Vytautas is called a kingdom in the sources, and its rulers are called kings. To call that state a duchy or a principality (even a Great one) is to demean it and, at the same time, distort history. Poles most often do this (including historians), seeking to portray Lithuania as an insignificant state, although at the time it ruled territories larger than Poland’s—which eventually stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. It should be emphasized that Lithuania was then still fully independent and subordinate to no one. The inhabitants of Lithuania have long been called Lithuanians. There was also the name lietuvininkai or lietuv(i)nykai, which in modern times came to be applied to the inhabitants of Lithuania Minor (Prussian Lithuania)—ethnic Lithuanians—who had resettled from East Prussia, the part of Lithuania ruled by the Germans. But in our press, the names of Lithuania Minor Lithuanians and Lithuanians as a whole are often confused, and this should not be the case. The two names must not be conflated. Instead of Lithuanian, people sometimes say lietuvaitis, giving the word a diminutive meaning with a derogatory tinge. However, lietuvaitis has long had a different meaning: the son of an ethnic Lithuanian (not a citizen of Lithuania). This is the meaning in which the word should be used, rather than giving it the meaning invented by Lithuania’s enemies. The name Aukštaičiai (Aukštaitija is a new word) has more than one meaning: linguists (dialectologists use it as a name for a dialect) understand it one way, archaeologists another. Therefore, when necessary and to avoid misunderstanding, it is useful to specify which meaning we are using, especially since the size of the area designated by this name depends on it. In ancient times, this name had a physiographic meaning and was not related to dialect or the ethnographic characteristics of people. This is clear Įžvalgos / Insights 253 ZIGMAS ZINKEVIČIUS This can be seen from a letter written on March 11, 1420, by Vytautas the Great, ruler of Lithuania, to Emperor Sigismund. In that letter, Vytautas assigns the upper part of Lithuania (that is, the Vilnius–Ashmyany uplands) to the Aukštaičiai, and the lower part (that is, the central Lithuanian lowlands in the Nevėžis basin) to the Žemaičiai. The German Order’s chroniclers also used the names Aukštaičiai and Žemaičiai in a physiographic sense, translating them into German and Latin as the upper (situated on higher ground) and lower (in lowland) parts of Lithuania. Neither Vytautas nor the chroniclers of the German Order could have used Žemaičiai to refer to the Lithuanians in the area of the present-day Samogitian dialect, because at that time Curonians lived there. It should be emphasized that the Aukštaičiai, like the Žemaičiai, are regarded in the sources as the same Lithuanians, who spoke the same Lithuanian language. The sources make no mention at all of linguistic differences. At that time, these were still indistinct. The present-day Samogitian dialect emerged later. The Curonian substrate was decisive in its formation. Because of it, not only did the Samogitian dialect become markedly distinct from the other Lithuanian dialects, but the Samogitians themselves also inherited many characteristic Curonian traits (perseverance, etc.). Over time, these traits developed further and set the Samogitians apart from other Lithuanians. Ultimately, this led to manifestations of an understanding of themselves as an independent ethnos, distinct from the Lithuanians. For all these reasons, the words aukštaičiai and žemaičiai should be used with care. In the past, after all, they meant something different from what we call them today. If we disregard this, we may mislead one another and fail to understand one another. Above all, let us always bear in mind that the name žemaitis is an import in the present-day area of this dialect. The use of the name Žemaičiai (Žemaitija, like Aukštaitija, is a recent coinage) is further complicated by the fact that in the 17th century, the Samogitian language was the name given to one of the written varieties of Lithuanian used at that time in the religious writings of the Samogitian diocese. These varieties had nothing to do with the present-day Samogitian dialect and originated in the lowlands of central Lithuania (the Nevėžis basin), where the Aukštaičiai dialect was spoken. All this created the conditions for divergent understandings of the word žemaitis to emerge, gave rise to many disputes and even, as noted, led to the Samogitians being treated as a separate ethnic unit. We must therefore use this word very carefully, so as not to conflate the different linguistic units to which it referred in the past—the Aukštaičiai and the Žemaičiai. We should also use the ethnonym Aiščiai. with care. We must not lose sight of the fact that Tacitus used this name for a Baltic tribe belonging to the Western Balts (a linguistic term), like the Prussians; their language differed greatly from Lithuanian and cannot be identified with it. Later, the word aisčiai began to be used to refer to all Balts (Kazimieras Jaunius, Kazimieras Būga, and others). This is a new, expanded meaning of the word. 254 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Incorrect use of some proper and common words (terms) All this must be kept in mind when we use this word. Otherwise, we will artificially and unconditionally turn a historical West Baltic tribe into Lithuanians. The name of the region Suvalkija arose when the Suwałki Governorate was established. There had been no such name before, although people sometimes mistakenly speak of Suvalkija as a very old name. This should not be done. In the interwar period, it was customary to write and speak about the Suvalkian dialect, supposedly the source of the Lithuanian standard language. In reality, there has never been a Suvalkian dialect. The Lithuanian standard (especially written) language was transferred from Lithuania Minor (Prussian Lithuania) and adapted to the needs of Lithuania Major. This work was carried out by linguists, chiefly Jonas Jablonskis, rightly called the father of the Lithuanian standard language. Besides Suvalkija, the name Sūduva is also used with roughly the same meaning. In reality, Sūduva was one of the West Baltic tribes (a linguistic term), belonging to the Yotvingian tribal confederation, and thus quite distant from the Lithuanians; it should not be unconditionally identified with them. The present-day inhabitants of the old Sūduva region are called Sūduvians. They apparently inherited this name from the actual (ancient) Sūduvians. Whether today’s Sūduvians are related by ancestry to ancient Sūduva is disputed. In any case, they should not be identified entirely with the actual (ancient) Sūduvians, who must have differed considerably from Lithuanians in linguistic terms. Unfortunately, this is often done. In southeastern Lithuania there is the Dzūkian dialect. The name derives from pronouncing the affricate dz instead of the standard-language dž, that is, from dzūkavimas (the characteristic pronunciation). However, this pronunciation occurs not only in the area of this dialect, but much more widely. In the past, western (true) and eastern (Vilnius-region) Dzūkians were distinguished. However, the eastern Dzūkians understood in this way are in fact not westerners (like the true Dzūkians), but eastern Highlanders of the Vilnius region, who merely exhibit some degree of Dzūkian pronunciation (some more, some less). In general, the so-called eastern Dzūkians differ greatly from the true Dzūkians, and therefore cannot form the same dialect with them. For this reason, Dzūkian pronunciation was abandoned as a distinguishing criterion for a dialect. But in the press and in everyday speech this is often ignored, and anyone who speaks even a little this way is considered a Dzūkian. This causes confusion. Therefore, one should be cautious when using the word Dzūkian. Our eastern neighbors are the Belarusians. This is a new state. In ancient times (the era of Mindaugas and Vytautas), no such state yet existed. The name originated from the regional name of old (Kievan) Rus’, White Rus’ (not Russia; that name was not yet used at the time). The name Belarus (from white + Rus’, not Rusia) was strongly promoted under Bolshevik rule in Lithuania, of course, because of Russia’s imperialist aims. The Belarusians themselves call their state Беларусь (from ‘White Rus’’, not ‘White Russia’). The Russians have now begun to call them by that name as well. But we, for reasons unknown, cling to the Soviet name Baltarusija (with –Russia!), historically Įžvalgos / Insights 255 ZIGMAS ZINKEVIČIUS incorrect. Thus we have become, as the common people would say, “holier than the Pope.” It is time to consider what to replace this Sovietism with and to stop offending our neighbors by deriving their country’s name from Russia. We received the names of more distant lands, with which Lithuania has no direct contact, not directly but through intermediary languages. A characteristic example is čigonai. Nowadays there is a noticeable tendency to replace the word čigonas with the Roma people’s own designation, romas. Such a universal change, and similar changes, cannot be endorsed, since in that case we would have to call Germans doičiais, and Estonians, following the Latvians, igau­niais, and so on. In individual cases, when necessary, we may of course use current self-designations, but we should do so cautiously. Only those names that many people use incorrectly have been discussed here. The mistakes made by individual people have been left aside, since they are impossible even to collect, let alone investigate systematically. The problem of naming the inhabitants of the Vilnius region (Vilnija) is also not addressed, because it is complex and highly politicized. That is a subject for a separate study. The same applies to the confusion of the names Russia and Rus’, Russians and Russian-speaking people, which occurs even in historians’ speech. Received on May 18, 2015. ZIGMAS ZINKEVIČIUS Justiniškių 41-24, LT-05127 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 256 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII