Dėl upėvardžio „Dãnė“

NOTES | 187 This will help to solve the problem of the pronunciation of the lake b'il.sas: vns. in. of the same person can be pronounced twice —b'ilsū and b'i.Isu. Checked in 2002 (cf. Savukynas 1966: 175-176; Balčikonis 1967: 130). This variation depends on the speaker- 's desire to emphasize vns. inagininką (I even heard the sentence prig’ére. b'i.lsr, although he said vns. vard. b'il.sas). LITERATŪRA BALČIKONIS, J. 1978a: [Rec.] Lithuanian TSR Rivers and Lakes Names, Linguistics 10, 1964. Cited by: Id., Rinktiniai raštai I, sud. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 371-373. BALCIKONIS, J. 1978b: Letter to the editor. Baltistica 3 (1), Cited by: Id., Rinktiniai raštai I, sud. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 383-384. GRINAVECKIENĖ, E. 1993: The texts of the source schnets. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 137-159. LAZAUSKAITĖ, V. 1998: On the pronunciation variants of two-syllable o-kamieniu nouns in southern Highland dialects (thesis). Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius Pedagogical University. LAZAUSKAITE-RAGAISIENE, V. 2001: Pronunciation variants of double-stemmed u-stem nouns in the dialects of the southern and eastern Vilnius border. The Problems of Paribio Dialects and Languages. 2001, pp. 97–109. SAVUKYNAS, B. 1966: K problema substrata v juhozápadnej Litve. Baltistica 1 (2), 165-176. Vytautas Vitkauskas Received 2002 03 20 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania FOR THE RIVER NAME Dané"* The lower part of the river Akmena (Kretingos r.) in Klaipėda dialect is (and was) dane //danej~- Danė | Danija. It was written in German. W. Fenzlaw (1934: 141) the sentence with the word Dange all as one in 1958-1960 have read da.ne || dane and said that they had never met the Klaipeda people who pronounced the consonant g here (only tádlę-tov'ė saw: vo-k'eška parasima Dange | pradé-je t é-p ta-rte —da.ng'e —J. Uzpurvio sister Kohnienés words). Prof. V. Mažiulis refers to F. Kuršaitis' dictionary (K78). People who call themselves Lithuanians have not used this pronunciation even so late (about 1959-1963). Some of the Klaipėda residents who have remained by chance may have started to say “innovatively” about the insurgents who have flooded the region, but they have not heard this before. Hardly from the living language F. Kuršaitis could hear Darige —that form of writings to come. F. Kuršaitis's records from the Tilžė area are without defects, but from elsewhere, from further places, there are even very unbelievable records (i$ random authors- ?), e.g.: zem. unduo, of viekšniai VYTAUTAS MažiuLis. Not Dané, Dariga. Baltistica 34 (1), 1999, 93-98. 188 | REMARKS mėnung „month“, sung (??) „dog“ (Vitkauskas 2001: 168), Katyčių kylė (Vitkauskas 1997: 109— 111), ąsilinis „asilo“, dūžis, etc. The living language, i.e. dialects, contrary to what V. Mažiulis says, will hardly have preserved the older position, because the g is similarly visible from the writings of F. Kuršaitis and in other cases. It is written F. Kuršaičio and Minge (K156), although dialects have only mė.n'eje (river) žem. doun. Pln, Krt, Knt, Grg, Vz, m’éneje //m'ėne žem. Don. (river and village) Sg, Kin, Rmč, Šlu (without any fluctuations), gerubė (K121) —jerubė, geyne „die Sparren“ (K118) —gegnė, žlėga (from Nesselmann?) (K526) —žlėja. The influence of Germanic spelling (later turned into dialect) is clearly visible here, because only in the most Germanized Pagėgiai neighborhoods forms with g are used more: žlėga, žlėga, žlėgė LKŽ K (see LKAI183). There is also the "power" of "Pagiai", even g'erub'é-- "Jerub'é- ". Mixed g and j pronunciation in general, as in many places in various such cases in the agony of dialects. Let us also recall that F. Kuršaitis’ place names and Vedic forms further from Tilžė are incorrectly presented in this dictionary: Isrutifkis (p. 147) “Inhabitant of Įsrutis”, Dubisa “Dubysa” (p. 96), cf. German Dobisin, Dobyse, Podubisa (p. 96), Polanga “Palanga” (p. 323), Varusne “Vorusnė” (p. 490) and others. Common words are "distorted" even more. This fluctuation of g and j is characteristic of many Lithuanian-German dictionaries of the time —Ruigis, Milkas, Nesselmann and others. This is an unsolved question, which must be resolved by Germanists and Lithuanianists together. Live language often shows something completely different than what F. Kuršaitis claims in certain cases. Why from all the cases of g: j mixing, only F. Kuršaitis’ Darigé is taken to be examined, with all other examples being silenced? The works of scientists should be based on the living language, on the local conversations of uncomprehended people. Danish is accepted by the general language users, approved by the heads of state and A. Vanagas. The proposal of V. Mažiulis in the article Darigé is highly doubtful, perhaps even late, making a certain confusion. Famous academic linguists are particularly attentive to the writings, and the facts of the living language are very important for those “field” workers who talk with the representatives of the dialects and want to delve into the whole system of the language: In the case of the use of Dangė, the facts of the various dictionary uses in the dialects in older times, i.e. the mixing of j: g in general, are not observed. F. Kuršaitis is a very great Lithuanian linguist (he established the prefixes of the Lithuanian language, the pronunciation system, studied some of the Prussian Lithuanian dialects, stopped the process of Germanization), but according to the level of science at the time, the beginnings of the study of dialects, some of the facts are not very accurate. We cannot be silent about this, we must investigate and state everything. Fortunately, the disappearing representatives of the Klaipėda dialect were re-spoken by toponymy researchers led by A. Vanagas and dialectologists trained by E. Grinaveckienė — so one can say something and object to one thing that is unreasonably desired to change the norm of general language, all the more so that etymologists like to re-write and quote uncritically the often incomplete facts presented in older publications. A. Salis (from a conversation with Salis in 1969), who considered Danga to be Curonian, was attracted by the Latvian Curonian river Danga. After acquiring more data, A. Salys later traveled the whole land. the area of the Donians, followed the form Dané (NDZ) or Denmark (cf. Salys 1992, second ikli). 18-19th century. in Lithuanian lexicography j and g varied greatly in certain forms, so everything should be determined by the facts of the living language, the use. Prof. K. Būga has published only a general remark (Būga 1961: 234): „Danga or Minie (river) = Minija“. The poorly studied dialects of the region did not allow K. Būga to draw any stronger conclusions. It is not apparent that K. Būga has firmly adhered to the ideas of Prof. V. Mažiulis: this is only a certain hint. Finally, above that page of the Collected Writings, volume III, there is another entry: "Ag- NOTES | 189 gemine = Akmena (v. š. Akmina [= stone —inserted by me, V ¥/]) —a river flowing through Kretinga, the lower part of which the Germans call Dange“. Does this not show that K. Būga did not convincingly clarify the name of Dane and the existence of the object? LITERATŪRA BUGA, K. 1961: Selected Writings 3. Compiled by Z. Zinkevičius, Vilnius: ir State publishing house of political and scientific literature. FENzLAW, W. 1936: The German forms of the Lithuanian place and person names of the Memel region, Halle. K = F. Kurszar, Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Halle, 1883. VITKAUSKAS, V. 1997: Kylé —naujybé. Kalbotyra 44, 109-111. VITKAUSKAS, V. 2001: Morphological expressions of Lithuanian dialects, Vilnius: Zara. Vytautas Vitkauskas Received 2002 06 24 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnis g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania A FEW NOTES ABOUT THE PAZIURAS TO THE OLdest LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE MONUMENT LICENSE ‘Acta Linguistics Lituanica’ In the 45th volume published A. Yuzhenqiu New work review discusses published book 2000 m. Writings of Martin Mažvydas ir jy sources (zr. p. 211-213). Unfortunately, that review is full of mistakes and misunderstanir dings. In order for the faithful reader not to be misled by the strange reasoning of Judžentis, it is necessary to explain at least something. Iš It is clear from Yudženčio writing that he lacks the minimum knowledge to that must be possessed by students who are already writing a master's thesis in general linguistics: it is not clear to him that the subjects of alphabetic spelling, as Saussure perfectly laid out at — the beginning, must be distinguishXX a. ed from — linguistic analysis, because they are merely a conventional way of representing the expression of linguistic signs: sign spelling expression — — — — value It is also not clear to Judžentis that the most important thing when examining translations is the relationship between the linguistic signs of the source translation, ir which is determined on the basis of meaning: — — signs — — meaning — — signs — — spelling