Janina Švambarytė, Giedrė Čepaitienė. „Zanavykų šnektos žodynas“ I (A–K)

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA L (2004), 139 - 147 Reviews ZANAVYKŲ ŠNEKTOS ŽODYNAS I, A-K. TEXT BY JANINA SVAMBARYTĖ, GIEDRĖ CEPAITIENĖ. EDITORS ALDONAS PUPKIS (SENIOR EDITOR), KLEMENTINA VOSYLYTĖ. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003, 830 p., ISBN 5-420-01504-8 (1 vol.), ISBN 5-420-01505-6 (general). Our ancient writings and dialects, as Juozas Balčikonis has learned, are the most important material for various researches, decisions and considerations. This was the aim of the LCZ — almost not all the material, this is emphasized in the works of many researchers. Alongside the LKZ, dialect dictionary began to appear. One of the largest is the Zanavykų šnektos dictionary, the first volume of which appeared in 2003 (authors Janina Švambarytė, Giedrė Čepaitienė, editors Aldonas Pupkis and Klementina Vosylytė). The material was collected by a large group of various cultural workers, especially student Lithuanianists — it was a considerable group of idealists, who with enthusiasm collected the lexicon of spoken language, drawing up a plan for the dictionary. A number of people who still maintained the šnektas were spoken, although things that were foreign to the šnektas in recent times are now becoming part of the šnektas: the suffix -iniūkas instead of -ynykas, the pronunciation of the passive kind of the past participle padirbti, palčisti (1th syllable) by the participants of the past cartinio time with the third syllable (padirbti, paleisti, etc.). It is strange that in Žvirgždžičiai, Bajoršaičiai, Ketūrnaujiena, the pronounced e has not been marked with a large prefix (sė.n'is, m'ė.t'e, etc. were the norm in 1954). Snekts are changing dramatically, because of collectivization, land reclamation, land loss, there are no strong rural communities that were able to pass on the snekts system from generation to generation. And the vocabulary is changing a lot, the old is decreasing, the writings and television are driving a lot out of use. The material of the LKŽ supplemented this dictionary in many ways (lexical is a moving layer of language), but the work was prepared differently, only transposed forms, often the morphology of the phrases was changed. This makes this vocabulary quite diverse and heterogeneous. In addition to the transcribed, now recorded sentences, centuries-old and now collateralized data of Antanas Tatarė, there are sentences composed of common language words and some dialect word: most often only the suffix -ininkas, -ė was used instead of -inykas, -ės; prepositions from-, prie-, są-, overshadowed dialectal nū-, pry-, sū-, až-, žuir etc., the genders of the common language were chosen. (Later, from volume V, and especially from volume XI, this situation was corrected. The dialect genders were transposed according to the sounds of the common language.) The source of the dialect vocabulary is the people of a certain region, locality, or even a rural schnekt, born, raised and speaking in a historically formed dialect, which is characterized by a certain system of phonetics, morphology, syntax and lexicon. Thus following the dialectal vocabulary constitu- 140 | RECENZIJOS random things, the system of common language that sounds from the radio, theater or other channels of common language, that sounds in the heads of people, individual things of that system, automatically fall off the rhythm principles. If you refer to all, any and all the inhabitants of that region, speaking in any way, you get a different type — maybe some sociological dictionaries or something else. The Zanavyk schnekt dictionary is a somewhat unexpected type of lexical collection. Usually, dialect lexicographers with different ideas in the world compile comprehensive, difference (differential) dictionaries, even of a single village, individual person. In this case, the aim was to delve not only into the written vocabulary of the schnekt, but also to include examples of writings of writers and cultural figures of that region, material from other works of the language (abundant from the LKŽ). A lot of effort has been put into it, but there are also shadows, because the writer could hardly or can not rely solely on his own speech, knows how to take something from the common language and from other dialects, can be corrected by the publisher or editor and something added to it. Besides Antanas Tatarė, Juozas Lozoraitis, Albinas Bernotas, Petronėlė Orintaitė and others, there are no examples of writings by Janas Jablonskis (although he often marked sentences and individual words with the abbreviation Rg = Rygiškiai, supporting the whole foundation of the common language in that dialect). This is particularly unexpected. Sometimes unforeseen things happen due to the publishing circumstances. From the American press probably Zemgaly workers will make the words dovena, dovenot Bs, as well as apmaudas Bs will appear; from the Žemaites, through Petronėlė Orintaitė, who lived among them for decades, will have come the words apveidus, -i ‘beautiful’, atminais ‘occasionally’, it (p. 163), the form budynių ‘Sermeny’ (p. 393), garakštis ‘wrinkle’; oriental atgozt from the Orintaites writings becomes atgozti. The writer’s novels atgyna ‘defense’, atgoda ‘rest’ have also entered this dictionary, it seems. unnecessarily, the same will probably be the word "shallow sleep', even the word "traveler- ''alien' and so on. Pranas Vaičaitis also has borrowed words from other dialects, e.g.: atžūlas (from Žemaičių), atpėnč ‘well’ and so on. Dialectologists, dictionaries, ethnographers will find here a lot of important material (presented in simplified transcription), the words are transposed according to the sounds in common language and what reproaches the linguists of the region Aldonas Pupkis, Giedrė Čepaitiene, Vilija Sakalauskienė, Arvydas Vidžiūnas, etc. Juozas Pikčilingis, Jonas Jurevičius and dozens of others cannot do this, unless the forms of common language dirbt, gilt, gūndyt, gūrktelt (= work, dig, gundyt, gurktelt) suddenly appeared in the text; yoke, anchor (= yoke, anchor), etc. The traditional pronunciation, taken from the Zanavykian and Prussian Lithuanian dialects, which has been established in our linguistics since the time of Fryderyk Kuršaitis, was hardly necessary to change here (sometimes the pronunciation of nouns and pronouns is considerably flawed). Strangely enough, the text contains -ti communicative, while the genders that have experienced the phonetic detachment of short endings are highlighted, e.g. pabambėt — in the text pabambė-- ti (p. 107), bart — ba.rti (p. 115), bijot — bijoti (p. 136), braižyt — bra.iži“ti (p. 163), dirbt — dirpti (p. 288), girdét — girdėti (p. 393) and so on. Each published dialect text, dictionary or any list of words has a greater or lesser significance for the history of the language (even such a flawed and of unknown type and scientific truth of the presented facts Vito Labutis Daukšių dialekto žodynas, 2003), because the years wash away the lexicon and morphology of dialects. Such a large work of several volumes, prepared by several prominent linguists, is of interest — it will be used as a reference, facts will be sought for own research, copies will be made for future volumes of LKŽ. A very pronounced penetration of new things into the discourse — words storm from the ground. storm, abstinence, gentleman, maternal, -ė, influence, tension, person, alternance, ethnographic, even the changes in the meaning, forms of the “newcomers”, e.g.: evakúot “to move” até: rūsai /evakuavo ji: klūona; REVIEWS | 141 gradirūot "to level the way’, kapri-zas ‘gincas’: kapri-zas asé-ju (between the two); kapela ‘company’: all they kapela če atvaz'ūodavu...; kapituliuoti "to surrender": ka-ras kapitul'- @-vu' ir kt. The authors of the dictionary wanted to record the ever-present words used by the inhabitants of the entire dialect (in their term, schnekt) area, so they recorded and presented as dialect (schnekt) facts the following professionalisms: Ainosius (p. 21), but Kaipošius is not (it is a real word, not the subject of the work); accent, accentuate, tragedy (p. 28), acting (p. 30), stribų bajavas- ®, barracks, bérmontininkas, blatas, blatytis, -inasi, -inosi, bulanas ‘ulon’, dragiinas ‘such a soldier’, elephant ‘straublinis zinduolis’, village chronicle (p. 339), jungle “dense forest’, dZiunglynas ‘etc. p.’, jakta (p. 365), gydykla “healing establishment”, gladiolus “cardelis, such a flower”, gramatika, gramatiskas, ispūdis ‘grammar sign Sauktukas’ (Antanas Tatarė’s remake), phrase opera: vaidino” (p. 561), naujagimis ‘newly brought (animal)’, Zarg. joptvajūkas "such a garment- ", kibinimat "such an army curse", proverb (p. 651), atheist kirké "protestant church' (there was only 6-k'iec'ubaz'n'i-ce until 1979-1984, when I had to visit that region), kokliétas 'cotlet', kosmosas "spaceship', kumpanija "group, company- ', etc. Apparently, in this case it was not clarified what is a "dialectal word": it is an inherited word, used and used at least several times, and professionalisms (say, eigulija, eiguva, etc. in this region's and common language) are an object of sociology, facts of talk, not of schnekta (as we learn better the international forms of common language words, they are used more and more regularly, for example, how from the Samogitian l'ep'etiior'ije KrS, KRrv, "ep'etúoreje TRS, PVN 'ambulatorija' disappeared without any remnants) — these are momentary words that were not recorded in the volumes of LKŽ edited by J. Balčikonis, and the last ones (from volume XV to XX). The question of the harmonization of common language words in dialects should be examined separately. Kazimieras Būga in 1920 has noticed that Lithuanians, when they take to use a new Lithuanian word, often change its prefix and the place of its accent (see K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai 111 784-789). If some dialects use these substitutions, the abbreviation "nj." has been introduced in the final volumes of the LKŽ (XV-XX), indicating the novelty of dialect examples. Here it was especially necessary to take advantage of this, so that younger researchers of language history and foreigners would not draw far-reaching conclusions from some words. (In the autumn of 1954, Juozas Balčikonis did not take the word storm from the author of these lines, because it is only a 5-10 years old form from the radio, schools.) We find a lot of such forms here, without any remark, as if they had been used for centuries. This is the defect (2); such and in the long run, coming from the Žemaites (in the long run), caught by the users of the common language with a changed accent and introduced to the Zanavyks (and kapsams); also price (more often 4, not 3 accents for new learners), speigas (general k.) (p. 38), the mouthpiece of many šnekta in northern Lithuania. It is difficult to agree with the pronunciation of the words gyvulys, gyvulio (3%), and throughout Lithuania vns. kilm. is animal, animal, as well as a teacher (I learn, I do not learn!) spelling throughout the text of the dictionary. In both cases, the 2and 4-bit values are stored in the memory. Exceptions are made ie, uo: diéna-~ day, guolis, guost, novadaras gurguolé (from the post-war bulk duty delivery), kiemas, etc. The more prominent pronunciation of these diphthongs does not indicate such an exception. Although many dictionaries do not consider the use of international words as the subject of dialectologists (see Ownun O. II., Ilpoexr Crosapa pycckux napodusix 2060pos, Mocksa-Jlenunrpan, 1961, 34). * Jonas Kabelka has spoken extensively about this during a radio talk in 1959. Their men brought from the former Soviet army officers quite a variety of songs that are still played on the streets of the city. 142 | REVIEWS There is one more ambiguity. Often the pronunciation is indicated, but the word slot does not indicate it, there are only authors as well as the statement: akiiotas (1, 3) —in the text only vns. ward. ; drdas (3) —i$ text is also not visible; such is atėjūnas (1), gaidras (2), and positive egrets (p. 71); the barrel (2) is difficult to identify; ticket (3") without proof; as well as birag (3), brūzgs (4), sprogs (4); object (1) — the singular pronoun does not indicate it; there is also work with the word (1); the two-syllable noun kidney cannot have 3 accents (this is a feature of multisyllable nouns). Zanavykai are usually exemplary keepers of the strike, not bad and here we see it. This is the value of the book. Of course, in such a large work, when there were various words recorders, many people with different dialects worked, they could not hear everything well, recorded, when now our pronunciation is decreasing. Researchers should pay attention only to one other thing: there are doubtful, very distinct from all the publications of linguistic science, prefixes and accents. The following words should be corrected: bėgimas (2 times, p. 11), aikštūs, -i (2) = (4), akmenis (3") could not be — here some mixed paradigm (p. 28), albskis (4) = (2). alytnamis (commemorative word) = alytnamis (cf. there alytinė), eternity (1) = (2), nūodi'tis = to be poisoned (p. 39), anklodé (2) = (1), early, -ė (2) sf. (p. 21), but the sentence says well: anksti-bės jau kazdavu (p. 43), ankštiras, left without accent, but should have 2 accents, anitvogis also 1 accent, atbulinis (1) = (2), atsūkantis (1) —these participants have no accents, audeklinis, -ė (1) = audeklinis (2) —students' pronoun, aviénis (1) = (2), balamuitinimas Bs (1) —without accent (where did the accent come from?), bambokas (1) = (2), reikalas (1) = (3°), bešeimis (3) = (2), bezdamėji (4) —the noun form has no accent numbers, blindé (4) = (2), boružė (2) = (1), brūnis (4) = (2), buožgalvis (2) = (1), buzis (4) = (2), kariskas (3?) = (1), daktarė (3°) = (1), daugybė (1) = (2), dekaut (4) = to thank, deciminė (1) = (2), dievinis, -ė (4) = (2), duoklė (2) = duoklė (2), dūipkė = (2), dvivérinis (2) = (1), viesulas = viesulas (3*) (p. 363), n'i-keva = ni-keva (p. 377). elskis (1) = (2), gdrga, but niogarga is not very convincing (there is no example), gdérma —, but iSgarma, niogarma, pragarma, prigarma are not recorded in the sentences (made up at the table), gelezinkrové (4) = (1), drinking, -i (3*) —the participants do not have numbered consonants, gerybė (1) = (2), gėrklę = gėrklę (p. 437), girnalovė (1) = girnalove, gyslė (2) = (1), apsikré-- stu-= apsikr'é-- stu-(p. 458), gyvis (1) = (2), gyvulė (3) = (3*), gojus (p. 546), indotai = (1), išvaizdingas (2) = išvaizdingas (1), malonés = malonės (p. 580), bijii-nai = bijiinai (p. 580), kiauldobiliai = kiauldobiliai, galii-nes = galūnes Sk (p. 678), klebsnys (2) = (4), milijona. = milijo-na- -(p. 728), kubizdalis = (1), nejisro-- m’i.c = neiisré-- m’i-c (p. 791), kiilversciais = kulversciais (p. 890). There are some problems—not listening and poor recordings by students. What do you do —in the beginning there were more, further in the work, in the second part, decreases. This gives hope that in the second volume these shadows will be even less or disappear altogether. This dictionary includes new terms in Lithuanian language in general, specialty terms that do not have inheritance. Examples of dialects provided by students to teachers are also to be checked, because everything was presented (out of windyness)*, so Vladas Grinaveckis from Suvalki students will also have written everything down (it is just a noise). Therefore, the real Zemgalian language is íkandin (with a special accent), and all 4 Even J. Balčikoniui was presented Lūkštas ez. Varn, although there is only Litkstas; Veivirža instead of the generally used Veiviržas; [stra, which is replaced by Jstras; Shatria, but traditionally Shatria and others (see Balčikonis, Rinktiniai raštai I, 339—347). 143 Lithuanians too, converted by students too, here as if it didn’t have to be distributed yet. The dialects are spoken by students and here "renovated" — four-legged. The authors of the dictionary make some major changes, for example, they replace all the single-syllable words of the preposition with a strong preposition: tos, Sitios, kuriūos, jie, tie, etc. throughout the text, but where is jiėjie, jiėjei, jiėje, juosiuos (but also jūosius) (see p. 569). As if a very generalized same word mixture is presented. In everyday language they are frequently present, vowels, diphthongs —ai and a, e vowels, but -ai, -'ai and -u, -o do not merge: atéiv'ei O:k'ieč'ei Žvr, acūrg'ei uzrick Bajoraičiai and others. The vocabulary of the Zanavyk schnekt is important in many respects — its volume, beautiful conversational sentences. Many people worked sincerely, devotedly. The work of dictionaries is difficult, requires great care, vigilance, perseverance. There was no permanent dictionary editors’ team, it was constantly changing, leaders were changing, which is why there are fluctuations. Therefore, the literature on this issue has not been followed, not even the emergence of Antanas Tatarė’s hypernormalisms with verb suffixes -yti and -inti (researched by Prof. Zigmas Zinkevičius*), and the introduction to the dictionary has not been substantially examined. Vytautas Vitkauskas Received 21 April 2004 Institute of Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio g., 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania INETA SAVICKIENĖ THE ACOUISITION OF LITHUANIAN NOUN MORPHOLOGY Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003, 152 p., ISBN 3-7001-3138- -0 (Veroffentlichungen der Kommission fiir Linguistik und Kommunikationsforschung, 28) The monograph “The emergence of nominal grammatical categories in the speech of a Lithuanian child” is the very first attempt at describing the emergence of nominal grammatical categories in the speech of a Lithuanian child. Therefore it deserves particular attention and a somewhat more extensive summary, as every further study on the acquisition of nouns will have to refer to the pioneer work of Ineta Savickiené of Kaunas VDU University. The collecting and processing of data on the acquisition of Lithuanian was initiated by Prof. Magdalena Smoczynska (Jagellonian University, Krakow) in 1992, and it took over ten years to obtain an exhaustive description of the acquisition of morphology by one Lithuanian child’. Another scholar whose efforts greatly contributed to this research was Prof. Wolfgang U. 5 Zinkevičius, Z., Lithuanian Language History 1V, Vilnius, 1990, 202-203 (about matindamas ‘seeing’, suwalginsiu and others). 8 The monograph is based on the doctoral dissertation: Ineta Savickienė, Lietuvių vaiko daiktavardžio morfologija, Kaunas, VDU, 1999. The acguisition of verbs was discussed on the basis of the same corpus of data by the author of this review (Pawel Wojcik, The Acquisition of Lithuanian Verb Morphology: A Case Study, Krakow: Universitas (Baltica Varsoviensia, 2).