Irena Ermanytė. „Antonimų žodynas“

176 | REVIEWS (p. 400); uspilto-s (p. 397) = us'p'ilto-s; vad6-ve-(- p. 414) = vad6-ve-; atéjo-(p. 414) = until-I-; to-ks (p. 430) = to-ks; lé.idz’u (p. 457) = Ié.idz’u; Birds (Zodyne); game:ti (p. 462) = game:ti; acisé-zdavo (p. 467) = acisé-zdavu; é-da (p. 479) = é-da; Za-si-tez (p. 484) = Za's'i-t'es; riedam (p. 508) = riedam; I'll pass it. (p. 532) = passed away. ; k6-ta (p. 543) = ké-ta. ; atlé-kt (p. 559) = atl'é-kt; reng'uds'i (p. 565)= rey'g'tos- 'i; determinism (1) (p. 569) = (2); rodyti (p. 570) = show, show, show; Maybe someone else hasn't noticed. Errors In this work errors have certainly decreased, we are approaching an exemplary scientific text: such pronunciation, and other errors, so long as they could be easily pointed out (while preparing for printing) and corrected. Does everything belong to the dialect, after all, there is no defined,,- tarmés Zodis*, although the whole volume of the zodyak is as if connected by the definition,,paveldétas zodis*. Non-dialectal words and forms bit: literdtas (p. 88), stlosiu (=sulosit) (p. 97); neismaisi- -tu. GRS = neismaisi- -tu. (it seems, there is no such metatonia); on bl@-cvas (p. 452); daugumo-- (=daugiausia) rifiko-[vezti] tarnd.uto-jus visus JNK (p. 559) and others This is also not much, and the links are very useful and necessary. Now we'll wait for the last of Sios Snekty's group, the common language base, all the assets. In the third volume it is necessary to indicate some unpleasant errors, imperfections. The proper formation and discovery of dialectal lexical gardens is an extremely important matter — dialects and old finds are the great wealth of a nation’s language, which is of great interest to many researchers of Indo-European studies. There are also unresolved questions, for example, the need to soften the consonant groups: m'iyks'ti or otherwise, al'ks'n'is or otherwise. Vytautas Antanas Vitkauskas Received 2005 06 09 Institute of Lithuanian Language P. VileiSio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania IRENA ERMANYTE ANTONIMU ZODYNAS Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Language, 2003, xxiii + 584 p., ISBN 9986-668-52-2 Antonimy Zodynas —the result of a long-term work that required a great deal of knowledge and diligence. Its author Irena Ermanyté is an experienced lexicologist, who has written and edited many of the great Lithuanian lexicons, published the school Lithuanian antonymy lexicon (1985), so her linguistic skills and scientific knowledge can be fully trusted. The reviewed dictionary belongs to a special type of dictionary, because it provides lexical units of one type: pairs or chains of such words, whose meanings are diametrically opposed to each other, i.e. antonyms. Isrinkus medziaga iS viso daugiatomio Lietuviy kalbos zodyno, papildzius pavyzdziais i§ grozinés literatiros, publicistikos, Siame veikale stengtasi pateikti ir sisteminius, ir kontekstinius antonimus, aiSkinti ir lietuviy bendrineés kalbos, ir tarmiu, ir senujy raStu faktus. Thus, we have before our eyes a lexicographic work of a large volume, in which we can find data not only about the systemic relationships of words in the present Lithuanian language, but also about the relationships of presence formed in certain texts, which in one way or another affect the entire language system. 1. The structure of the,,Antonymy Zodyno” is almost traditional: at the beginning there are three sections (,,Ivadas- “,,,Zodyno sandara‘ and,,Abbreviations“), followed by the corpus of the Zodyno itself, in which the antonyms are presented in nests, i8destined according to the alphabet of one i8 antonimy, and at the end is given the phraseology of the origin of the antonimy with a list and an arrow for the nests of the antonimy. That Zodyn was written on the basis of sufficient theoretical basis of lexical semantics, shows the content of,,Ivado- *. Here it is discussed with arguments, what constitutes an antonym, as a member of two connections, the basis, what determines the connection of a word (verb, verb formants or context), what logical factors link the antonyms in language, how the stylistic figures based on antonyms are formed. When reading the introduction, one question arises —does the text of the dictionary itself reveal all the statements postulated in the theoretical part, and was it necessary to include in the introduction of the dictionary everything that is known to its author, who defended her doctoral dissertation precisely on antonyms. | §j question can be answered exactly bitty only after a detailed analysis of the antonymy pairs themselves and illustrative examples of their use. But even without closer examination, the importance of some reasoning for Siam Zodyn is doubtful. Very strangely, here are understood the function of the verb and the iSvestinumas*™, connecting such antonymy pairs as near — far (road), dux — Zemas (tree), deep — sekel (eZeras) or ausra — sutema, born — die, uvertitira — findlas. Of course, both members of this group have some common content characteristic, one member has more, the other — less, that this common content characteristic allows to combine words in a certain type of lexical semantic paradigms, but what is this function and how is it related to,,derivateness- *? It is also doubtful whether the influence of intonation on the semantic relationship of the antonym pair can be reflected in the zodiac. Thus, in a well-argumented theoretical introduction to the vocabulary, it is possible to formulate somewhat more specific statements, valuable for lexicography, rather than general considerations about antonyms. In the section »Zodyno sandaros« explained how iSdéstyta medZiaga. This section is rather fragmentary, the principles of data presentation are not adequately discussed. For example, here it is said how to present the verb antonyms of the second member in the synonymic row (first found verb without prefix, 0 after it in the alphabet found prefix verbs), but nothing is said about the presentation of the synonymic row in other parts of the language; it is stated that antonym meanings are avoided to be interpreted as synonyms, but it is not clear how those meanings are interpreted — whether the interpretations are taken from somewhere, or created by the author himself. This section defines what constitutes antonym pairs and how they are numbered. But, as soon as Zitirinéti begins the text of the dictionary itself, he explains that the numbering of antonimy pairs with small prints, meaning 0 — blackened, is really questionable. Firstly, there is a certain visual difficulty, and secondly, it seems that the distinction of meanings is more important than the distinction of antonym pairs. Petito numbers before the second word sometimes number not only the pair of the same word, i.e. the same lexicon, used in the same meaning (a), but also the same Word used in another meaning (already another lexicon), forming an antonymy pair with another word (b). Such uniform presentation of different types of facts creates unnecessary confusion and becomes a puzzle for consumers. Plg. : a) 1 stroking Gently stroke the hand —bite to hurt, Gnash with teeth 2 stroking Gently stroke the hand —must, Serti darts to cause painq 3 stroking Gently stroke the hand —p@Sti to hurt by pulling hair b) 1 calm which does not give change —turbulent which is restless, persistent 2 calm which does not quickly irritate, get angry —irritable which quickly irritates 3 calm which is peaceful, without bloodshed —curvy which is associated with bloodshed 178 | REVIEWS This numbering of antonym pairs is particularly misleading when the first Word of the pair is polynomial and when for each lexem there are several antonyms; then it's not clear what the digits mean - whether an antonym pair or a lexem. For example, in the list of live antonyms of Budvardzio, five numbers are listed, but what are they represented by—only five pairs of antonyms? Or perhaps the author of the dictionary thinks that this binomial is a singular, if its meanings are not numbered with blacked-- out letters, as is done in other articles: 1 alive who has life —maris who must die, mortal 2 alive who has life —dead, dead who has no life 3 alive in which organic processes take place —inactive in which no organic processes take place 4 alive which is agile, swift —létas, romis which moves slowly, does not rush 5 alive which is actively developing —sustinges which is passive, slowly developing and so on. : 1 liquid which has the property of flowing —hard which is resistant to bending 2 liquid 1. which has a lot of water —solvent 1. which has little water 2. which flows well —2. which flows gently 3. which occasionally, rarely will survive —3. which without tarpy, dense In some cases, the numbering of pairs in general raises questions about the sequence of the presentation of antonyms. For example, it is not clear why some pairs are numbered starting with the moveable values: 1 ascent prk. spiritual strengthening —depression, persecution prk. spiritual weakness 2 rise prk. spiritual strengthening —néopolis prk. sharp spiritual decline 3 ascent disturbance from the top —descent from the top reaching the top after a long time 4 ascent / level promotion —illness level decrease 5 ascent getting better results —no decrease getting worse results There is also some unnecessary numbering, apparently, in the editing, e.g.: 1 apreiksti (and where is 2?). 2.When evaluating the content of the dictionary, it is important to determine whether the scope and ambitions of the reviewed work correspond to the current language. Todél should Si and that say about the selection of wood for the garden. The introduction states that the material was collected from 18 living languages, LKZ I-XX volumes, Lithuanian literature classics, various works and periodicals. We can only praise the author of the dictionary for finding and systematizing language facts and illustrations, because such a work required a lot of care and skill. And yet the question of the second word selection arises not so little. One of them is this: why wasn’t the textbook data used in preparing the dictionary, why were not new words from the last decades selected, and why were rare dialects (magus, moma, tota, Sapara?, skirmos, senykscias —dabarykscias, nusilti —nusdlti), complete occasionalisms (aukstikas and Zemitkas, kabis and nelabis, kusanciasis and slinkasis, pardosas, pardudksné, pardudlé and pirksné), i.e. the same variants of the dictionary that differ in nothing from the essence (Salia aukstyn are most often provided dialects auksty, aukstyna, aukstynai, aukstyniui, aukstynuo)? It is not very clear why secondly the unknown forms of a word are given as a pair of antonyms, when in the Salia the same meaning related forms of a word are given (therefore, the rules of the Word and its form are violated). Or again: why are some potential structures included in Zodyna as a second-level structure, while others are ignored? For example, these biidvardziai ankstékas — vélokas, 0 exactly the same verb sodziy gerdkas —blogdékas, jaundkas —sendkas already néra; only one other adverbial or verb abstract is included, e.g. flexibility —inertial- THE REVIEWS | 179 mas; amusement litinning; long-term — short-term; iS4ukstinimas — grounding, grounding down; kélimas —gulimas and one more. But why use them at all when the same meaning is given to the basic Words in the Bible? Well-known lexicographical practice is not to place second-order words in regular mutational order, i.e., those that only pass from one group of words to another, but retain the same characteristic or meaning of action. It is unclear why the author has given in the second part of the text such adjective derivatives, which differ from verbs without adjectives only in the meaning of the verb, e.g.: papilnéti —patustéti, paplatéti —suauréti, platinti —pasiaiirinti, susiaurinti (isn't it enough in these cases to use adjectives without adjectives?). It is hardly necessary to take as secondary words that are considered to be language errors, e.g.: atidaryti ‘open (an eye)’, kvidas, kudlotas, etc. When evaluating the presented antonymy pairs, one principled question arises, which has long been discussed in the theory of lexicology: when do words with a negative acquire meaning? Introduction This question is not discussed, 0 antonymy pairs, in which the second Word is the variant of the first with a negative, do not help to solve the problem, e.g.: spdusdintas —nespdusdintas (kodél ne rankrastinis- ?), taktiskas —netaktiskas (kodél neuztenka akiplesiskas, iztilus, Siurkstis?). Such considerations and the author's positions help to make a clear statement not only for lexicologists, but also for the users of the dictionary. 3. The author of the poem showed great linguistic judgment in searching for antonym equivalents. She revealed that in Lithuanian language there are some words which, due to their abundance of meanings and variation in context, can form numerous antonym pairs (e.g., darbas forms a8tuonias, dziaiigsmas — eleven, kdlnas — thirteen, kélti — seven, kélti — nine, virsiiné — six pairs, etc.). Most of the antonyms are illustrated by sentences, in which both the systematic and the random relation of the words are evident, revealing a variety of stylistic figures based on antonyms. Especially interesting are the examples that show that antonyms can be even the same word meanings, e.g.: bréksti can mean both ‘dark’ and ‘au&ti’; Cidupti —‘to open the mouth’ and ‘to close the mouth’; uncover — ‘zoom in by flying’ and ‘zoom out by flying’; iSgérbinti — ‘to curse, to humiliate’ and ‘to curse, to humiliate’; kasti —‘to make a pit’ and ‘to destroy a pit’. Thus, the articles of the dictionary show the great potential of the miisy language to describe sudéetic relations. Didelés apimties Zodyne vis délto often occurs some tricks of systematizing the turétos medZiagos. They are shown, for example, by some not quite reasonably chosen members of the antonym pair: a) does not correspond to the declared concept of antonym, when antonyms are compared with words belonging to different parts of the language: apsirefiges —nuogdlius, islavintas —vergas, iimintingas — neismaneélis, laisvasis —vérgas, lobingas —elgeta, teists —apgavikas, etc. ; b) it is doubtful whether it is possible to consider as antonyms words of the same part of the language, but belonging to different semantic types, for example, verbs, one of which means active action, and the other — spontaneous occurrence or even fear: jsisprduti — iSsprdusti; living — to kill; or adverbs, one of which means place, the other direction: namo —svetuF (Kelias savaites užsienyje prabuves namo grjzo); what else beitu namié — elsewhere; c) sometimes random pair members are chosen for the second Word (maybe because only such an illustrative example was found?), and the possible much more accurate antonyms are disregarded, e.g.: atlaikyti is chosen as the antonym musti, and where spdusti, slégti(?); as the antonyms of the foreigner, the newcomer are indicated only iseivis, iivykélis, and where cidbuvis, vietinis, saviskis(?); atlapétas antonym esa is only wZdaras (0 if bity is talking about atlapota apsiausta?); Why is the word bdltymas given only one antonym jiodymas, and where is the yolk? Found only one, and that strange, antonym to the adjective paténkintas, but precisely —piktas (—Give it yourself, —with Svebleno Damule, more satisfying- 180 | RECENZIJOS ta negu pikta), but wouldn't there be a clearer relationship of the Word's presence with the participants disappointed, panitres, prk. - Survivor? For the noun smarvė choose at least some antonyms: smarvė, smarvė; but kvdpas far from always means pleasant smell, usually This word describes the general property of the substance to act on the sense of smell (smell can be both pleasant and unpleasant), 0 and the dictionary sentence does not show at all that the given words are antonyms for smell (Jr will smell instead of good (!) smell). Obviously, the number of chosen antonyms was very limited by the available sentences (the author tried to provide those sentences in which both members of the conjunction were present), but is it not better for the user to find in the dictionary only those antonyms that the author had at hand, rather than not being able to find all well-known pairs of words? So it is a pity that only two pairs of wins are given: win —lose and win —lose, 0 where win —lose, win —fail, win —lose? There is only one antonym of the verb: the word „zudyti“ (to kill) is used to give birth, 0 its synonym „uzmusti“ (to force) has a completely different antonym: „pasigailéti“ (to have pity); So can't pity be an antonym of killing and vice versa? There are quite a lot of inaccuracies of this kind (see also: teisinis —beteisis, tikinti —neigti, uzkldusti — atkifsti). All these inaccuracies make it doubtful whether the author's position is correct to choose antonyms based on random texts rather than on systematic word connections. In the text of the Zodyn there are indeed a lot of pairs, which are by no means systematic antonyms and between which in the system of language there are not at all antonymal, hyponymous or equonymous relations, e.g.: daind —red, tiosvé —all, 2 lapas —spyglys, tekéti —to marry, valgyti —to eat, brolis —sesud, tévas —mother, etc. Of course, such words can become contextual antonyms, but the given examples do not show such antonymism (Tévg and moting gyvq turjs; Only the harmonious upbringing of father and mother can turn the children in the desired direction; Eating, drinking delicacies, i.e. says that it tastes good to him; He has given them fruits —they have eaten and have eaten well) or makes the antonymism of the given pair questionable, e.g.: | stovéti —griiiti (Not walking griiiva, but standing- ); It is difficult to find an antonymic relationship between the verbs say and hear (cf. I heard a mighty voice in heaven, sakantj). Some pairs are not illustrated by examples at all, which makes it even more difficult to perceive them as antonyms, e.g.: germinate — to germinate, germinate — to vanish, earthly — platonical, produce — to use, glorify — to silence, gaze — to gaze, spread; iSanalizioti — to synthesize, léistis — to solidify, etc. Sometimes, on the contrary, there are articles overloaded with non-informative illustrative examples (see articles active —passive, early — late, artéti — far away, up — down, white — black, here — there, etc.). 4. The value of the Zodyno content is largely determined by the semantic data of the Zodyno article. The use of this dictionary is greatly facilitated by the antonym meaning or shade interpretations provided here. The author does not provide detailed definitions of meanings, but brief explanations of them, which, by the way, are quite sufficient for the user to easily identify the semantics of both members of the antonym pair. It is a pity that nowhere else the methodology of providing meaningful explanations, the author's choice of metalanguage are explained in more detail. And yet, it is clear that the author has made directed efforts to systematize the usual interpretations taken mainly from the vocabulary of the contemporary Lithuanian language (e.g., the meaning of words of the same grammatical type or lexical semantic group is tried to be given interpretations of the same model), to create its own definitions (especially those with figurative or symbolic meanings). Therefore, a great deal of work has been done for the benefit of consumers. Of course, it is impossible not to notice that in some places it was not completely successful. Even the selective assessment allowed to observe inaccurate meaning searches, which either allow to create too many antonymy pairs, or prevent to indicate true antonyms. For example, it is not clear on what basis to divide the separate articles singing — crying and singing — crying; generous REVIEWS | 181 — gobsits ir dosnis — spultts; is it ar sufficient for the author to create synonyms with some different interpretation so that it is possible to speak of several antonym pairs? No need be for two couples to stay ‘stop somewhere, find a way’ leave — stay ir “somewhere to stop, find a way’ to try, barely distinguishab- — le meaningful interpretations (iSvykti is explained as ‘to embark on a journey, to go’, to try j 0 — ‘to go, to travel’) would certainly not allow it to be done. Misle uzmena nountavardziy atokaita, saulékaita meaningful explanations and given antonyms. jy First Word explained as ‘place nearSais saulg’, the o second so, as if it baty named the first rusiné savoka ‘sun’s retreat’; Although the ir semantic scope of the first word is much wider, it has only one antonym pavésis, the second has three: 0 pavésis, — patiksme tiksmé. ir Sometimes the same words are described with different words, which 0 greatly hinders the reader to understand the given antonymy relationship with the su first Words, e.g.: in the first pair grizti, sugrizti actionazThe su word nueiti is read ‘pésciam kur nors nuvykti’, in a 0 couple to su go somewhere is different: ‘Zingsniając się wycofać Salin'. Ar are such explanations justified? Ar Do the words of i$ explanation really reveal different meanings? Ar The first couple illustrating the sentence A liar's way is wide to go, but narrow to return cannot be replaced A liar's way is wide to go, but narrow to go back? Is it really so different to go to the meanings that they need to be read completely differently? The author really deserves praise for avoiding ji synonyms. One other explanation can be mentioned, where the bit can be replaced with a more accurate one, e.g.: jsimi/iti ‘to be expelled’, pamifsti ‘not to be expelled’, Zvalus ‘living, agile’, gyvas ‘judrus, zvalus’. Somewhere else the doubt causes the authors' positions j to have metaphorical meanings. There is no clarity, they ar are described according to the historical positivism (to consider transferable any motivated meanings), synchronic ar (only those that have additional connotation should be considered transferred). Such doubts arise when finding knowledge prk. ties noun naujokas meaning ‘only a beginner who is working’, at the beginning of the verb ‘fruitless’, ir with the meaning ‘which gives good results’ ir ‘which does not yield results’, at the verb kairéti desinéti need ir ‘to look left’ ir ‘darytis deSiniyjy pazitiry’. Since the words in their figurative meanings are used in a ir symbolic Required words are marked with a special sign (on the right side of the first member of the antonym pair), marked prk. the need in general can be questioned. But if they are, it is not good that the meanings so marked are left somewhere in illustrative examples, e.g.: soft prk. be ‘who is merciful, sensitive’ — kietas prk. ‘who is merciless, SiurkStus’. It is very unfortunate that in another reikimés ai’king there are language errors: i/ginimas ‘making longer in relation to (= longer) space’, rwnpinimas ‘making shorter in relation to (= shorter) space’; i/gmas ‘being longer for longer) in terms of (= space’, uz ka short mas ‘being shorter to (= shorter) than something in terms of space’. 5. Since the word medZiaga collected only leksikografiniy ne work, but iS ir i8 Various colors, i ji path A little term, Salia kuriy, as usual, pazyméta ir scope of use. However, somewhere else the terminology is unfortunately confusing, e.g.: undefined economics, finance terms — asset liability (although it is explained that the pair used in Si another meaning belongs to the field of linguistics); it is not stated that the terms staciastilbis gulsciastilbis, staciavarpis lenktavérpis — are terms of botany, singing — cartic linguistics, integrated differentiated — mathematics. — 0 — Perhaps it was thought that the latter two pairs are used only in linguistic mathematics? ne ir But then why should we be ju interpreted as term? 6. A small part of the dictionary consists of the section,,Antonimy kilmes frazeologizmai™. The given list of illustrative examples summarizes one ir of the possible types of phraseological su combinations. is It's a phrase- 182 | RECENZIJOS Logic components have lost their usual lexical meanings, therefore the antonym is not used here, i. e. formally it enters into the phraseology as a pair of antonyms, but it does not indicate a connection, because it is subordinated to the general meaning of the compound, e.g. nei hangtas nei paleistas ‘about to be hanged or released’, ir vilkas sotus, ir avis sveika ‘interests are reconciled- ’, vienas pirštas mugėje, kitas uodegoje ‘about hard-working’, etc. The section is not long, but it may be useful for researchers of Lithuanian phraseology, who will find in one place the constant Zodziy compounds of the same structural type. The overall level of lexicography improves,,- Antonimy nesty rodykle“. It indicates exactly on which page of the dictionary which antonym porg can be found. In the first arrow of the word all the members of the i§ eilés antonymy pair are listed in alphabetical order, so it is easy to find the data of each i8 jy in the dictionary, which can be very different in the same corpus. The design of the dictionary is simple and understandable (except for the mentioned numbering problems), and its essence meets the requirements of modern lexicography. The criticisms made in the review show how difficult it is to prepare a good large-volume dictionary, and how much skill and attention such work requires from a linguist. Irena Ermanyté is a great specialist in her field, although in such a large work it was difficult for her to avoid errors and inaccuracies. However, her work Antonimy Zodynas can be heartily admired. It is a very valuable work of Lithuanian language lexicography. It is based on the author’s serious theoretical studies and provides interesting facts about Lithuanian lexicon. It will be useful both for the experts in semantic relationships of words and for all those who are interested in the uniqueness of the Lithuanian language. Evalda Jakaitiené Received 2004 12 02 Department of Lithuanian Language Vilnius University Universiteto g. 5, 01122 Vilnius, Lithuania